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!
Posts
14 comments:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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...
Post a Comment