It takes a nation to protect the nation
Once again, it has become apparent that several different threads scattered about throughout 4F, actually belong together as one topic. That topic is actually huge, so I can only briefly summarise it here.
A good starting point is the US constitution. We can view that as a piece of code, designed to allow the democratic government of a country, with the main danger to be protected against, being 'faction', or the development of differing interest groups leading to 'pork barrel' politics.
The first protection put in place was the use of elected representatives, as opposed to direct democracy, which puts a brake on the passionate excesses of mobocracy. Then the tri-partite division of government into Legislature, Executive and Judiciary allows those 3 arms of government, to hold each other in check in case of a power over-reach. Finally, the Bill of Rights set down hard and fast limits on the powers of government, in case the 3 arms didn't manage to keep things safely.
It is clear that this system is breaking down. For example, Black Lives Matter rejects the statements "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" and "White Lives Matter". At Facebook HQ, someone struck through the statement "Black Lives Matter" and put "All Lives Matter" underneath. The neo-racist virtue signaller Zuckerberg said that the person who did that would be fired. Zuckerberg is one of the new elite; his actions are significant.
In the following video, Vox Day puts the matter very clearly. There will come a point - and we are rapidly nearing it - when white people will have to abandon the dream of a non-discriminatory universalist system, and revert back to tribalism, because without it, simply, they will have no representation in government, and no-one to protect them.
Comment by Philip:
Civic nationalism and its limitations. Civic nationalism is an artificial construct that does not resolve conflict but rather preserves conflict. Ethnic nationalism evolves naturally and reflects correctly human nature and is more likely to survive due to the low level of conflict in homogeneous societies. It has to be genuine nationalism in order to survive, there has to be ethnic cohesion. American culture is European-American culture and functions only if the majority are the descendants of European immigrants and invaders, there is a low level of conflict. As soon as you open the borders to large scale immigration of non-Europeans the unity will fall apart and America will be torn apart by ethnic conflict. The first loyalty of the new-immigrants is to the ethnic group to which they belong, not to America.
Likewise European nations are being destroyed by an indiscriminate immigration by people that have very little in common with the native populations. Only countries that have a clear ethnic identity can survive as nations. Globalism is confusion and anarchy. We have to be honest and recognize that we are all best served by nationalism. Calling someone racist and bigot for loving his country and people is unreasonable and destructive. Patriotism is positive. Muslims would be much better off in the Muslim countries that they come from, all that they do in our nations is cause problems for themselves and for us. In the long ongoing conflict between black and white Americans, blacks rally to their African-American identity when conflicts arise.
Comment by Philip
It's the same in Norway, the children of our beloved immigrants are mostly armed and selling drugs, dropping out of school and have parents on welfare. The third generation, the ones supposed to have been fully integrated by now, are hardened criminals with no allegiance to the nation.
The criminals here have moved into taking over legitimate businesses, using drug money and out-bidding competitors. They are putting people out of business and corrupting the system. Everything from building firms and garages to old people's homes and kindergardens. Anything they can buy up or establish and invest drug money in, and cheat the taxes with. This has become huge as no-one including the police have done anything about it.
I guess it is the same across all of Europe, it is the logical developement with a mafia out of control.
I know it's just empty talk, but if I had the power there would be deportations on a vast scale. No birth rights, generations of immigrants deported, entire families, innocent or not, millions and millions until all of the nations of Europe become normal and entirely European.
I would be completely ruthless because once you start trying to sort out who has rights or not, you enter a self-defeating process bogged down by legal proceedings and vast expense. Everyone has to go or else we will continue the decline into a complete collapse of any sort of order.
The third generation, the ones supposed to have been fully integrated by now, are hardened criminals with no allegiance to the nation.
Another gem from Philip, that sums up the situation perfectly in a handful of words.
Racist "asians" break womens nose
Muslims have a tribe to protect them. They have gangs of thugs they can call up within minutes via mobile messaging. They have smooth talking Tariq Ramadans, ensconced in the distinguished academia of Oxford, ready to debate any opposing views. And they have smart suited lawyers ready to pick a legal fight against any objecting kuffar, and at the least, simply exhaust the offending kuffar's resources via Lawfare.
But the above couple have no tribe, they have no group identity, they have no-one to protect them and represent their interests. They are supposed to be protected by an anodyne, race/religion/gender blind system, which applies the law equally to all. Unfortunately, that so-called blind system has been taken over by cowards with partisan interests, and it simply crumbles in the face of any strongly united and forceful enemy.
Osama bin Laden said “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse”, but that didn't quite get to the root of the matter. The problem is more that:
Thus 'nasty' Islam, or in fact any strongly united gang or factional interest, will naturally beat 'nice' democracy.
Thank you Alan.
BTW, the comments on the above Quora are just as interesting. Take this one:
To understand how the Europeans conquered us consider these two battles : Siege of Arcot (1751) and the Battle of Plassey (1757). In the first case only 300 men, 100 British and 200 Indian, captured a city of around 1,00,000 people!
In the second case only 2,000 British and another 3,000 Indian defeated an army of around 60,000 and became masters of 32 million people!
How was this possible? Remember that this was BEFORE the industrial revolution. It took ships six months to get from Europe to India. Indian subcontinent was colonized mostly before the industrial revolution. It is the only region with a large civilization that was colonized like that. South-East Asia, North Africa and Middle East and even Africa could by colonized only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The reason was the internal differences among Indians. India was ruled by strong monarchs who maintained huge kingdoms. It is not correct that we were colonized because we were divided into small kingdoms. The Maratha empire, Awadh, Bengal, Nizam etc were huge and larger than most European powers of that time (both in territory and population).
What internal differences? Beneath the large kingdoms, there were about 4,500 endogamic groups in India, each of which were a nation unto themselves. So in any region, there was not a common identity that unified "all" the people in that geographical area. This came about not due to any person or group. It just happened that way due to the huge diversity of India from time immemorial. This happened even-though many religious leaders and kings tried to build a unified society.
This is in contrast to other places. Whatever the differences within them, a group of people in a geographical area united against outsiders, be it Scots, Turks, Thais, Pashtuns, Bashkirs or any such group. Even the Zulu gave a lot of difficulty to the British.
Any of this sound familiar? Yes, the multi-cultural diversity that Blair and co rammed down our throats, is exactly what allowed the British to conquer the massive country of India. And that is how the Left have turned us into docile sheep, ready for division and submission by the imported conquerors of Islam.
Another aspect of the tribalism and gangsterism to which our democracies are reverting, is that only the ordinary citizen conservatives are no longer able safely participate in the political fight. The Left and other gangs, use the dirty tactics of violence, smearing and attack on employment or business, to destroy its opponents. What individual can succeed in a fight against a funded, staffed institution? The only conservatives that can justify entering that arena now, are those that probably have accepted their eventual self-annihilation. Tommy Robinson would be a good example of this.
To enter the political arena now, and campaign against the relentless slide to the totalitarian values of collectivism and 'progressivism', you need to have power in some of the 4 following ways:
Those ways are probably in decreasing order of value, so money is the best power to have. A great example of this occurred recently when Melania Trump successfully sued the Daily Mail for libel:
It's only safe to go into politics now if you have power, preferably financial power. The media are corrupt liars and will attack and scandalise you without basis in fact. You are only able to fight this if you have extensive resources. Well done Melania!
Another aspect of entering the fight, now that the fascist left have completed their Gramscian 'march through the institutions', is nicely expressed in the following post. The writer was explaining how the British managed to gain control of India, but the explanation works really well today, as to why defenders of conservative values are being squeezed to extinction.
Most people in this world work for and worry about their own lives, jobs etc. Pure self interest. Patriotism is generally a virtue of the few. So while everyone is patriotic to discuss policy, leaders etc in their drawing rooms, very very few have the balls to sacrifice their lives, jobs and ruin their families by following into the risky game of politics. That's more risky when the ruler is ruthless. In context of Congress for example, for decades the early congressmen were happy to debate and intellectualize things but they didn't take any action. Why ? Because most of them were elites, happy in their shells which they didnt want to disturb. So debate and intellectualize, as Maslow would like you to, but take action and ruin your lives for the sake of poor, who you don't care much - No way.
So apathy at a general level plays a role. You can understand this from current context of India as well -- people are fed up with corruption, pathetic infrastructure, the poor can't even afford decent healthcare, education and sometimes even food. Do you see people bringing up better Governments ? Do you see a lot of people entering politics ? No. Because its difficult. It takes courage to say goodbye to your jobs and ignore your family and to get out of your own comfort zone to start a career where there is no pay and even after 50 years later you may not achieve anything. Why take this risk ? Not many have the moral courage to do so.
What's missing from this description is an understanding of the pressing practicalities of ordinary life, for most people. It's not correct to criticise them for "pure self interest". Its more that most people have so many problems and issues, that if they deviate too much from focussing on their own stuff, they will go down, and maybe even crash and burn. In which case, the whole issue of a responsibility to be active in politics, becomes academic anyway.