As someone who made peace with this future back when I was 18, I'd like to say something to put this into context beyond "crusade time!11!!".
On "let's fight Islam". Islam was never the problem. I've been saying this since my teens. If you come across a kindergarten full of wild dogs, who are savaging the children, it's easy to point the finger at the dogs. It's easy to rant about how the dogs are uncivilized and violent and aggressive. How they should be got rid of. How they should now be thrown out.
But that is a truly comical form of tunnel vision and naivety.
The wise man instead calmly looks towards the door of the kindergarten -- and looks upon the figure standing there, pinning the door open with his foot, with a big grin on his face.
The problem was never about the muslims. They come from poor countries, burdened by a primitive form of civilization. They were always going to come, and try and make better lives for themselves. They were always going to have their elements who, like all humans, have a territorial instinct. The problem was the leftist, and the leftist alone, holding the door open for the sake of his sadomasochist pleasure.
I disagree with QC about ISIS. IS is simply "Islamic State". It follows one simple rule: the Koran and the word of Muhammad is to be interpreted strictly and comprehensively. The role of the caliph is well illustrated in the texts of Islam, as is the nature of the caliphate. How could you prosecute someone for being a member of "Islamic State"? Two questions, are you Muslim and should your state be Muslim?
IS is nothing more than an energized Islam. Energized by the leftism of the west -- which smells like weakness, and concurrent destruction of the dictators who were holding them in check. It's worth remembering that what Islam is doing now is nothing more than a continuation of what it was doing in the 600s. Just look at your clock on your computer -- it's 2016 now, and they are simply doing the same thing.
Islam should be viewed in the same way we view wolves -- they can't win, they can't kill us, unless we ourselves make mistakes.
The solution to the question of the 21st century western decline is a very simple one: why is the leftist empowered?
That is to say: why are the anti-social members of society ruling, instead of being ostracized? Why are those who weaken us not cast out, and instead attack us with impunity?
The answer stares us all in the face, and sits suspiciously beyond criticism: democracy. By what unnatural constitution does something like this happen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1945
A great man defeats a brutal enemy hell-bent on world domination, and is then immediately cast aside by pieces of paper being dropped into boxes? Who could ever look upon such a system and call it sane? Comically, even that man himself famously said "it's the least bad system", and played a role in starting it back in 1911.
Little more than mass arrogance. The idea that just because you have your piece of paper, you'll be able to lead your country to safety and greatness. You'll be able to see to it that you get treated well. What a fucking laugh.
The solution to decay is ownership. Nobody does maintenance on houses they rent unless forced too. A house that they own is a different story. They have their whole savings to lose if it gets eaten by termites, versus the renter who will just have to move his stuff elsewhere. Nobody protects an animal from poachers more than its owner.
Likewise, no democratic politician gives a shit about his country beyond what he can exploit from it in 4 years.
And likewise, nobody protects a country more than kings and lords. It's their and their family's kingdom to lose. Why did the Saudi's take zero refugees? Because why would they? Would you take a refugee into your house willingly? Well Saudi Arabia is literally theirs too. They have simply acted in their own natural interests.
We've all shrugged off such hierarchies as being "medieval", thinking we've done good for ourselves, only to set ourselves up to get conquered by those who will simply restore themselves as rulers in place.
The only role of democracy is to formalize the power of revolt. That is, for the weaker but more numerous to check the stronger but less numerous should they decide to exploit instead of lead. And so on up the pyramid. The balanced and traditional constitution consists of 1 king, a minority of hereditary nobles, and a large qualified electorate (male landowners).
It is the absence of this constitution alone, and the existence of democracy in it's place, that is creating this situation. The only answer to this situation will be one that restores said constitution.
On the genocide talk, it's just reactive bunk. Simply making your position more harsh each time a bad event happens is not a "ramping up". It's just multiplying of zero by 100 instead of by 10.
If kings returned, there would be little need for genocide. Genocide and psychopaths who wish it and carry it out have never achieved anything good. Indeed you could argue that Hitler is in fact personally to blame for the problem we now have, as after his know-no-limits aggressive psychopathy burned out, the backlash predictably created today's pervasive western leftism.
A king, like the head of a house, simply asks the unwanted guests nicely to leave. If they say no, he explains more clearly why they must leave, why it's not working out, and then draws his sword and places it upon his table. If that's not enough, he makes an example until the rest get the picture, and they then leave. It's been done before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos
The muslims were never the issue. The issue is the leftists. The issue is in them gravitating to the center of power instead of being beaten to the outskirts. The issue is the absence of kings.
On "let's fight Islam". Islam was never the problem. I've been saying this since my teens. If you come across a kindergarten full of wild dogs, who are savaging the children, it's easy to point the finger at the dogs. It's easy to rant about how the dogs are uncivilized and violent and aggressive. How they should be got rid of. How they should now be thrown out.
But that is a truly comical form of tunnel vision and naivety.
The wise man instead calmly looks towards the door of the kindergarten -- and looks upon the figure standing there, pinning the door open with his foot, with a big grin on his face.
The problem was never about the muslims. They come from poor countries, burdened by a primitive form of civilization. They were always going to come, and try and make better lives for themselves. They were always going to have their elements who, like all humans, have a territorial instinct. The problem was the leftist, and the leftist alone, holding the door open for the sake of his sadomasochist pleasure.
I disagree with QC about ISIS. IS is simply "Islamic State". It follows one simple rule: the Koran and the word of Muhammad is to be interpreted strictly and comprehensively. The role of the caliph is well illustrated in the texts of Islam, as is the nature of the caliphate. How could you prosecute someone for being a member of "Islamic State"? Two questions, are you Muslim and should your state be Muslim?
IS is nothing more than an energized Islam. Energized by the leftism of the west -- which smells like weakness, and concurrent destruction of the dictators who were holding them in check. It's worth remembering that what Islam is doing now is nothing more than a continuation of what it was doing in the 600s. Just look at your clock on your computer -- it's 2016 now, and they are simply doing the same thing.
Islam should be viewed in the same way we view wolves -- they can't win, they can't kill us, unless we ourselves make mistakes.
The solution to the question of the 21st century western decline is a very simple one: why is the leftist empowered?
That is to say: why are the anti-social members of society ruling, instead of being ostracized? Why are those who weaken us not cast out, and instead attack us with impunity?
The answer stares us all in the face, and sits suspiciously beyond criticism: democracy. By what unnatural constitution does something like this happen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1945
A great man defeats a brutal enemy hell-bent on world domination, and is then immediately cast aside by pieces of paper being dropped into boxes? Who could ever look upon such a system and call it sane? Comically, even that man himself famously said "it's the least bad system", and played a role in starting it back in 1911.
Little more than mass arrogance. The idea that just because you have your piece of paper, you'll be able to lead your country to safety and greatness. You'll be able to see to it that you get treated well. What a fucking laugh.
The solution to decay is ownership. Nobody does maintenance on houses they rent unless forced too. A house that they own is a different story. They have their whole savings to lose if it gets eaten by termites, versus the renter who will just have to move his stuff elsewhere. Nobody protects an animal from poachers more than its owner.
Likewise, no democratic politician gives a shit about his country beyond what he can exploit from it in 4 years.
And likewise, nobody protects a country more than kings and lords. It's their and their family's kingdom to lose. Why did the Saudi's take zero refugees? Because why would they? Would you take a refugee into your house willingly? Well Saudi Arabia is literally theirs too. They have simply acted in their own natural interests.
We've all shrugged off such hierarchies as being "medieval", thinking we've done good for ourselves, only to set ourselves up to get conquered by those who will simply restore themselves as rulers in place.
The only role of democracy is to formalize the power of revolt. That is, for the weaker but more numerous to check the stronger but less numerous should they decide to exploit instead of lead. And so on up the pyramid. The balanced and traditional constitution consists of 1 king, a minority of hereditary nobles, and a large qualified electorate (male landowners).
It is the absence of this constitution alone, and the existence of democracy in it's place, that is creating this situation. The only answer to this situation will be one that restores said constitution.
On the genocide talk, it's just reactive bunk. Simply making your position more harsh each time a bad event happens is not a "ramping up". It's just multiplying of zero by 100 instead of by 10.
If kings returned, there would be little need for genocide. Genocide and psychopaths who wish it and carry it out have never achieved anything good. Indeed you could argue that Hitler is in fact personally to blame for the problem we now have, as after his know-no-limits aggressive psychopathy burned out, the backlash predictably created today's pervasive western leftism.
A king, like the head of a house, simply asks the unwanted guests nicely to leave. If they say no, he explains more clearly why they must leave, why it's not working out, and then draws his sword and places it upon his table. If that's not enough, he makes an example until the rest get the picture, and they then leave. It's been done before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos
The muslims were never the issue. The issue is the leftists. The issue is in them gravitating to the center of power instead of being beaten to the outskirts. The issue is the absence of kings.
