Tag: decline and fall

As in Europe, so in America

Patrick Buchanan sees a similar future to the one John Red Eagle and I predicted in Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America:

What was predicted, 14 years ago, has come to pass.

Migrants into Germany from the Middle and Near East reached 1 million in 2015. EU bribes to the Turks to keep Muslim migrants from crossing over to the Greek islands, thence into the Balkans and Central Europe, are unlikely to stop the flood.

My prediction that European “patriots will recapture control of their national destinies,” looks even more probable today.

Prime Minister David Cameron, who almost lost a referendum on Scottish secession, is demanding a return of British sovereignty from the EU sufficient to satisfy his countrymen, who have been promised a vote on whether to abandon the European Union altogether.

Marine Le Pen’s anti-EU National Front ran first in the first round of the 2015 French elections. Many Europeans believe she will make it into the final round of the next presidential election in 2017.

Anti-immigrant, right-wing parties are making strides all across Europe, as the EU is bedeviled by a host of crises.

Europe’s open borders that facilitate free trade also assure freedom of travel to homegrown terrorists.

Mass migration into the EU is causing member nations to put up checkpoints and close borders. The Schengen Agreement on the free movement of goods and people is being ignored or openly violated.

The economic and cultural clash between a rich northern Europe and a less affluent south — Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal — manifest in the bad blood between Athens and Berlin, endures.

Northern Europeans grow weary of repeated bailouts of a south that chafes at constant northern demands for greater austerity.

Then there is the surge of sub-nationalism, as in Scotland, Catalonia, Flanders, and Veneto, where peoples seek to disconnect from distant capitals that no longer speak for them, and reconnect with languages, traditions and cultures that give more meaning to their lives than the economics-uber-alles ideology of Frau Angela Merkel.

Moreover, the migrants entering Europe, predominantly Islamic and Third World, are not assimilating as did the European and largely Christian immigrants to America of a century ago.

The enclaves of Asians in Britain, Africans and Arabs around Paris, and Turks in and around Berlin seem to be British, French and German in name only. And some of their children are now heeding the call to jihad against the Crusaders invading Muslim lands.

The movement toward deeper European integration appears to have halted, and gone into reverse, as the EU seems to be unraveling along ideological, national, tribal and historic lines.

If these trends continue, and they seem to have accelerated in 2015, the idea of a United States of Europe dies, and with it the EU.

And this raises a question about the most successful economic and political union in history – the USA.

How does an increasingly multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural United States avoid the fate to which Europe appears to be headed, when there is no identifiable racial or ethnic majority here in 2042?

The USA cannot survive in its current form because an idea is not a nation.

The acid that dissolves

Maurice Montaigne has an excellent column on multiculturalism at Everday Joe:

Multiculturalism is formally defined as the “acceptance or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction.”7 In practice, multiculturalism presents itself as a harmless commitment to tolerance that all well-intentioned people should share.

But in fact multiculturalism is an acid that dissolves nation-states. This is its purpose. Multiculturalism arose in the aftermath of the Second World War, a war launched by two ultranationalist states (National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan) and characterized by the genocide of whole nations. The politicians and intellectuals of the post war era swore to never allow this to happen again, and multiculturalism was their solution. By promoting multiculturalism they hoped to destroy that which gave rise to total war. To save Western civilization, it was necessary to destroy it. Or so they believed.

How does multiculturalism destroy ethnic nation-state? We have already shown that an ethnic nation-state relies on its people’s common ancestry, language, and traditions – its unity – to provide social cohesion to its state. Multiculturalism erodes all three, by diversifying the ancestry, languages, and traditions. Where once stood a people united now stands a people divided. With the loss of unity go the social stability and social capital that unit brought and diversity destroys.

A civic nation relies on a particular expression of citizenship and individual rights, and as such seems like it would be protected from the acidic effects of multiculturalism. But from what source does a civic nation derive its particular expression of citizenship and rights? There are only two: from its religion or from its political philosophy. But both of these are deeply rooted in a people’s culture, language and tradition. Consider the difference between American and Chinese views on good governance. The former is rooted in Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Madison and the theory of social contract. The latter is rooted in Confucius, Han Fei, Mozi, and the theory of Heaven’s Mandate. The former idealizes republican democracy; the latter idealizes benevolent monarchy. Multiculturalism insists that a Chinese immigrant can maintain the cultural traditions of Chinese Legalism while still being an American; but Chinese Legalism is incompatible with republican democracy. If being an American does not mean sharing the values upon which America was founded – what does it mean? A state can, for a time, survive a diversity of values. But a civic nation cannot.

This, then, is the state of things. Ethnic nation-states are unified and therefore enjoy high social capital and stability. Multiethnic states are diverse and their diversity destroys social capital. Shared values in the form of civic nationalism can in time restore social capital and stability by creating a civic nationalism that trumps ethnicity. But multiculturalism is ruinous of both, adding more ethnic diversity and weakening civic unity.

Many will argue that ethnic diversity is inevitable in today’s global society and therefore that multiculturalism is necessary. This is a lie. It is worse than a lie: It is offering up poison when medicine is at hand. The right way to overcome ethnic diversity already exists. Civic nationalism, characterized by the American melting pot, has proven effective for centuries, as had the Roman melting pot of antiquity. The genius of civic nationalism is that it replaces the genetic with the memetic. In this way, a Gaul became a Roman, and a Swede became an American, because Roman-ness and American-ness were divorced from ethnicity. But civic nationalism must be allowed to replicate. Memes can die, just like genes. To replicate, civic nationalism must be instilled in each new generation by those who are its stewards. If a nation’s own citizens do not love their shared civic values enough to demand that immigrants adopt them, it is a surety that the immigrants will look at that nation with contempt.

The heart of the debate

Donald Trump sums up the existential question:

“I have a very hardline position – we either have a country or we don’t have a country.”

That’s Trump, explaining why he might be the one candidate GOP voters can trust on immigration.

The problem, of course, is that far too many Americans have been convinced that their country is nothing more than an idea. A “proposition nation”. Which is to say that it doesn’t exist at all.

Those who are fixated on the various policies espoused by the different candidates are failing to grasp the situation: America is not a given. And after being invaded by 60 million foreigners, America is already not America.

That’s why they talk about New America. New America sounds very exciting and progressive and all, but the key thing is to understand that in this context, “new” is synonymous with “not”.

Social justice convergence on social media

It’s easy to see they are terrified of the rising tide of nationalism, because they are absolutely determined to try to stop the signal. But all they will do is guarantee their own demise:

The two largest social networks, Facebook and Twitter, and the world’s largest search engine, Google, have teamed up with German law enforcement to delete “hate speech” within 24 hours in what is being seen as a last-ditch effort to silence public dissent about a gigantic wave of Syrian immigration.

The partnership to crack down on what Germany deems illegal speech comes after German law enforcement’s reported concerns about “racist abuse” posted to social media after the country’s huge and extremely controversial import of over a million Syrian refugees.

Justice Minister Heiko Maas is reported to have warned social networks that they must not become “a funfair for the far-right” and that “the benchmark to be applied will be German law and no longer just the terms of use of each network.”

Specialist teams will be used to track down, examine, and remove offending posts, and the process is not to take more than 24 hours.

The only reason they think they can do this is because they believe they have a monopoly on the rightful use of force. But because they have betrayed the Westphalian bargain that granted it to the State, they have lost the necessary Mandate of Heaven. History suggests that events will proceed accordingly.

You’ve heard of technocratic government, but the Merkel regime is the first technostasic one.

10 reasons to GROW OR DIE!

All right, that was a little bit much. It’s actually 10 reasons to garden at this particular point in the space-time continuum.

Someone commented on one of my videos the other day that she was “a city girl” who didn’t know what she was doing in the garden… and that she was probably just going to give up.

I urged her to keep going. Now is a terrible time to quit gardening!

With the way the world is going, this is the time to garden like you’ve never gardened before. Here are just a few reasons.

1. GMOs
Do you really want to be part of a big science experiment, eating gene-spliced foods without knowing if they’re safe or not? Me either! Grow your own food with heirloom seeds and step away from the lab.

2. Economics
The economy is rotten and is likely to get worse. Runaway immigration, shaky banks, rising food costs, global unrest… all these have an impact on wages, investments and savings. Fortunately, a garden can save you some serious money.

3. Eating Local
Why count on food coming in from 1,000 miles away? Eating locally is a big deal right now – and you can’t get any more local than your own yard. Put in a garden and cut out the shipping!

Read the rest of David the Good’s article there.

San Bernardino shooting

12 people killed in shooting at San Bernardino social services facility.

The
shooting took place at the Inland Regional Center, a nonprofit that
works with individuals with developmental disabilities, at 1365 S.
Waterman Avenue. The complex is comprised of three buildings.

Investigators
were searching the building and have yet to clear it. Police said there
were reports of one to three shooters involved, and they were described
to be wearing ski masks.

A source confirmed to Eyewitness News
that there were three shooters armed with rifles, and there were no
suspects in custody. Riverside police said they are helping other
agencies look for male suspects in a black SUV, possibly a GMC Yukon.

I look forward to hearing Dr. Carson blame the hateful rhetoric concerning individuals with developmental disabilities. In any event, what an unnecessary tragedy… if only they had thought to make the Center a gun-free zone this could have been avoided.

Archived link to initial reports.

Seriously, though, this one looks a little strange, unless the “white” men turn out to be of the “white Chechnyan” variety. Even allowing for “crazy enough to spree kill, why would a group of three men target a nondescript non-profit? If it was one guy, you’d think bad romance or disgruntled employee; a group of three makes it look like jihadist terrorism, but the shooters were described as white and why would jihadists target the Inland Regional Center?

Anyhow, yet another reminder. Always carry. Don’t leave home unarmed.

UPDATE: The Other Robot comments: Whites, eh? POSSIBLE SUSPECT: Farook Syed, was acting nervous, left building, 20 minutes later shooting occurred, matches description. 

Farook, is that an Irish name?

UPDATE 2: Good updates at The Last Refuge.

UPDATE 3: Police feed is here. Sounds like a shootout has started. Helicopters and M4s. Male, dark-skinned description. One guy down, one guy in the back of a car. Heard shouts of “hold your fire.”


They’re bringing in a Bearcat. One suspect down inside the car, one on the run.


Call for medical aid. Officer down, but hit by ricochet. He’s okay and doesn’t need immediate medical attention. They can’t get the Bearcat through the traffic down the


Mention of bodies, plural, inside the car. Sounds like they got two, are in pursuit of the third.


“Is that our Bearcat?” (Made me laugh. Are there a lot of them in California?)

They’re setting up for a crossfire. Sounds risky. One down in the street, but moving.

One detained. One confirmed in custody. Sealing off the perimeter around the car.


One suspect alive in the backseat. SWAT team being sent out to an address, they know who these guys are now.

They’re going into the address. “It’s like female Arabic”.

Interesting to see how cautious they are. “We’re sitting ducks.” They want air support and more units. Not hard to see why police units historically fare poorly in combat.

Body was just pulled out of the SUV. 

All suspects now believed accounted for.

Ideology uber alles

This is why the Left is so enthusiastically pushing the demographic destruction of the American nation:

“The core of the NRA’s support comes from white, rural and relatively less educated voters,” Winkler writes. “This demographic is currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane. While the decline of white, rural, less educated Americans is generally well known, less often recognized is what this means for gun legislation.”

Polls show whites favor gun rights more than other races by 57 percent to 40 percent.

Whites comprise 63 percent of the population. But not for long. Hispanics are only 17 percent of the population but will likely boom to 30 percent over the course of a few decades. Unlike whites, Hispanics overwhelmingly — at 75 percent — favor gun control.

A total of 80 percent of Asian-American registered voters support gun control. While they constitute only 5 percent of the population, that number is expected to triple in three decades.

Keep in mind that if they were capable of thinking ahead or of understanding the consequences of their actions, they wouldn’t be leftists in the first place.

The idea that Hispanics, Asians, and Africans won’t simply follow their lead because they are the right kind of White people who have their best interests at heart is completely beyond them. For the leftist, “not White Right-Wing Republican” is about as far as their comprehension goes, so they can’t imagine the various ways in which their clever plan to achieve their ideological goals will go awry.

In fairness, we can’t either, but that’s only because the variety and the magnitude are so vast that it’s impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy.

Why Britain entered the EEC

And why the globalist establishment is desperate to keep the UK in the EU:

The answer is that Harold Macmillan and his closest advisers were part of an intellectual tradition that saw the salvation of the world in some form of world government based on regional federations. He was also a close acquaintance of Jean Monnet, who believed the same. It was therefore Macmillan who became the representative of the European federalist movement in the British cabinet.

In a speech in the House of Commons he even advocated a European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) before the real thing had been announced. He later arranged for a Treaty of Association to be signed between the UK and the ECSC, and it was he who ensured that a British representative was sent to the Brussels negotiations following the Messina Conference, which gave birth to the EEC.

In the late 1950s he pushed negotiations concerning a European Free Trade Association towards membership of the EEC. Then, when General de Gaulle began to turn the EEC into a less federalist body, he took the risk of submitting a full British membership application in the hope of frustrating Gaullist ambitions.

His aim, in alliance with US and European proponents of a federalist world order, was to frustrate the emerging Franco-German alliance which was seen as one of French and German nationalism.

Monnet met secretly with Heath and Macmillan on innumerable occasions to facilitate British entry. Indeed, he was informed before the British Parliament of the terms in which the British approach to Europe would be framed.

Despite advice from the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, that membership would mean the end of British parliamentary sovereignty, Macmillan deliberately misled the House of Commons — and practically everyone else, from Commonwealth statesmen to cabinet colleagues and the public — that merely minor commercial negotiations were involved. He even tried to deceive de Gaulle that he was an anti-federalist and a close friend who would arrange for France, like Britain, to receive Polaris missiles from the Americans. De Gaulle saw completely through him and vetoed the British bid to enter.

Macmillan left Edward Heath to take matters forward, and Heath, along with Douglas Hurd, arranged — according to the Monnet papers — for the Tory Party to become a (secret) corporate member of Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe.

According to Monnet’s chief aide and biographer, Francois Duchene, both the Labour and Liberal Parties later did the same. Meanwhile the Earl of Gosford, one of Macmillan’s foreign policy ministers in the House of Lords, actually informed the House that the aim of the government’s foreign policy was world government.

Monnet’s Action Committee was also given financial backing by the CIA and the US State Department. The Anglo-American establishment was now committed to the creation of a federal United States of Europe.

The joint immigration crises, in the USA and the EU, are no accident, but represent a last-ditch effort by the globalists to prevent the rise of nationalism shattering their totalitarian dream of world government. Of course, it’s not going to work, as it has only sparked a nationalist reaction that is considerably more intense than even the provocateurs were expecting. The response to the crisis of the legitimacy of the modern state is not going to be in support of an additional layer of government.

None of this is new information, nor is it even, strictly speaking, news, but it is interesting to see it now leaking out into the mainstream European press.

The uselessness of the EU

The hollow nature and intrinsic inutility of the EU has been exposed:

Now, the outrage over what the open borders principle made possible – the untrammelled movement of organised murderers into and out EU countries – is being appeased with emollient talk about how Schengen might be limited to a smaller number of states or be modified to allow random checks of individuals. But the talking shops of EU ministers can churn out as many of these mock solutions as they like: governments are still (mercifully) accountable to their electorates. They will do whatever their people believe to be necessary for their own security, and they will be justified in doing that.

But it is not only the free movement of peoples and goods (which turned out to include Kalashnikovs) which has come into question. Along with the right to “tighten” France’s borders, whatever that turns out to mean in practice, François Hollande also demanded – and got – permission to ignore EU budget limits so that he could increase government spending on security and defence.

So, to return to my original question: what’s left? If national borders may be reinstated by individual governments either with hasty barbed wire or officially reconstituted checkpoints, and EU budget rules can be thrown out whenever circumstances require, what does the authority of the EU Commission and Council and Parliament amount to? Possible answer: a largely useless, self-perpetuating, massively overpaid bureaucracy presiding over Potemkin institutions whose deliberations count for nothing when the lives of real people living under real governments are at stake.

Being newer and less stable, the EU will be the first multi-national “empire” to break up. It hasn’t delivered on ANY of its promises; it was never anything more than the usual credit bubble surfing and elite resource extrication. However, it should be noted that it won’t be too much longer before the USA begins to follow suit. The United States is no more a nation than the EU is, the only significant difference is that it has rival ethnicities and cultures rather than national fault lines.

Bob Prechter predicted both failures long ago. And while he hasn’t been right about everything, I see absolutely no sign whatsoever that he hasn’t gotten both of those calls right.

The end of Rex Americana

This is an interesting article on Zerohedge which argues that the can-kickers of the US financial elite, which has been observably taking place since 1987, are finding it harder and harder to kick an increasingly heavy can:

Since policy is not a zero-sum game, i.e., one participant’s loss does not necessarily entail a gain for another, this paradox has a logical explanation. A crisis erupts within any system when there is a discrepancy between its internal structure and the sum total of available resources (that is, those resources will eventually prove inadequate for the system to function normally and in the usual way).

There are at least three basic options for addressing this situation:

  • Through reform, in which the system’s internal structure evolves in such a way as to better correspond to the available resources.
  • Through the system’s collapse, in which the same result is achieved via revolution.
  • Through preservation, in which the inputs threatening the system are eliminated by force, and the relationships within the system are carefully preserved on an inequitable relationship basis (whether between classes, social strata, castes, or nations).

The preservation method was attempted by the Ming and Qing dynasties in China, as well as the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan. It was utilized successfully (in the 19th century) prior to the era of capitalist globalization. But neither of those Eastern civilizations (although fairly robust internally) survived their collision with the technologically more advanced (and hence more militarily and politically powerful) European civilization. Japan found its answer on the path of modernization (reform) back in the second half of the 19th century, China spent a century immersed in the quagmire of semi-colonial dependence and bloody civil wars, until the new leadership of Deng Xiaoping was able to articulate its own vision of modernizing reforms.

This point leads us to the conclusion that a system can be preserved only if it is safeguarded from any unwanted external influences, i.e., if it controls the globalized world.

The contradiction between the concept of escaping the crisis, which has been adopted the US elite, and the alternative concept – proposed by Russia and backed by China, then by the BRICS nations and now a large part of the world – lay in the fact that the politicians in Washington were working from the premise that they are able to fully control the globalized world and guide its development in the direction they wish. Therefore, faced with dwindling resources to sustain the mechanisms that perpetuate their global hegemony, they tried to resolve the problem by forcefully suppressing potential opponents in order to reallocate global resources in their favor.

Having already finance-raped the US middle class, they simply can’t find enough external wealth to keep the pyramid scheme going. Hence the finance-rape of Ukraine and the failed finance-rapes of Syria and Iran. If the author is correct, about the only places left for them to find any remaining wealth are Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Singapore. Russia has already been looted, China is off-limits, and the EU is as tapped-out as the USA.

Up until 2015, America’s elite (or at least the ones who determine US policy) had been assured that they possessed sufficient financial, economic, military, and political strength to cripple the rest of the world, while still preserving Washington’s hegemony by depriving everyone, including (at the final stage) even the American people of any real political sovereignty or economic rights. European bureaucrats were important allies for that elite – i.e., the cosmopolitan, comprador-bourgeoisie sector of the EU elite, whose welfare hinged on the further integration of transatlantic (i.e., under US control) EU entities (in which the premise of Atlantic solidarity has become geopolitical dogma) and NATO, although this is in conflict with the interests of the EU member states.

However, the crisis in Ukraine, which has dragged on much longer than originally planned, Russia’s impressive surge of military and political energy as it moved to resolve the Syrian crisis (something for which the US did not have an appropriate response) and, most important, the progressive creation of alternative financial and economic entities that call into question the dollar’s position as the de facto world currency, have forced a sector of America’s elite that is amenable to compromise to rouse itself (over the last 15 years that elite has been effectively excluded from participation in any strategic decisions).

Already the European peoples are starting to develop more trust and confidence in Russia than in the USA. The new nationalist governments will not be friendly to the USA due to the way in which the US government is at least partially responsible for the migrant invasion. It is the coming break between the 70-year unequal alliance between the USA and Western Europe that will end the Pax Americana, although in light of how many countries have been invaded by American troops in the interim, Rex Americana would probably be a more accurate term.