Rollory's take on the downfall of the USA
I have a bit of a backlog with highly interesting emails and other things that I have not had the time to handle, since I have been away from blogging most of the time the last few weeks. One of them is the post by PRCalDude in reply to our discussion about Christianity/ethnicity. That one will probably take me the whole summer to answer properly, and I will indeed spend all this time in addressing the issue; since it touches upon what will be one of my main topics henceforth. There will be many posts, the first one in a near future, is my ambition.
The email I bring up today comes from Rollory. This email was sent to me two weeks ago. It was a response to the comments I had made in the GoV thread The Self-Defeat of the United States, and blogposts I made back then. But it also fits nicely into the context of the dialog I'm having with El Ingles here.
Rollory:
Regarding your criticism of the USA, as an American, I think you're right on the money. I'm not convinced the USA is even going to exist four years from now.
This is in large part going to be triggered by the economic situation, but the ground has been laid socially and politically for a long time. Karl Denninger at market-ticker.org has been writing for quite some time about how and why the current behavior of the US FedGov is going to lead the entire country straight into disaster, largely due to the consequences in the bond market - if you have not read him before, I strongly encourage it:I wholeheartedly agree with what Rollory says here. Especially in the last paragraph he makes many good points. And yes, these people do not understand the forces they unleash. But to use a Marxist term I learned from Trifkovic, they are objective agents of transformation. I see Geert Wilders in the same way, he's a typical liberal, however an honest one. I don't think he's aware of the forces he'd unleash if he comes into power. The rule of him and his kind would be very short, something like Kerensky in 1917. Liberalism cannot be saved and these honest liberals will be the objective agents of transformation to make the downfall of liberalism happen. However, many of them will change to our side in the process, quite as many of us have already transformed ourselves in just this way.He has quite a few other good articles that go into depth on how and
- His predictions in Dec 2007, so you can judge his accuracy.
- His predictions in Dec 2008 for this year.
- Some more predictions.
why the massive government spending increase underway since last
October, and the refusal to admit the existence of a bubble economy
for the past two decades, is incredibly destructive. Now this is all
from a strictly economic perspective, it tells us "how" though not
"why". He doesn't really address social issues much - some of the
commenters on his forum have hinted at sanity regarding racial
matters, but it's a discussion he doesn't really allow (and one can
understand why, it would take the focus off the specifics of the
capital markets, which is what he wants to discuss).
I also recently came across this: The Worst Case Scenario (Someone Has to Say It), which is very much in line with what Denninger has been predicting, and what I have been thinking.
The thing is, the USA has not really been stressed for a long time.
We have not faced a serious challenge since the 30s, and even that
wasn't so bad. The fall this time is going to be sudden and hard and
it is going to happen to a society already fractured and
disassociated, leaving it without any ruling ideology at all. There
are quite a few (on the net, anyway - not sure about IRL) militia
types and gun nuts who talk about restoring the Founder's Republic,
often by means of overt violent resistance to the current form of
government. But the one thing they refuse to consider, the one thing
they forbid considering, is the idea that such a restoration must of
necessity be racial and ethnic as well as political - that the
political cannot happen in the absence of the racial. So in that
sense they are still fundamentally liberals. But they are hard-core
believers. So they are going to try to do their impossible thing, and
probably smash that dream to bits even more than the collapse by
itself would.
And yes, ethnicity will become the central and defining aspect of our identity. That's why I have started working on a framework for the greater mythological narrative for my ethnic group.
America has an even more difficult situation to deal with than Europe. America never properly turned into an ethnicity such as the European nations. The cake was baked together and put into the oven, but too shortly to create a proper crust that could stick together. Instead America turned into a propositional nation. This is why Americans would take to arms to defend their constitution (i.e. their state) rather than their ethnic nation. This is also why Americans, when gotten over their constitution and turned into real contra-revolutionaries, identify by race rather than ethnicity. Ethnicity is simply not readily available for you as it is for Europeans (just under the surface). However, Americans will be back on track baking that cake once the USA has fallen. The USA is dying, long live America!
32 comments:
I think there is a possibility that Wilders will not develop into this century's Kerensky if certain things come into play. The fact that Pim's party has all but abandoned him may be discouraging on the surface, but the List had lost all of its bearings shortly after their leader was assassinated and they seem to be floundering. Their distancing from Wilders could also be tactical i.e. the old "fascists" condemning the new "fascist" in order not to seem as "fascistic" anymore.
Wilders is a very interesting individual who emphasizes both humanism/liberalism and Christianity in his worldview. He could act as a bridge between liberals who are tired of the problems Muslims cause and Christians who just want the foreigners to leave (the VDare contingent). By eschewing reference to race in his platform and focusing on the illiberal nature of Islam, he is winning far more converts than an Islamocritical politician could have ever dreamed. Europeans and Americans are not mature enough to deal with race at this point and time, so mentioning "white" in any political speech will scare off even some of the staunchest conservatives. Either we will have to wait until things get so bad that discussing race becomes unavoidable or until the HBD science that posits IQ disparities among different races is finally proven and irrefutable. So, needless to say I think the Wilders approach is the correct approach at this time.
Wilders has such broad appeal that at one point both Charles Johnson and Lawrence Auster, two people who are opposite ends of the political spectrum with regards to almost everything, supported him. Even Johnson cannot say that Wilders is a racist because he hasn't said anything racist. He only criticizes him for not casting the VB into the outer darkness and for wanting to ban the Koran.
His appeal will draw together the liberal-Christian coalition and I think this will stick for quite some time. Provided that his iniatives go through such as the banning of new mosques, shutting down terror-supporting mosques, paying Muslims to leave, deporting illegals, and the end of genuflecting towards Muslims sensibilities; I could see this coalition enduring. These positions aren't only civilizational, they are also populist positions. Although they may not admit it in public, most Dutch do not want to see more mosques in the Netherlands and more crime so these policies will be a success even with the liberal-apolitical masses.
If Wilders manages to get himself elected and is successful in implimenting his policies, then he will contribute to the revitalization of Europe but he will not solve the national question. That will happen long after he has left office. The national question will be solved by someone else, further to the right of Wilders, but following his arguments vis-a-vis the Muslims to their logical conclusion for other foreigners in the Netherlands. If there is no worldwide economic meltdown, huge terrorist attack in the Netherlands, or assassination of Wilders, then I could see the transition in the Netherlands from mini-America to a Dutch ethnostate coming along peacefully.
Thanks for your comment Geza. I agree completely with what you say in your second to fourth paragraph. This is essential in my analysis too. To summarize my own analysis:
* Geert Wilders is the best leading figurehead of our cause in this stage. I would even say he's the only way forward.
* However, his rule will be very short. I think about a year. And that's why I compare him to Kerensky.
We should remember that the February Revolution was a necessary step too. I'm not describing it as unimportant or unnecessary. People need to hear liberal arguments against Islam at this point. Wilders and his kind are perfectly suited for this, and therefore absolutely necessary. While people like me are rather useless in this stage.
However, Wilders is simply not a stable state (compare with chemistry). But that doesn't say that he's not a necessary step in the transformation, to the contrary!
The first problem of Wilders and his kind is their moral righteousness. They want to restore the West as it should have been. When they rule they will act from an idea of fair play and moral high ground. But they will be met by the Left who are prepared for the dirtiest of dirty games and any sort of vicious and brutal methods, and by Jihadists who are arguably worse. When Wilders enacts "the banning of new mosques, shutting down terror-supporting mosques, paying Muslims to leave, deporting illegals, and the end of genuflecting towards Muslims sensibilities" civil war will break out. The only remedy for that is a police state. But Wilders and his kind are not prepared for that. It won't take long before someone like Franco takes over. I'll give it a year or so.
Further reasons why Wilders, and his kind, would be an unstable state:
* He want's to save the current world order, yes liberalism. Which is impossible. The seeds of its destruction are blossoming to full extent.
* This is a phony stage, lso at the idea level, where only American and Israeli nationalism are permitted. Proper European ethnic identity is held back. Vlaams Belang is a good example of this, who project their self-affirmation much through pro-American and pro-Israeli stances. But once the whole thing has been set in action, unfettered European ethnic identity cannot be held back.
* We should also bear in mind that the condition for a Wilders in power is a weak United States and an disintegrating EU. So the world order he intends to defend is already falling apart once he's come to power.
I should have been clear with respect to Wilder's enacting his policies. Granted, he is only one man and he will not be able to everything during his time in office but he will be able enact some of the more important policies. The policies that I named would be ones he mostly likely would like to pursue but pragmatically speaking, he would not be able to execute all of them. For example, closing down terror-supporting mosques is a no-brainer, and eventhough banning new mosques may be ambitious, banning mega mosques will be quite easy if he pointed out who the donors are (usually Saudis). He would be able to accomplish those goals without much of a fight from the left.
The immigration portion of his plank will be more difficult. He will not be able to stop all Muslim immigration or deport all of the Muslims in the Netherlands even if he really wishes to do so, but he will set the wheels in motion. Deporting recently arrived illegals is feasible if it isn't advertised. Even lowering the amount of immigrants the Dutch take in from anywhere would be a great step forward and would not cause a civil war.
Yes, Wilders wants to save liberalism but what about Christianity? Although he may not be a practicing Christian himself, I'm sure he'd rather the Netherlands remain a Christian nation over the possible alternatives such as Islam and athiest-nihilism. And liberalism has always been part of the Dutch character, so there maybe an ethnocentric subtext to his desire to preserve liberalism. But with that aside, I do see your point. Wilders does support the current Americanist regime in Europe and all that entails, the Islam question is the exception to the rule, that is where he dissents. However, this only makes him an irritant, and not a dangerous foe to the Americanist regime. Nick Griffin would be accurately described as a foe to the Americanist regime not only because of his racialism but also due to his stand on economics. Compare how both figures are treated in American and European media. Wilders is considered to be a fame seeker and gauche while Griffin is considered to be Satan incarnate.
Like I said, Wilders will be responsible for dealing with the Islam question in Europe and even if he isn't able to execute all of his policies, as long as he gets around to doing the big ones, then he should be fine. His penchant for saving liberalism and Christianity does not matter at this point, Wilders will fire the first shot in this war, but someone further to his right will win it (and quite possibly, through peaceful means). This person (the post-Wilders politican) will apply the same principles to immigration in general once the Dutch are convinced that excluding people from their nation doesn't make them Nazis. This is assuming that nothing catostrophic happens in the meantime.
If the Americanist regime is dismantled in the meantime in Europe, then all the better for the Dutch. If Wilders is successful in getting rid of the most troublesome Muslims, the Dutch will have less to worry about from jihadis and psychotic animal rights activists. By looking at the carnage all around them, the Dutch will realize that Wilders was right and that they should go even further in excluding foreigners. We should also look at this situation of the Dutch and compare it to other countries if the far rightists won. In Britain and France, it would cause a civil war, undoubtably. Italy, Switzerland, Croatia? Not so much. The elites may try to bump off the far rightists or even threaten sanctions against a nation that elects them but unless that nation has a large immigrant population, then the threat of civil war will seem moot. A bunch of idiotic student anarchists are not going to bring Greece to its knees and suddenly make the Greeks love Nigerians.
Dismantling Americanism in Europe is not a prerequisite for Wilders winning, it will certainly hasten the Netherlands into becoming a Dutch ethnostate but it will be on the road to becoming an ethnostate with or without America once Wilders is elected and his policies prove popular.
Geza,
He would be able to accomplish those goals without much of a fight from the left.
I'm surprised that you think so, and this is the very reason why our analyzes go in orthogonal directions. Of course if a Wilders administration was left in peace and could execute their policies in a calm manner, most of what you say would surely become true. But I really think you ought to know the Left better than that.
As we know, the Left cannot even accept people like Wilders using their constitutional right to speak in public squares. They act as stormtroopers to stop meetings by Vlaams Belang, the Sweden Democrats, etc. It even turns into rioting, something they thoroughly love (they look for every opportunity). Even for just speaking his mind Wilders has to have constant protection against murderers. Pim Fortuyn was already murdered by a leftist, and Theo van Gogh by a Muslim.
Prime minister Wilders won't get even a day of peace and quite. The upheaval will start from day one. Well, already during the election, once the leftists and the liberals see where the things are heading. It might not even be possible to complete such an election. The liberal media will be full of war style headlines describing it as the return of fascism to Europe and Wilders as Satan himself. The leftists, together with the Muslims, will set the streets on fire. To them it will be the reenacting of the Spanish Civil War. It's all driven by myths. And according to the myths, already the closing down of terror-supporting mosques is a racist and fascist act. But Wilders (or anyone of his kind in any other country) will not even have to do that to trigger the berserk mode of the leftists. He himself, as prime minister, symbolizes the return of the greatest evil.
The chaos and violence that the country will fall into will be the pretext for NATO to enter with peacekeeping troops (nice and friendly, eh?). This is the moment when a Franco will have to act before, in order not to plunge back into multicultural tyranny.
The same analysis apply if we replace Wilders with Filip Dewintwe, Jimmie Åkesson or similar.
However, a more likely first step is a Danish/Italian style election result, ending with Wilders party as a minor supporting party for the government, with a prime minister from an establishment party. Such a government will be able to do a few things, as in Denmark and Italy, but not to turn around the situation. It's when the real attempts to turn around the situation comes, that the scenario I describe above will happen.
So yes, Wilders could be around for a few years as a minor coalition partner, being able to have fragments of his agenda implemented. But this is not what we are waiting for. It's when he's come to the position where he could implement all of his agenda that the leftist insurgence will be triggered.
Wilders will fire the first shot in this war, but someone further to his right will win it.
We certainly agree about that. I see Wilders (I use his name to represent a whole group of leaders of his kind) as an absolutely necessary step, and therefore I fully support him/them.
(and quite possibly, through peaceful means).
I'm not as optimistic as you here. And more importantly, we'll have to be prepared for what I'm talking about. However, the more people that become mugged by reality and having gone through a mental shift before this moment -- especially if it has spread up to our elites in control of our collective myths and narratives -- the less of a civil war there could be. The impending financial breakdown (the collapse of the dollar and so on), with large parts of the Western population not having food to eat, and the world in chaos, could help a lot for that.
But let's for the sake of the argument jump onto the the other end of the scale and assume that the rioting from the leftist and the Muslims will be minor -- even with a wildfire of Wilders as prime ministers in many European countries -- and easily controlled by the "dialog police".
Then these Wilders will stay longer than a year in power, but will be replaced already in the next election. The agendas and mindsets of the Wilders are too full of inconsistencies and tap-dancing -- in order to avoid being called Nazis -- to being able to survive for long in a truly free and open debate. Wilders could very well become the battering ram, plunging a big hole into the wall of Political Correctness. But this will create such a strong momentum, that soon the whole wall will have been torn down. Wilders represents a phony stage where only American and Israeli nationalism are truly permitted, and where the Wilders project their self-affirmation much through pro-American and pro-Israeli stances. But if the Left etc. is not a threat, there won't be any more need for this sort of tap-dancing. Proper ethnic identity will soon take over, and the NATO paradigm -- of keeping Germany down, Russia out and America in -- will soon be reversed. But we are not even close to that, are we?
I do not doubt the dirty tricks of the left. The whole fiasco with the Russian hackers attacking the BNP website demonstrate how desperate and criminal their tactics can become. An assassination attempt on Wilders is possible and that is what I'm worrying about the most. And let's be honest here, Wilders has 24 hour security not because of Antifa and their ilk but because of jihadis. He is still in the crosshairs of Antifa, but they are not his biggest threat.
Comparatively speaking, Wilders is not the greatest evil according to the Euro-American media. That title goes to Griffin. They still hate him, but not to the same extent as Griffin. And yes, I concede that there will be a propaganda blitz and the media may even drop some hints to their crazier leftists to "do something" about Wilders. That is very likely but not a guarantee that someone will actually pull it off, especially on someone who has 24 hour protection. If you think about it, Wilders is in a more favorable position than either Griffin or Pim.
Yes, I am optimisitic but I am also taking into consideration the exceptionalism of Wilders compared to the other right wing politicians in Europe. Really, Wilders isn't comparable to the rest. He is more radical than Rasmussen and Berlusconi but more mainstream than DeWinter and Griffin.
However, I do take your caveats seriously. My scenario may not work out if something catastrophic happens but I do think there is a possibility that it can work out if certain things are avoided.
As for Wilders being a false stage in the process of European revivalism, fair enough, I agree. Wilders is not interested in the national question the same way we are. His is a mix of light nationalism with liberalism. This may be an issue of semantics, but I have to quibble with your position that only American and Israeli nationalism are permitted. American nationalism does not exist since there is no "American" ethnic group, but it should more accurately be called American jingoism or American exceptionalism. Wilders is interested in the propositional aspects of America. Israeli nationalism is obviously not permitted in Europe. Among the several people banned from the UK, one is an Israeli nationalist. Even the American government wants nothing to do with Israelis to the right of Likud. Look at how the American press was wetting itself over Avidgor Lieberman who became part of the Likud coalition. In Europe, being an Israeli nationalist simply means that in the I-P conflict, you explicitly favor the Israelis over the Palestinians. Nothing more and nothing less. Since the majority of Americans are pro-Israel as it is, in America, being an Israeli nationalist means that you support the Jewish settlements.
Comparatively speaking, Wilders is not the greatest evil according to the Euro-American media. That title goes to Griffin. They still hate him, but not to the same extent as Griffin.A decade ago I participated in forums with many leftists as a left-leaning liberal. Suddenly I started asking too many questions about our immigration policy, and too stubbornly. In spite of having belonged to the left half of the field up until then, and actually been the most devastating slugger against the right, in the flip of the moment I was suddenly described as the most dangerous fascist/racist/nazi of them all (this was my wake-up call of course). You see, the reasonable ones, who can argue well and convince many people, are the ones seen as most dangerous by the Left. The Left is very pragmatic and effective in this sense. Any Wilders actually coming in power as prime minister will be seen as the greatest evil. And unlike what you think there are no levels in hell for the Left. Either you are in hell or not. Consider how Charles Johnson describes Robert Spencer as genocidal. How is Nick Griffin any worse than that?
And three decades ago, in a different life, I was a leftist myself. So I know their minds from the inside. But I'm sorry to say, you don't. You simply do not have that experience. And you share this with the vast majority of the political right, including Wilders. That's why the Right is always unprepared and left surprised when the Left starts moving with force. This is why the Left has always won every political struggle in the longer run.
You vastly underestimate the power and the will of the Left. The Left has won every political struggle for the last two centuries or so. Not always the economical left (but with Obama they are catching up on that too), but always the cultural left (which is the one that is killing us). And Wilders and his kind underestimate this just as you, and vastly overestimate the degree to which reason and fair play will do the trick.
You are applying reason and logic in your comments here -- like how Griffin is "worse" than Wilders -- but that makes you detached from the real world. The real world is driven by what's in the minds of people, and their minds are full of mythological narratives. You will have to understand the leftist mindset before you can be connected to the real world. And reasonable and fair thinking does not help you there, it's rather an obstacle.
The leftist way of operating is very rational and effective. Wilders is objectively the greatest threat to their world order. And they will identify him as such, and therefore describe him as the worst. He's not in their crosshair yet (symbolically speaking), but he will once he becomes powerful enough.
And speaking of crosshairs, an assassination of Wilders is not the threat here. Such an assassination does not add or subtract much. As I have repeatedly stated all through this thread: it's not Wilders as such I am talking about. I'm just letting his name represent a more general phenomenon, a whole range of leaders that belong to this stage of the struggle (quite as I'm using the name Kerensky in a symbolic sense). The reason I mention Wilders is because he's at this moment the most prominent such leader, nothing else. If he's taken out it does not matter. Someone else will take his place as the most promising leader, and the dynamics will continue.
No the threat from the Left is not about assassinations, but about their ability and will power to throw our countries into upheaval and then civil war.
Regarding permitted nationalism. Yes, American and Israeli nationalism are the only permitted ones (try German nationalism to see the point clearly) and that's why they are the only countries acting with military confidence in the current Western order. And it's exactly because of this that it's America and Israel that is attacked by the Left. Since they want to flatten anything that sticks up. What's the point of flattening something that is already flat? Other nationalisms in the West are non-existent (exactly since they are not permitted).
And yes, I'm aware of that when speaking of the US one has to use newspeak all the way. They are an empire, but deny it and does not properly act as one. And their nationalism is called patriotism, etc. But nevertheless, when we speak in general term we must be able to speak about America too, without getting lost in insignificant details, don't you agree? If we are looking at the big picture, and let's stay with that, we must apply essential categories of thinking, such as nationalism, empire, etc. The American occupation of Europe is not called an occupation, it's called liberation. And the US is not an empire since it's all built of Enlightenment goodie chocolate. Etc., etc. I start thinking that the Americans are deviously clever in creating smoke screens making it impossible for people to talk about them in clear essential terms, and therefore it becomes impossible to criticize them properly. The minds get lost in a maze and don't get out. And the big picture is long lost of course.
Sure, I have repeated over and over, and many times recently in other threads that there is no specific American ethnic group. But that's all beside the point here. If I talk about Confucianism I will say that it is a "teaching" rather than a religion. But if I speak about religion in general I must be able to mention Confucianism in the same context. Otherwise intelligent thinking becomes impossible. When speaking of things at a very general level, diving into details is the same as changing the subject.
Regarding he US as an empire. It is as someone not being a trained pilot (and with fear of flying) taking the captain's seat in an aircraft. The plane is just taxiing around the airport and making little jumps now and then, but never lifts. But the seat is occupied and it blocks anyone else from taking the lead. This incompetent is strong enough to hindering anyone else from taking over the seat and doing it properly.
That is a very interesting anecdote you posted about the leftist forums you participated in 10 years ago. That certainly puts things into perspective. You are also right trying not think of the left as a logical actor. The left in general can be described as an emotional animal hungry for power. Something such as nationalism is an anathema to their current mythology (equality) and people like Wilders who not only transgress the taboos they have set up in the education system and political milieu but actually try to use their own liberal arguments against them would cleary make them nuts. From this vantage point, it doesn't seem that the left hates "Wilders" because he can debate them intelligently (he does that do and it must annoy them) but because he so blatantly defiles their taboos while obsentsibly playing by the rules of liberal society.
And yes, there are no limits to the machinations of the left. None at all. They will deliberately kill their own in order to further their cause. If they do manage to start a civil war, then yes, fascism or a strongman is inevitable, at the very least to keep the peace, and the people will welcome it. The apolitical-liberal masses do not mind liberalism just as long as it does not hinder their lives that much but once it becomes unsafe to even leave your house, they will support whomever can keep them safe.
As for the American and Israeli nationalisms we discussed, it was only a semantic quibble. I had a feeling you were applying the term rather loosely. I just wanted to clear that up for any of the readers that there is a difference between the nationalism I had in mind. European nationalist groups need to affirm both "nationalisms" in order to affirm that they are not against the current Americanist order and that they are not Nazis. So, is that the reason why VB and the rest must say that?
As far as American nationalism goes - that's actually pretty limited in terms of what's "allowed". Up until last year I worked for a company in the suburbs of Washington DC, run by old white guys. 70% or so of the workforce was nonwhite - Chinese and Indian in particular. A typical event at the all hands meetings would be for the CEO to ask everyone holding non-American passports to stand up and be recognized, and then he'd talk about how great it was to have such diversity, blah blah. The thing is of course that most of the company was being praised this way while those of us who weren't - the actual Americans - were a minority being discriminated against. But it's perfectly clear to everyone that you CAN NOT say something like that out loud - you'd get fired real quick.
Americans are allowed to be "nationalistic" to the extent that means volunteering to spend blood and treasure to extend the imperium and die on some other nation's behalf. This is, of course, nothing to do with _true_ nationalism at all.
"A bunch of idiotic student anarchists are not going to bring Greece to its knees and suddenly make the Greeks love Nigerians."
Sorry man, but I think the Greek anarchists have already bring Greece to its knees. Honestly, they have made a great job.
Greece is now seen as an unstable country. And more than that, as an uncivlised country.
Really, who said Greece was "Western"? Huntington must be having a smile.
Greece's position is precarious. It tryed to look as a Western Nation. It has big muslim power Turkey at the border; Problems in/with Cyprus; Albania is right there.
And let's not forget what happened with Serbia near by. And also, the Greek-Macedonia tensions.
Greek anarchists have attained their goals. They are no considered as heros in Europe.
They would never do what they have done if they had no popular support, especially among the young Greeks.
The anarachists have caused a lot of damage, that much is certain but Greece is used to this kind of stuff. The hooliganism of the anarchists will die down after the elections are over. Also, to a smaller scale we are starting to see some hooliganism from right wing groups in Greece. Everyone is fed up with the incompetence and corruption with the government and police so you are basically seeing all of these groups (including immigrants) acting up with the anarchists leading the way.
And I take offense to you calling Greece an uncivilized country. It certainly is not. It's a typical southern European country. There is cronyism and corruption but it is far more preferable to live in Greece than most countries in Eastern Europe and all countries in West Asia. Greece will never be Switzerland but it is not a bad country.
Greece's position is not precarious because it is not looking for a war with either of those countries. It is not going to try to take back Constantinople, nor is it going to attack Macedonia unless they attack first which they are too weak to do, the Greek Cypriots can take care of themselves, and the only beef they have with Albania is they don't want any more Albanian immigrants.
Modern Greece is not Western in the same sense as France, Germany, and Itlay because they are Orthodox Christian and not Protestant or Catholic, hence they didn't contribute much during the great cultural exchanges during the centuries (that and the Turks kinda had something to do with that). Russia is Orthodox and it did contribute much to Western culture but Russia itself does not see itself as Western and neither do many Western Europeans.
Geza,
By all means, I think I have exceeded myself when I said that Greece was seen as uncivilised. That was not what I truly meant.
But, what is obvious is that Greece, more than a typical Souther European Country, is a SouthEASTERN European Country.
Greece has no conecction to Western Europe and Historically it has always been "the East".
We failed to see this.
And it was this that I tried to say when I said that Greece is now seen as "uncivilised". It is not just another South European Nation... You say Greece will never be a Switzerland but I tell you that Greece will never be a Scicily!
And it was this that was exposed to everybody to see. If you take Europe as the 15 members E.U. you will notice that Greece is... well... a little appart. They have the anarchists rulling the streats as we have anarchists painting walls in Western Europe. It borders Turkey with all that implies, it gets involved fairly often in almost air fights with its neighbours.
It was pratically ready to annexate Macedonia, it had Serbia near by, etc.
Greece *is the* Orthodox country, so Eastern that it is. It only got ridd of muslim control in the 1820s etc. It is very difficult to consider Greece "Western European", or just another "Southern European Country" because all this is reflected in Greece culture and politics. Greece's anarchists had showed that Greece is more Balkanic and "Eastern" than it is Western.
I guess we both agree in Greece's positionment but what I bring differently is the view that Greece is more (culturally, politically, whatever) unstable because it is so not-that-Western-European. If you divide Europe in two, Europe will be either on the Easten or the Southern part. But mainly in Eastern one. And I am not talking about Geography.
Afonso,
Greece has no conecction to Western Europe and Historically it has always been "the East".
Except in the beginning, of course, when it was the very definition of The West.
Greece is more (culturally, politically, whatever) unstable because it is so not-that-Western-European.
Wait a decade and see which is more unstable. Western Christianity has lost its substance. It hasn't become blatantly manifest, since we are floating on all that fat, but it's obvious for anyone with eyes to see. Eastern Christianity (the east of The West) is much better off.
And whatever Western Christians consider "uncivilized" is a great advantage in these times. Thank god for the Orthodox world that didn't go through the Enlightenment.
"You say Greece will never be a Switzerland but I tell you that Greece will never be a Scicily! (sic)"
This statement proves your ignorance. Firstly, whatever shortcomings Sicily has relfects on the Italian nation as a whole. Secondly, many Sicilians have Greek blood in them, so your "clever" put down makes no sense whatsoever. Thirdly, whatever the problems are in Greece, it is considered to be the most xenophobic member of the EU and has the lowest amount of non-natives out of any EU member state. Clearly, those uncivilized Greeks must be doing something right. From a civilizational standpoint, Greece is in a better position than Sicily (Italy) and even Switzerland.
But never mind that, how about some data instead? According to the UN's Human Development Index, Greece ranks #18. The countries that ranked before it include: Iceland, Norway, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Japan, Luxembourg, Switzerland, France, Finland, Denmark, Austria, U.S., Spain and Belgium. That's right, it outranked every Eastern European nation, every Asian nation save Japan (Hong Kong was also included separately in this list) and some notable Western European nations such as the U.K., Germany and Italy.
"But, what is obvious is that Greece, more than a typical Souther European Country, is a SouthEASTERN European Country."
Except they aren't Slavic or Albanian. Those SE European traits belong mostly to them. Greeks are a lot like Southern Italians but the only difference is that they are more nationalistic and have the business savvy of levantine cultures (Christian Lebanese, Armenians, Jews).
Your other points are not thought out well.
1.You seem to act as if student protests don't have a ripple effect in Western European nations or America. So by your logic, France, Germany, and America are Balkan nations.
2.If anarchists were "ruling the streets" martial law would be declared, but it hasn't.
3.Greece's proximity to Turkey is irrelevant to this discussion for two reasons: neither country is willing to go to war with the other and Turkish migrants are not going to Greece.
4.How many wars has Greece formally declared with its neighbours since independence?
5.You have not demonstrated that Greece is unstable and it is more likely that the lack of this instability is because it did not buy into Enlightenment ideals, much like ConSwede said.
Separation from Western Europe can have its benefits!
I think Afonso has a good mind (better than this). But he also has a way of falling into simplistic Portuguese nationalism when speaking of e.g. Spain or Greece. This is how I read the whole situation anyway.
Wow... let's calm down and look to what we're saying serenely.
First of all I want to highlight my FIRST paragraph on my last comment:
"BY ALL MEANS, I THINK I HAVE EXCEEDED MYSELF WHEN I SAID THAT GREECE WAS SEEN AS UNCIVILISED."
That was not what I meant. Of course Greece is Civilised. And if you believe like me that there are different Civilisations in the world and that some are superior to others, I say that Greece is unquestionably a member of the European Civilisation just like Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, Portugal, Russia or Australia and even Uruguay or France.
Greece belongs to the same European Civilisation. That does not mean that everything European is equal. You were the one to say that "Greece will never be a Switzerland" so that you can distinguish vast differences that do not constitute Civilisational differences. Funny though that you implied that Switzerland was "more" Civilised than Greece though...
When I compared Greece to Sicily, I was not implying any superiority of one in relation to the other. It was just that they are different.
"And whatever Western Christians consider "uncivilized" is a great advantage in these times. Thank god for the Orthodox world that didn't go through the Enlightenment."
Conservative Swede, I agree with you that nowadays it is better to be Eastern than to be Western in that sense. So you recognise that if we devide Europe properly in cultural terms, Greece will fall into the Eastern side. It's cristal clear, is it not? Unless ones criteria is only the Cold War.
And about stability, Conservative Swede, go see where Greece is in the map. You'll notice that its borders are with regional power Turkey, and its colonies in Europe. Greece may be stable internally (which it is not, as we've seen, it's the less stable of the EU15 countries, save maybe Belgium) but it's position is not great. Greeks are the only ones of the "West" who actually have a sympathy as a people towards what happened recently to the Serbs, so they do not dream that NATO will be their saviour if something goes wrong as it also comprises Tukey and Albania. And Greece has many third worlders inside their borders as well. But I understand what you mean that the feeling of belonging to the Greek Nation is now stronger in Greece than in any of the other EU15 states. And that is true, but also a proof of its "unWesterness".
"Firstly, whatever shortcomings Sicily has relfects on the Italian nation as a whole."
Do you think I'm some Nordicist or something? Southern Italy is way poorer than Central and North Italy, and that is not recent. And while Milan has one Germanic greatparent, Messina has a Greek one. There are cultural differences there. Sicily had very strong ties with Greece in antiquity. But what I meant is that Sicily is as undoubtedly interissically Western European as it is Souther European. In contrast with Greece, which is not that much Western European.
"Secondly, many Sicilians have Greek blood in them, so your "clever" put down makes no sense whatsoever"
So what? 70% of the Mexicans and plus 80% of the Venezuelans have probabily more quantity of Spanish blood in them. That means those countries too have many similarities with Spain but, do you think they are "Spanish" or Western European in the same way Spain is??
Who's not making sense?
"Thirdly, whatever the problems are in Greece, it is considered to be the most xenophobic member of the EU" - lol... Eastern! Eastern! Eastern! You see!? Why are they "more xenophobic"? because they're Western Europeans like Portuguese, English and Scotts? (...) "and has the lowest amount of non-natives out of any EU member state." Well, I doubt that, I believe that even if it's true, Finland still has less people who I ("bastardly") call Third Worlders. In Greece that means mainly muslims.
Just one more point. Look to the country I highlighted: Finland! A somewhat "Eastern European" country as well but very well "Westernised" since it defeated Russia. Finland is much more Westernised than Greece can ever be, mainly because it has Scandiavia and the rest of Western Europe at its borders (when it was not a "colony" of Scandinavians). It naturally became a bridge, like the Baltic states for Western Europe into Eastern Europe. Greece, has no such connection to Western Europe. And it's status as "Western European" is not Natural or organic: It's based on XIX century Helenism in Western Europe and economical and ideological geopolitics of the XX century.
"Clearly, those uncivilized Greeks must be doing something right."
Yes. Those *Eastern European* Greeks. Who are of course, Civilised. But so are many other Eastern European Nations... and I am a Russophobe nowadays. A Radical one... :)
"From a civilizational standpoint, Greece is in a better position than Sicily (Italy) and even Switzerland."
See, that's where we strongly disagree. I have mentioned Greece's borders that are, in my view, troublesome. And then, the anarchists showed that Greece is "unstable". The economic crisis that will hit Greece, will hit it hard. And, radical leftist idea(l)s are very popular among the Greek youth, and contrary to Western Europe, the Greek anarchists have the power to put the whole country on its knees. Especially the great city of Athens. There's a fifth collumn that does not exist in Western Europe.
... IDH has nothing to due with "Western-Europeanity". Although IDH usually peaks in North West European and North West European derived Nations, and gradually slows down.
But according to that logic, you'd have to consider about Japan as "Western". And if you even considered that option, then we're talking of two very different things and you did not get any of my points.
"Except they aren't Slavic or Albanian. (...) Greeks are a lot like Southern Italians but the only difference is..."
Geza, the last part of your comment shocked me. In my opinion, you failed to maintain the quality that I've seen in the rest of the commet and in others comments from you.
I am a strange guy so that I have some doubts about the Europeanity of the Albanians. I can tolerate an Albanian State in Europe as they have that right to exist, but I don't consider them... well... European. And see... and that's what I figured out as odd, see that there are according to you only two language branches in South Eastern Europe: Slavic and Albanian.
And Greek was what? Northern European or painly Anatolian?? Actually, nothing is more a symbol of South Eastern Europe than Greece, now is it?
And no man, there is not one only little difference between Greeks and Southern Italians.
Southern Italians are Latin Catholic, the Greek are Greek Orthodox.
Ever since Roman conquered Sicily that Latinity is an interinsically trait of Sicily and the Greek contribution has become more and more marginal. The Greeks are no Latins. Really.
What there are, but are few, is similarities between Greece and Southern Italy.
Attacking your other points:
1) I don't remember any "student protests" in Western Europe that had half the magnitude the anarchist sublevations had in Greece. I'm referring to the XXI century only.
2) According to your logic then, no muslims rule some streets in French no-go-areas. Actually, the thing I've seen that mostly resembles what happened in Greece were the multicultural sublevations in Paris.
But then again, see that the anarchists actually put under fire central parts of Athens.
3) If you want to fantasise that there are no Third World immigration to Greece, you're free to do so but that also is ignoring the reality. And I'm not that sure that peace between Grece and Turkey will be eternal. There will not be a war in the next three years. I don't venture to say what will happen after 2012 or so. You should not find Turkey irrelevant in disscussing Greece.
4) Hm... I am not an especialist but I know that Greece has been involved in many wars with its neighbours since its independence. Don't know how many they "formally declared" though.
And the way they looked to Macedonia in the 90s was really "Balkanic" in that light.
5) I do not have to demonstrate that Greece is unstable. I just don't see much stability when I look to it.
And it truly ends up to be funny to see that you claim that Greece is seperated from Western Europe. I deduce that you meant culturally but even if you didn't, there is space in your last sentence to recognise that you yourself recognise that Greece is one thing and "Western Europe" is another.
Greece is indeed a Westernised Eastern European Nation in virtually all levels.
Conservative Swede,
I admit that sometimes I fail into such simplicities and such parcialities, althouth the imparciality is most noted in my tone than in my arguments - or so I believe.
In what concerns Spain, it is something that you have some difficulty to understand: Hispanicism. The concept of Spain is anti-Hispanic (and I'm not referring to Africans or Indians) and Imperialist. Spain IS NOT a Nation and you seem fine with that. Even the Castillans know that there are two dimensions: The ethnical and the Hispanic. Those Castillans have a supermacistic view, they think they are the nobility of the Peninsula. They know that Spain could only be a Nation if they were to smash both Portugal and Catalaonia as Nations.
That also tiggers Socialism in Spain, which you do not see.
You don't care about it simply because it is not important to you in a geopolitic sense, but, what right do you have to praise Flanders and setting the Basques back?
In relation to Greece, it has nothing to due with that. Napoleon said that Africa started at the Pyrenees and it is somewhat truth. Spain is not Atlantic, but Portugal is; Just like Brittain and Ireland, this Peninsula is not really "Europe" and in that sense... it's not as Western as Western Europe as well. It's a fact.
But when compared to Greece, we're as Westerners as the Dutch.
So, while I admit that sometimes I fall into those traps, this thing about Greece was not one of them. It was basically tiggered by an error from my part (Greeks are "uncivilised") which I tink have emmended.
"Greece has no conecction to Western Europe and Historically it has always been "the East".
Except in the beginning, of course, when it was the very definition of The West."
Which beggining? When there was no Rome?
Ever since there has been this dualism Western Europe and Eastern Europe. And Rome has always been the West and Byzantium and Constantinople were the East. Then the Turks came and it was under a non European Civilisation for many centuries. Then, the Helenism in the West tiggered a reaction to save and help the "Eastern" brothers and then Athens continued to be the East.
In truth, Greece was only Western in relation to the Non European Civilisations to the East of Europe: Egypt and the Middle East. We both know it.
Sorry for bombing your blog with such an insignificance but I had to emmend what I said about Greece. And yes, Greece is not Western Europe, and it will be accentuated. I know it, you know it.
Regards.
The comparison to Switzerland was merely to outline the difference in efficiency between both countries. Greece is not as efficient as Switzerland due to the nepotism which is endemic to most Southern European countries and also due to the slight difference in IQ between both nations. Therefore, they will not have the same outcomes in achievements. However, that is a far cry from saying Switzerland is civilized and Greece is not.
You also seem to be ignoring the points I made above. Just to repeat:
1.Anarchists have not taken over the government or brought Greece to its knees.
2.Greece's promiximity to Turkey is irrelevant to this discussion because neither country will go to war with the other and there are no Turkish migrants heading towards Greece.
3.The amount of third world immigrants in Greece is low compared to other EU member nations.
4.Modern Greece is European but not Western due to the fact that it is Orthodox Christian and not Protestant or Catholic.
You have backtracked so much and blantantly ignored the corrections ConSwede and I have made to your points and I have no idea what point you are trying to prove or why you even continuing in this conversation.
Afonso,
The ethnic composition of Mexicans/Venezuelans is not comparable to the ethnic composition of Sicilians vis-a-vis the Greeks. And the Spanish blood % for the Mexicans is 65% Spanish, the rest is Indian and black on average. The white elites in Mexico and South America have a lot more European blood but they aren't the ones coming to America. The overwhelming DNA for Greeks is European in origins, you cannot say the same for Mexicans. I don't know much about Venezuelans so I'm withholding my opinions on them.
"Do you think I'm some Nordicist or something?"
Uh-oh. The other "N" word. Obviously I don't think you are a Nordicist but even if you were it wouldn't make a difference to me since Nordics have every right to form their own ethnostates much like everyone else. It seems to me that it's the Nordics who are denied their own national desires the most even in the company of other right wing European friends. That needs to change.
"Southern Italy is way poorer than Central and North Italy, and that is not recent."
Umm...who is arguing the opposite here? Whatever you intention was in comparing Greece to Sicily of all places, I said that it reflects on Italy as the whole because Sicily is not an independent nation. It would be like comparing Greece to Alabama instead of America.
"I can tolerate an Albanian State in Europe as they have that right to exist, but I don't consider them... well... European"
Well, they are not full blood Illyrians like the Albanian nationalists claim to be, that much is certain but they do have quite a bit of Illyrian blood but then so do many ethnicities in the Balkans. They are more a mix of Greek, Slav, and Turk. And as far as I know, they are the only European people that still have blood fueds (even among the Catholics). But the designation of Balkan type attitudes (hyper nationalism, low-trust societies, strong illegal elements within their societies, always the last to "catch up" in Europe) does apply to them and the Slavs in the region, even the fairly cultured and more Western Croats fall under this rubric. It's just how it is unfortunately. Greece does not fall under this category because it is a better place to live than those countries and most of its border disputes are under control for now. Language has nothing to do with the Balkan epithet, but certain people who live there do.
IDH was cited to disprove your uncivilized remark you made at the beginning of the thread, which I'm glad you've retracted. However, as you concede, IDH and "Western-Europeanity" does correlate with NW Euro nations and the only reason we see outliers like Japan, South Korea, and HK on the list is because their average IQs are higher than those NW Euro nations.
"I don't remember any "student protests" in Western Europe that had half the magnitude the anarchist sublevations had in Greece. I'm referring to the XXI century only."
That's convenient.
"According to your logic then, no muslims rule some streets in French no-go-areas."
They rule enclaves. There is a difference and because they are blocked off from the rest of society, having a no-go area in a Muslim enclave is much different than having a no-go area on a major street which is what we are starting to see in Britain. Muslims ruling their own enclaves is not comparable to them ruling their nation or even being able to bring said nation to its knees. The anarchists aren't numerous enough to start their own enclaves in Greece. Another poor comparison.
continued from my last post...
"If you want to fantasise that there are no Third World immigration to Greece, you're free to do so but that also is ignoring the reality."
Nowhere did I say or imply that. I said that Greece had the lowest amount of non-natives and that includes third world immigrants. Also, my inital remark that started this dialogue referenced Nigerians. Hint: There are Nigerian immigrants in Greece. Also, a lot of the Muslims are Albanian immigrants and Turks who didn't leave during the population exchange with Turkey. The government refers to these Turks as Greek Muslims. They number around 1%-2% of the population.
"And the way they looked to Macedonia in the 90s was really "Balkanic" in that light."
What-if wars do not interest me and they are not pertinent to this discussion. If you want to prove that Greece is a belligerent Balkan country, you really should come up with some concrete examples not some loose talk about "involvement" in some wars and a non-war that included Serbia as the what-if aggressor.
"But when compared to Greece, we're as Westerners as the Dutch."
Racial bargaining is not an attractive quality. Neither is racial sniping. This is what is keeping like minded Europeans from protecting their own nations from internal and external enemies. The reason why I engaged in this discussion was to correct your misconceptions of Greece and your snooty attitude towards Greeks whom you previously thought were uncivilized and by implication, not really European. I agree they are not Western Europeans due mostly to religion but they are still European in orientation whether you like it or not.
"It's just how it is unfortunately. Greece does not fall under this category because it is a better place to live than those countries"
Which can simply be explainable for what happened since 1945 plus the ethnic unity that Greece has had compared to their Slavic brothers.
I conceed to your point that Greek anarchists never rulled Greece. That would even be anti-anarchist in my opinion.
However when I say rulled the streets it was pretty obvious to what I was referring to.
Referring to immigration:
According to wikipedia: "According to the same study, the foreign population (documented and undocumented) residing in Greece may in reality figure upwards to 8.5% or 10.3%, that is approximately meaning 1.15 million"
Adding the 2% figure to yours, let me call them "restive Third Worlders in Greece", and assuming that half the immigrants in Greece come from the Thirde World, ir probabily means 7% of the Greek population. It's considerable, and it's arround one million people.
In the end, Geza, I think we generally are in agreement, are we not?
At least, I only disagree with you in some minor things.
Greece is fully European but it is not part of Western Europe and to consider it as if is foolishness.
Just one last thing: You're right about nepotism but I strongly disagree about IQ in that comparison of yours between Greece and Switzerland.
Look, Up untill 600 years ago, Greece was more successfull than Switzerland and has been so for longer than Switzerland has been more successfull than Greece.
But Geza, just take into account the "centrality" of the Nations.
Nowadays Switzerland is stuck between the powers of Italy, France and Germany, in the past, you could even count Austria in.
Greece, in ancient times was surrounded by the advanced Middle Eastern, Egyptian and Italic cultures. It explains a lot, it really does.
I think we do agree on more than we disagree.
As for IQ, no, I'm correct. Switzerland's IQ is 101 and Greece's is 92. Portugal is 95 if you were wondering. IQ is not a predictor of everything. We cannot measure the value of "culture" soley by IQ but it can intimate the level of efficiency of a country and the standard of life in that country. There are exceptions of course, North Koreans have a high IQ but it's a shit hole. However, you wouldn't see a place with an IQ under 90 such as Morocco with a high living standard.
As for immigrants in Greece, the overwhelming majority (over 50%) are Albanian and there is a good chunk (around 10 - 18%) from Eastern Europe. Third worlders are the minority among the total immigrants present. Most of the third worlders heading to Greece are from South Asia and some from the Middle East. Also, you need to keep in mind that quite a few of these South Asian and Middle Eastern immigrants use Greece as a gateway to other EU nations that have a more favourable immigration policy. The only percentage of immigrants that remains static (or increases if you will) is that for the Albanians and Bulgarians.
Switzerland has a lot going for it. It is wise enough to stay out of wars and it is probably the only country where multiculturalism (the European variety) actually works. They also have a reputation for being xenophobic. Their work ethic and their intelligence is to be admired. The number of foreign born residents in Switzerland worries me but it's been high since the 1970's, and Switzerland is nowhere near to becoming the next Britain since the majority of the immigrants are European. Did you know there are more Portugese in Switzerland than immigrants from Asia and Africa combined? So with the success Switzerland has endured post-war, I am less concerned about where it is situated and when the shit hits the fan in most of Western Europe, Switzerland will probably be one of the few last safe havens left for Europeans.
Geza, nice to know that we do agree in much more that we disagree, and also that we disagree in the most insignificant things.
Regarding IQ, it's just a factor. Or better, a tool. And like every tool it must be used accordingly. That explains North Korea and the Arab Emirates deviation from the "normal".
What I disagree with you is the divergence in intra-European IQ. For instance, I've seen many tables with mean IQs across European Nations. It happened that it did not formed a geographic cline, nor was it "regular" in which countries it peaked and did not. For instance, between Portugal and Spain, the IQ must be equal. But it's very difficult for that to show in a table. I've seen both Portugal and Spain with plus IQ in relation to one another. The thing is that the Portuguese and Spanish IQ was rarely less than 90 and more than 100. It averages a little less than 100. Which is the European mean.
That's why I am so hostile to any intra-European IQ variation.
Although, usually, the European IQ peaks in Northwestern Nations (Holland, U.K.) and... surprise, in Italy. I believe it may be explained by some kind of "eugenics"? If we look to thos places history, we'll see they were more "competitive" than average and for a longer time.
"Also, you need to keep in mind that quite a few of these South Asian and Middle Eastern immigrants use Greece as a gateway to other EU nations that have a more favourable immigration policy."
I know, people say the same about them here too. The Indian mayor of the Nation's capital said yesterday in a bad tone: "Not even the immigrants want to stay here! They want to go to Brittain because they no they can't have much here, and we have to change that."
But they are annoying as well. And everybody that stops a while in Greece, wants to stay there. Or so I've been told.
"Did you know there are more Portugese in Switzerland than immigrants from Asia and Africa combined?"
No I did not, and I actually doubt it. But yes Switzerland are one of those countries in Europe that would be nice for me to immigrate if I could get a good pay check there. The others being Norway and... England because I'm so Anglophile. And then I have a thing for Croatia as well and East Slavic countries in general, albeit my preception that those are "too wild" for me.
Beware, as if Norway mannages to stay out of the E.U. and have some more to the right public opinion than the rest of Europe... and combining that whith its charmingly small population and the profits of Oil in the North Sea and new Artic resaurces...
Norway has the potential to become heaven when Europe is hell.
As I said earlier, nice to know that we agree. Nice to discuss also, especially when it ends in agreement.
Thanks GOD I found your blog, Conservative Swede!
It is very rare to find a blog where such ideas can be debated.
Your blog and the Gates of Vienna are jewels of the blogosphere.
Bless you too, Cobra.
And vote Traian Ungureanu today of course.
I live in the USA...
I will like to give a personal occurance on how things on the left work because even though I'm just 19 and woke up early to the truth, I was quite liberal for a while related to the social issues(never a fan of socialism due to where I grew up). For example, I had this debate related to breasts not being sexual objects in which I sustained this, even though I knew deep down that I am utterly wrong. I just couldn't stop because it didn't fit the narrative that I was a subscriber of(and at that time, I was anti-multiculturalism and anti-feminism already). What people miss is that the majority of people and especially leftists have logic and reason as irrelevant things - the narratives is what matters and anyone who doesn't subscribe to their ideology are evil. There are degrees of evil based on categories, but Wilders is in the same category of evil as the BNP because they reject more or less the same narrative of leftism. Related to my boob conversation, I guess that afterwards I did what ConSwede says chasing out my demons. It's hilarious to me now to look back and see how irrational and idiotic I was because everything else I was sustaining there(from the evils of socialism and feminism to other topics). Anyway, I'll give you another example. I became an anti-feminist because I found that men are not treated equally and I found that as immoral, but this over time and periods of logical thinking made me deconstruct the equal sign in between men and women. This is what Wilders represents for the liberal worldview. Basically, it's the catalyst and transitory state from multiculturalism to ethnic identity, just like seeing that men were treated unfairly made me reject that men and women are equal. Still, what's important is to have our own narratives raise to them because most people will not think about the things they support all the way through and will never do so.
Post a Comment