Aisling Murphy was a lovely 23 year old who was brutally murdered by a 31 year old Slovakian Gypsy while out running in Ireland in January of 2022.
He is a father of five who had been living in Ireland and collecting welfare and disability despite being in perfect health.
The papers at the time of her murder reported the police line that she had been strangled. It emerged during the trial that she had been stabbed multiple times and had died screaming in terror. The media never corrected their initial story.
The trial just concluded with a guilty verdict last week and really primed the pump for this rioting.
Things are really on the boil.
The only thing worse than the despicable Irish political class is the execrable Irish journalist class.
Another great essay- time for me to start paying my fair share.
This is partially true. In places where there isn’t much in the way of police, criminals are often dealt to in very violent ways. Part of the reason the penal system exists is to stop vigilantism.
Progressives seem to think that if they stop punishing people that those people won’t receive any punishment, when really it just comes later and is much worse.
The perfect example is the parent who won’t discipline their children. The child never escapes discipline, it just ruins their life when it eventually comes. The same thing will happen with the lax policing and sentencing the progressives push for. If the state won’t exercise it’s monopoly on the right to use violence, eventually the citizenry will be forced to take it back.
This is correct, and not only in Ireland. If the authorities refuse to do their job, others will, rather more decisively. And they will become the new authorities.
The girl, her boyfriend, his brother and two half-brother set a trap for the taxi-driver that had raped her (him being a non-western migrant, to the surprise of no-one), hanging him from a bird-watcher's tower where he hung for a week before the boday was found.
However, being not all that bright they also stole his wallet and phone and emptied his accounts, and the girl posted on social media that "my rapist is dead, tihihi".
One of them received life in prison for this, due to his age and to him having several previous convictions for narcotics-related crimes and violently resisting arrests. The others received between a few months to three years of juvenile detention (essentially youth prison).
Odds are, they'll get violently abused in there, or even murdered since almost all prisoners in Sweden are non-western migrants or of such origin.
I'm guessing the reason for no-one seeing this as some kind of fight-back against non-western migrants committing crimes is the backgrounds of the youths involved - low-key WT-people with no real political conviction, knowledge or affiliation, only interested in booze and drugs and petty crime.
Whether that is true or not I don't know and since several of the involved parties are minors, the court proceedings are partly classified.
Odds are, this will go to higher court and the sentences may be partially commuted - but if it gets political, the reverse is likely to happen.
Thanks for the update on this. Can't say I'm surprised they threw the book at them.
Honestly, I think the Swedish right is being a bit overprincipled by not turning them into folk heroes. Who cares if they're plebs who did it for personal rather than political reasons? Makes it more visceral. Who cares that they helped themselves to the rapist's belongings? Law of the jungle, that.
White Trash. The term has made great inroads in Sweden that last ten-ish years or so, especially among the far left (our far left, that is) and the libertarian/upper class where it intersects with "alt-right" people.
Or in other words, classic Von Oben-attitudes of the nouveau riche towards common people.
This is true in all globalist-corrupted western nations. We see it here in Canada and in the USA. People ARE starting to adopt a vigilante attitude: we have no other choice. I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
Discipline or beating? Because the latter is not the former, and to the degree the latter is employed in purported pursuit of the former, the farther from the path of discipline you have wandered, and the further down the road to creating your own personal Hamas you have travelled (that is: someone instructed in violence seeking to eradicate its originator).
My very complex needs (severely autistic, developmental delay, allergies, OCD, etc) stepson is a two-person containment risk, and when he melts down, strength and agility are essential to the task. However, if those are the only criteria for choosing support staff there will be constant daily meltdowns, violence violence violence. If the support teams also have three more qualities: empathy, strong communication skills, & strong working knowledge of autism (becoming client specific over time), meltdowns may occur once every month or two.
Violent men are all too eager to claim more violent men are the answer to violent men. The problem is that only rarely is that truly needed; however, once commenced, it is too late for the other solutions to save those upon whom the violent men act.
Nobody but latent authoritarians want a king, and then only one in their own image.
Also: let’s not forget the Irish were as good at running slave raids as anyone. The Roman Empire was stretched too thin and the indomitable Irish were feared raiders. Where do you think Saint Patrick came from?
“How The Irish Saved Western Civilization” is a great little read.
No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.
So, I agree we need a different way. And so far all the ways chosen by men with guns, have brought us here. Like I say, men with guns always want to participate too soon.
I sure don’t look to accelerationism.
If we were living in northern Gaza on Oct 8 we would be there still, or dead. Families w major disabilities go first when systems collapse.
Have you done a cost-analysis of what such care for a severly autistic human is?
Ideas of rights, -isms and whatnot doesn't enter into it, because they do nothing to mitigate real costs.
24/7 care means at least three full-time employees, probably more than that (weekends, sick leave, et c). That's three adults, and by what you list as "truly needed" you want people with skills and traits you don't get for minimum wage.
Since I don't know wages in Ireland or Britain, I'll not use any numbers but consider this: the autistic produces nothing. That human's economical effect will be an ever-increasing net-negative during his/her's lifetime. The three full-time caretakers are all also a net cost, since caring for someone who can't produce so they can pay for their own care isn't productive either.
Odds are, you're looking at an average net loss equaling a year's average pay, every month. That means that those resources used up cannot be used for others, or for lowered taxes.
Since I know it's very easy to read the above the wrong way I'm putting in a caveat here: the above is the way it is, no matter anyone's opinion. It is not an endorsement for any specific policy: it is simply something that must be considered and solved.
You are absolutely correct. The community or state take on the burden and tax the citizenry, so we as a civilization must decide: support all similarly challenged individuals to the greatest degree possible? Warehouse them efficiently with little regard for quality of life? Or sacrifice all runts?
Some argue the worth of a civilization is revealed in precisely this choice.
And as it is technologically possible for everyone on the planet to enjoy a basic middle class lifestyle, we *can* go with option 1 part and parcel. We just seem to prefer to worship billionaires.
Technologically possible is debatable, since we are not all equal as human cultures. Look at Ethiopia: there's land a-plenty and the nation needn't ever have suffered the famines it became synonymous with in the1980s.
But the communistic regime let party officials confiscate well-tended and profitable lands and farms, making it pointless for anyone to grow more than they themselves needed, ensuring any disruption would result in starvation.
Also, foreign aid ensured the regime could remain in power, keep the people down and even "tax" refugee and expat ehtiopians by holding their kin hostage in the homeland, since the regime completely lacks incentive to change.
Now compare it to Norway, which was a dirt-poor barely industrialised nation during the 19th century and who went from this state to one of the most prosperous, peaceful, least crime-ridden and most high-trust societies inside two generations after gaining independence in 1905.
Point being, each people must develop along its own cultural path, thereby being able to by itself determine what and how to solve problems (and decide what is a problem in the first place) if it is to achieve post-scarcity levels of production/distribution. Imposing a cookie-cutter model or ideology, be it neo-liberalism or corporate capitalism or communism, doesn't work for that very reason: ideologies are culturally coded to start with.
I cannot recommend Francis Fukuyama's works on this topic enough, not just because of his learning but becasue he has shown himself willing and capable to change his position when reality doesn't act according to theory.
Jeremy, you and Rikard have raised some very interesting and difficult questions, to which I freely admit I do not have answers. But here's a thought...
If the rise in autism, allergies and the other tribulations troubling your stepson are in fact vaccine injuries, how about the billionaires in the pharmaceutical industry be held liable for his lifetime care?
We might see a very rapid decline in such disabilities if the concept of Responsibility was seriously revisited in these the late stages of our civilization.
> And as it is technologically possible for everyone on the planet to enjoy a basic middle class lifestyle, we *can* go with option 1 part and parcel. We just seem to prefer to worship billionaires.
True, in a sense option one is in fact technologically possible. However, the only reason society is capable of reaching and maintaining that level of technology is due to the incentives inherent in capitalism, what you derisively dismissed as "worshiping billionaires".
You don’t know whether this particular autistic, or another kid with some other issue, or anyone else for that matter, will “produce nothing.” Sometimes the odds are going to be higher, sometimes lower, but you really can’t know that with certainty. What you can be certain of, is that the odds that a child with a developmental disability will “produce nothing” are much higher, when that child (and its caregivers) don’t have the resources to grow up to its maximum potential.
Sadly, you're wrong. In an older world where most labour was done manually, even severly autistic people could be given simple manual jobs and could provide if not a lot so at least some kind of contribution to the farm's economy.
For the past century or so, that isn't the cae any longer and today an autistic will compete with a lot of normal humans for what low-income low-requirement jobs there are.
Furthermore, consider what I pointed out: the amount of care and time (i.e. cost) required. That cost will never be recouped, it remains a net loss economically speaking, no matter if you manage to train the autistic to stack shelves in a supermarket or not.
Yes, I do know most people who are born retarded or with other disabilities and handicaps will be a net cost to their family or soceity, that's such a basic fact it can't really be debated. Autistics especially are severly impacted by today's extreme focus on personality and sociability over actual skill, dilligence and getting the job done. An employer simple cannot spare the resources it takes to make a profitable labourer out of an autistic of the kind initially described - especially not when said employer can simply hire someone /without/ those problems. It's not any queerer than that a man with two functioning legs will always beat a one-legged one in a race.
The able autistic is largely a myth, enforced by Hollywood and people who feel better if they in contravention to fact and reality see the disabled, retarded and handicapped as equally abled of only society would make it so. The vast majority of them are mentally retarded with low IQ and low tolerance for stress, add to that hypersensitivity and anxiety disorders cause by their inability to comprehend social interactions on insitinct. A tiny percentage are HFAs (or "Aspies") and it is from that group media and sadly many educators have chosen to creat "the able autistic". While HFAs can be very intelligent in their limited way, they are still socially impaired and have to use their rather mechanistic intelligence to compensate their disabilities, something which causes great emotional stress and anxiety their entire lives.
You see, I used to be a teacher, and have taught and trained HFAs for about 25 years, on and off, of all ages from early teens to young adults. Here in Sweden, unemployment among autistics is close to 85% - that includes the HFAs. It's not discrimination, it's that they simply can't compete: they aren't adaptable enough, they are too specialised, and they have meltdowns and frequently need sick leave, and few can take working full time or the rat-eat-rat mentality of having a career.
It's not a question of -isms, as I initially mentioned: it's sadly and simply the way it is, economically speaking.
Rationally discussing things in a civilized manner is itself a skill that must be learned and accepted. And that, by definition, cannot be done via rational discussion.
Violence works a heck of a lot more than you seem to think it does. I seldom see it escalate. Usually a strong violent rebuttal to violence ends it. What the US does is a tit for tat violence. That is really bad. Someone kills 10 people needlessly. The US kills 10 back. That’s dumb. You want to win. Not ‘get back at them’. I was a little guy in a very tough neighbourhood. 80 pounds in Grade 8. A bully was harassing me for months at lunch. He was two years older than me and normal size for his age. He would grab my milk carton and poke four or five holes in it with his pencil. My milk would stream out from each hole. I would get milky and have to cover the holes with my fingers and gulp it down. He would laugh and insult me. I had had enough so he did it one day and I poured it all over him. From across a lunch room table. He was going to fight me so I ran around the table and fought him. Before I could lose too badly it was broken up by teachers. The after school fighting arena was the church yard nearby. Every day the church yard would be where the days scraps were settled. ‘After school, William. At the church.’ He outweighed me by probably 50 pounds. A totally unfair fight. Everyone said I should not go. It was not a fair fight. I knew it would not end until I fought him. I did okay. Not a win, but close enough my friends were saying I beat him. Which wasn’t true. I remember saying ‘if that is a win I am sure glad I didn’t lose’. Did that end everything? Probably not. But a buddy of mine, one of the tough guys in the area, Golden Gloves champ, who had tried to talk me out of fighting but who had respected my decision said ‘okay. Well done. I am proud of you. Now it’s my turn’. My bully said ‘I don’t have a problem with you Terry.’ Terry said ‘yeah but I have one with you’. And beat him real bad. And the guy never bugged me ever again. Ever.
I recommend a reading of "Turtles All the Way Down" (not the children's story but the book available from RFK Jr.'s Children's Health Defense) and a perusal of AMidwesternDoctor on Substack with attention to essays on immunisation from fall, 2022.
I'm not really sure what the point you were making is. I'm not advocating violence, I'm saying that as discipline is inevitable, and the refusal to exercise it doesn't make it go away, it postpones it and makes it heavier when it eventually comes.
Your autistic stepson probably needs to be constantly regulated with a light touch, but if you get tired and let things slide then things will get out of hand and there will be a big, traumatic drama before his behaviour is re-regulated. I'm not saying that drama is a good thing, I'm saying it's inevitable. Your choice isn't whether or not you want to deal with his behaviour, it's the level at which you want to intervene.
Correct, he is not. In fact he is not a violent person. The meltdowns happen to him, he has no agency, he is as traumatized by what is unfolding as anyone. You can’t imagine it, it’s like nothing you’ve seen.
My point was that employing only the last resort (physical containment capable staff) will result in terrible quality of life for my stepson and constant meltdowns. The corollary for society is that the men with guns are mostly not needed, should be avoided as long as possible; but instead they are unleashed far, far too often.
I say again, violent young men are poorly socialized. I come from a family of educators and education-adjacent, and have a retired schoolteacher partner who spent the last half of her career in kindergarten. She probably knows more about five-year-olds than anyone you’ve met; she’s encountered every kind of personality, just as it is first confronting and engaging with the world. Her job was to lead these kids to cooperate with and value each other (o and curriculum cuz the little workers need their math, cram it in early- NOT! Her play-based-learning classroom always was the best behaved class (just ask the gym teacher and librarian!) and gets the best report card metrics without focusing on curriculum. Once kids learn how to cooperate and get the best out of school, they generally do).
> I say again, violent young men are poorly socialized.
I.e., they weren't spanked enough.
In any case, if people rationally believe violence will get them what they want, they will use it. The expected punishment is a major factor in that calculation.
> I come from a family of educators and education-adjacent, and have a retired schoolteacher partner who spent the last half of her career in kindergarten. She probably knows more about five-year-olds than anyone you’ve met
Given the abysmal performance of our schools, I rather doubt that. Compare our current education system with that from as late a the 1920s. People left after middle school having learned more than most college students today.
You imprison someone for stealing a TV NOT because the TV is so important. But because it is necessary to draw a line that cannot be crossed. Going into someone’s home is one such line. I hope Conor takes over.
So he is a slovakian gypsy. Therefore totally legal immigrant. But do we honestly believe that a gypsy like this is welcomed back happily to slovakia? Bad people are not welcomed in any community.
True, but he likely wouldn’t have chosen to settle in Ireland if they didn’t offer the most generous welfare benefits in the EU. They’re total pushovers.
The Algerian who slit the throat of the five year old girl was due to be deported in ‘05, but appealed and was given an Irish passport.
He was arrested and charged with carrying a knife a few years ago, but the charges were dropped for some reason.
There’s an ominous silence on the condition of the poor child that was most seriously injured.
It is inexplicable the authorities allow violent non citizens to stay in the country. Do they want is to go all vigilante so they can impose martial law? Is that a possibility?
People on welfare, single people, should have to go to the welfare employment office and check in every morning at 8 am to see if any day work is needed that day. Employers can show up and aay ‘I need three labourers for a two days’, etc. if they don’t show up they are kicked ofd welfare.
Damn. You and MacGregor both make me want to reclaim my heritage - and not by drinking Guinness. I’ve been saying it awhile now, the snapback is going to be worse. To quote a friend of mine from Appalachia - “The folks in government need to realize that historically... like, for all of human history, white people don’t lose wars of survival.”
Historically, white people don't lose wars, more or less period. But then, this is why they've put so much effort into defeating us psychologically and emotionally, demoralizing us and turning us against ourselves, while poisoning our bodies in a hundred different ways. The hard kill was impossible, so they went for the soft kill.
But I cannot imagine a better motivator to clean up the diet, knock off the seed oils, porn and computer games and go to the gym than an all out existential crisis. I have always felt this whole shit show will either sink us or trigger a renaissance.
Yes, I agree. And I believe we're seeing the first shoots of spring already. Those choosing death are sinking into the mud. Those choosing life are becoming ever more vital.
I feel it in myself. I see it in others too. I am also seeing people's terminology changing in private. Less polite terms used for what we are seeing around us. That is a shift.
Ayup. I believe we are in violent agreement, John.
A LOT of my former colleagues and the current generation in the All Volunteer Force are, however, getting their eyes opened rather wide. We are headed for some very interesting times, indeed.
Letting loose the dogs of war is very dangerous to the losers. When you lose a war, it is a disaster. When the crusaders lost the wars in the Holy Land, the Muslim slave markets were flooded with European stock. Going back in time, arguably the crusades themselves were a military response to Muslim invasion. On another front, the Mongols almost wiped out Europe. The European Knights were no match for the Mongolian hordes and their tactics; they just happened to lose momentum at the right time.
The Mongols are probably the one example where Europe got very lucky. The Arabs, for all their depredations before and after the crusades, never succeeded in conquering Europe.
I’ve read a variety of analyses of why the Mongols couldn’t complete their conquest. Like others, I used to believe that Europe got “lucky” when the great Khan died and the hordes abandoned the endeavor because that was the consensus narrative. I’ve since read some more detailed studies, however, that strongly suggest two other critical factors were at play: the castle system and the muddy terrain due to Spring rains. Both of those bogged the Mongols down and rendered their tactics all but useless. Could they have besieged all of those thousands of castles and starved Europe to its knees? Maybe. But maybe not. The soft, muddy, and forested terrain of western Europe isn’t the steppes of the East. It may well be that the abandonment of the effort to return to matters back home provided a convenient excuse to not get into siege warfare with the Euros.
That sounds quite plausible. The Saxon system of burhs, which ultimately developed into castles, was an adaptation to Viking raids that proved very successful. The Dane did not enjoy siege warfare. It makes perfect sense that the Mongols would be equally unenthusiastic upon finding that the Eurasian peninsula they intended to conquer was wet, mountainous, difficult to traverse by horse, covered in castles, and populated by a professional warrior aristocracy that had been sharpening its teeth on itself for several centuries.
Europe is also laced with rivers which add a dimension to warfare that would have been largely foreign to the hordes. i.e. How many boats did the Mongols have? How well prepared were they to defend against those kinds of tactics? Were they going to put their own horses on captured boats and float them in response? Who would pilot the boats? etc, etc.
They got as far as Vienna and the March River IIRC, but that's it. The Croatian mountains caused a lot of problems for the Horde en route. They captured Poland, and made a mess in Croatia, but by then they had started taking heavier losses as they moved westward into Austria. I think the narrative that Europe was "lucky" that the Horde turned back voluntarily is largely some self-loathing, ahistorical, academic bullshit. The Mongols were not Super Warriors - they were simply ruthless in a way that Christendom no longer was because chivalry had by then taken hold. Hell - the Chinese kept them at bay for centuries with the Great Wall. (Which, when one sees it up close, isn't hard to understand. It's like a giant long castle wall set at the top of steep, massive ridgelines that today uses ski lifts to take tourists up to the top of.) Indeed, the Great Wall is exactly why the Horde went west into Russia, rather than sacking China. The Great Wall is likely the first ever large-scale immigration restriction to preserve the Han culture and keep out those "icky" Mongols.
Certainly the Mongols were not seafarers. Their two disastrous invasions of Japan demonstrated that. To be fair, the second was wiped out by the Kamikaze. But the first did make landfall ... and they got cut to pieces in the mountains of Honshu by the samurai.
Another factor is weapons technology. Light horse cavalry armed with small compound bows are deadly against conscript peasant armies lacking discipline and armor. Against European heavy cavalry in armored plate? In an environment where withdrawing is made difficult by rivers and forests? I'm skeptical. A similar story with the samurai, for that matter.
Another aspect is physique. The Mongols were larger and stronger than the Han, and probably most other peoples they encountered. The European knight, raised on a diet of meat and milk and trained from boyhood in weapons and tactics, was a different story altogether.
Good points. Relatedly, the crusader castle system was a major problem for the Saracens. Had the crusaders played the hand differently at key campaigns and time points, they may have succeeded.
Indeed. From what I've read, the crusaders' main enemy were themselves. Much of what led to their ultimate defeat were a series of unforced errors, infighting, etc.
They took back quite a bit of what they had lost, e.g. all of the Iberian peninsula, and parts of the Holy Land. It wasn't entirely successful, but had it not been for the Reconquista, the world would look very different today.
Wouldn’t a simpler explanation be that 10,000 Mongols arrive, have a battle, and 9800 remain. Next battle, a great Mongol victory, but 9600 remain. And so on. At some point, the maimed remainder say ‘am I the only one not having any fun?’ Plus, can you imagine being on the road for many years?
LOL, historically, white people were the first to innovate military technology and military science. *It's a little bit difficult to lose a war when you have a gun and the other guy doesn't.* ;) After all, was China ever colonized? Yes they had a Century of Shame, but where they actually colonized? :)
And I would be interested to know how is that statement on white people not losing wars derived. I mean, what kinds of wars are included here? Are the wars the "white people" waged against "brown people from Middle East" admissible? Because if they are, oh boy, it's actually the other way around! White people fought long and hard against brown Ottomans but did they win? On the scale of a thousand years yes, but is that the proper scale for measuring this? Perhaps you're only including the wars English fought against other skin colors, and yes in that case you could say they "didn't lose".
Remind me when the Ottomans conquered Europe, again. Versus say, when the Europeans carved up the Ottoman empire.
As to China, they were absolutely colonized. Look at their fashion. Look at their ideology. All derived from Europe.
Firearms helped but were hardly the whole story. The Greeks didn't have firearms when the Persians failed to conquer them, nor did they have firearms when they dismembered the Persian empire.
> Remind me when the Ottomans conquered Europe, again. Versus say, when the Europeans carved up the Ottoman empire.
Okay, so you're taking the position that the appropriate time horizon is over 600 years. Personally, I'd take the position the comparison is inadmissible as Turks are white. I mean, can you realistically look at Erdogan and tell me he's "brown"? xD But, back to the 600 year time horizon. That would imply it's invalid to pass judgement on a thing unless at least 600 years have passed. Yet no West European colony is that old. Therefore, any judgement on West European's "conquests" are invalid for at least one more century. The century, I might add, that West Europe might not survive.
Obviously you're now going to require that Ottomans conquer entire Europe - as if conquest of that scale is even desireable to begin with - to be admissible as evidence. And you're going to point out that Westerners tore up the Empire - ignoring the fact Turkyie is independent - as evidence. But you'll completely miss both the relative geographic scales as well as relative temporal scales.
> The Greeks didn't have firearms when the Persians failed to conquer them, nor did they have firearms when they dismembered the Persian empire.
This is likewise suffering from a mismatch of scales. The Greeks did dismember the Persian empire but how long did that last? And Ottomans did eventually dismantle Greece, but how long did that last? Apples to apples, oranges to oranges.
> As to China, they were absolutely colonized. Look at their fashion. Look at their ideology. All derived from Europe.
That's not what I had in mind, really. India was colonized, clearly, China wasn't, again clearly.
Turks are both White and not, depending on which part of the country. Some are basically Greek. The ones in the west are not.
Fact is, Europe has never been conquered by non- Europeans. Large parts of the world have been conquered by Europeans, and often relatively small numbers of them. Sometimes fast, sometimes it takes longer. But generally speaking Europeans win, and this has been the case for thousands of years. No one has yet matched us in war.
Yes. Um, in case anyone didn’t notice, there were a couple of events in the 20th century, um, what were they now? Ah, yes - the world wars. Mass bloodletting on an unprecedented scale. What happens when the beast is unleashed.
I'm a retired Marine officer and I saw - in the recent unpleasantness - what it looks like when we "Cry Havoc!"
I'm not for military adventurism abroad, but I also think if one doesn't have something for which they are willing to fight, then they don't really have anything at all.
Some day, a movie will be made about the Rhodesian Bush War. Most lopsided casualties in history. They won every battle and it wasn't even close ... yet still lost the war. It's a gloriously tragic epic with many lessons for all of us.
> “The folks in government need to realize that historically... like, for all of human history, white people don’t lose wars of survival.”
Depends on which White people. The Gauls once stretched from Spain to modern Turkey, and have been gradually pushed back to the fringes of the North Atlantic ever since.
"We are supposed to say we are for Hammas sneaking in and attacking a bunch of innocent people or we are for Israeli ethnic cleansing.
No how bout this, I'm not part of your operation.
I'm not gna sit here and watch while my life and my children's lives are ruined while you put your wreckage in my country. I demand Benjamin Netanyahu take 20 Palestinians into his house and I demand his candy ass son in Miami suit up in body armor and go to Gaza and fight these people or get the hell out of my world and I don't say this because I hate jews. I say this because I'm not a toilet bowl for you to sit on and shit on"
The suggestion that Israel can export its problems to our countries, and that we should thank them for the privilege, is the sort of arrogance that invites Nemesis.
Alex Jones is based (and entertaining) but historically illiterate. The West (above all the UK and the US) assisted the Arab League in weaponizing the Palestinian refugee issue from 1948 onwards. The US played a central role in establishing UNRWA (the UN agency that services the refugees) and at the time the US expected the Arabs to win the conflict. The US and its allies also agreed to create a special definition of refugee for the benefit of the Palestinians alone. Plenty of work for Nemesis.
The urgent priority for the West IMHO should be repudiating the international convention on refugees. This confers an automatic right for refugees to cross borders and is the legal foundation for Europe's permanent refugee crisis. So long as the treaty stands there is no way to protect Western peoples from being swamped. Blow-hards like Alex Jones never discuss this.
Yep. I've heard that treaty cited quite often by the globalist scum and their useful idiot fellow travelers. They love nothing more than doing an end run around the national interest under color of law.
International law is an astonishing force multiplier because domestic governance has to be fully compliant with official commitments. It lends unjustified respectability to every conceivable mischief. Normies give the system the benefit of the doubt because politicians never explain that international agreements are designed to take issues out of the hands of electorates. Turning the rule of law into a skinsuit for the Longhouse is a civilization-ending event.
On the other hand, international treaties such as the UNRWA are essentially gentleman's agreements within the elite club of the transnational class. They lack direct enforcement arms outside of occasional trade sanctions, and rely instead largely on the elite of a given country wanting to be part of the club. The entire system is very fragile.
International law is legally phony though. Saying it overrides the Constitution and national law is just a bluff. Treaties are by definition voluntary opt-in agreements by signatory nations and cannot override their laws. Very explicitly so in US law, and every other country if you just think it through.... at least if anyone was actually following laws and Constitutions. As we know, they are going to do what they want now anyway, because they have enough power to get away with it, so international law and treaty talk is really just an excuse for elites/leaders to minimize pushback when they disregard law, not about following higher laws.
Main point is, repudiating any treaty or international law would not make the problem go away. However, if you put enough pressure on gov't to do it, the fact that you rallied that much political pressure itself would be the important part. With the gov't on the right side of the issue, the treaty could just be ignored or overriden by domestic law.
Correct. There is actually no such thing as "international law", just a series of treaties the provisions of which are open to endless interpretation. Even more spurious is the oft-quoted "international humanitarian law" which REALLY doesn't exist but is wielded like a cudgel whenever white people have to defend themselves. It's a make-it-up-as-we-go-along law.
Next time you encounter someone wielding "international humanitarian law", simply ask them to cite their legal authority and which precise law is being broken. Stand back and watch them mentally flatline.
Our occupation government has been laying the groundwork for this for a long time, coordinating things at the international level to subvert local autonomy.
Been saying more-or-less the same thing for 25 years now, using different words and in my language (obviously).
It's not our fault. It's not our responsibility. Leave them to it. Keep them out. Send any intruders packing. Offer to do business with them - trading - but nothing more.
That goes for all conflicts and countries in Africa and Asia.
Same principle as when talking early parole from prison or court mandated stay in mental hospital: the released person is to go live with the family of the judge or psychiatrist deciding their release. They don't want that person in their home, they don't want to pay indefinite welfare for a criminal or a psycho, then that criminal or psycho stays locked up.
A few years ago I saw a clip of a journalist walking around Stockholm asking people if they supported refugees. They all said yes. Then he asked if they'd be willing to put them up in their own homes. He even had a Somali migrant with him to help press the point. They all said no. It was hilarious.
If it was a swedish journalist, it must have been Jens Ganman or Chang Frick or Mats Dagerlind.
I know Tim Pool visited years ago and our main-stream media nearly prolapsed that an "american right-wing christian conservative white supremacist" was allowed into the nation and even worse was allowed to move freely and report whatever he liked un-edited for political suitability.
I'm not making this up: these were the publicly expressed sentiments of our most prominent jounralists and not a few top-level politicians at the time.
It serves very well to show foreigners how extreme the "middle" swedish politics is: Tim Pool is considered to be one armband away from full nazi.
For many, even the act of partaking of other media than nation regime-loyal ones or state media is seen as beyond the pale, like a thing that's simply not done - no matter how they vote.
It probably reflects the circles I moved in, but I met quite a few Swedes who went hard in the other direction. There's a powerful undercurrent of reaction in Swedish society moving just beneath the surface.
Aisling Murphy was a lovely 23 year old who was brutally murdered by a 31 year old Slovakian Gypsy while out running in Ireland in January of 2022.
He is a father of five who had been living in Ireland and collecting welfare and disability despite being in perfect health.
The papers at the time of her murder reported the police line that she had been strangled. It emerged during the trial that she had been stabbed multiple times and had died screaming in terror. The media never corrected their initial story.
The trial just concluded with a guilty verdict last week and really primed the pump for this rioting.
Things are really on the boil.
The only thing worse than the despicable Irish political class is the execrable Irish journalist class.
Another great essay- time for me to start paying my fair share.
That's absolutely insane. The police aren't there to protect the people, they're there to protect criminals from the people.
This is partially true. In places where there isn’t much in the way of police, criminals are often dealt to in very violent ways. Part of the reason the penal system exists is to stop vigilantism.
Progressives seem to think that if they stop punishing people that those people won’t receive any punishment, when really it just comes later and is much worse.
The perfect example is the parent who won’t discipline their children. The child never escapes discipline, it just ruins their life when it eventually comes. The same thing will happen with the lax policing and sentencing the progressives push for. If the state won’t exercise it’s monopoly on the right to use violence, eventually the citizenry will be forced to take it back.
This is correct, and not only in Ireland. If the authorities refuse to do their job, others will, rather more decisively. And they will become the new authorities.
That happened recently in Sweden. A young woman hanged her rapist with the help of her two brothers. I believe he was a "hooded youth" as it were.
She, her brother, and her boyfriend were heroes. Through I heard the Swedish nationalist underground did not treat them as such, surprisingly.
The verdicts in this case came today.
The girl, her boyfriend, his brother and two half-brother set a trap for the taxi-driver that had raped her (him being a non-western migrant, to the surprise of no-one), hanging him from a bird-watcher's tower where he hung for a week before the boday was found.
However, being not all that bright they also stole his wallet and phone and emptied his accounts, and the girl posted on social media that "my rapist is dead, tihihi".
One of them received life in prison for this, due to his age and to him having several previous convictions for narcotics-related crimes and violently resisting arrests. The others received between a few months to three years of juvenile detention (essentially youth prison).
Odds are, they'll get violently abused in there, or even murdered since almost all prisoners in Sweden are non-western migrants or of such origin.
I'm guessing the reason for no-one seeing this as some kind of fight-back against non-western migrants committing crimes is the backgrounds of the youths involved - low-key WT-people with no real political conviction, knowledge or affiliation, only interested in booze and drugs and petty crime.
Whether that is true or not I don't know and since several of the involved parties are minors, the court proceedings are partly classified.
Odds are, this will go to higher court and the sentences may be partially commuted - but if it gets political, the reverse is likely to happen.
Thanks for the update on this. Can't say I'm surprised they threw the book at them.
Honestly, I think the Swedish right is being a bit overprincipled by not turning them into folk heroes. Who cares if they're plebs who did it for personal rather than political reasons? Makes it more visceral. Who cares that they helped themselves to the rapist's belongings? Law of the jungle, that.
What are WT-people?
White Trash. The term has made great inroads in Sweden that last ten-ish years or so, especially among the far left (our far left, that is) and the libertarian/upper class where it intersects with "alt-right" people.
Or in other words, classic Von Oben-attitudes of the nouveau riche towards common people.
This is true in all globalist-corrupted western nations. We see it here in Canada and in the USA. People ARE starting to adopt a vigilante attitude: we have no other choice. I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
Discipline or beating? Because the latter is not the former, and to the degree the latter is employed in purported pursuit of the former, the farther from the path of discipline you have wandered, and the further down the road to creating your own personal Hamas you have travelled (that is: someone instructed in violence seeking to eradicate its originator).
My very complex needs (severely autistic, developmental delay, allergies, OCD, etc) stepson is a two-person containment risk, and when he melts down, strength and agility are essential to the task. However, if those are the only criteria for choosing support staff there will be constant daily meltdowns, violence violence violence. If the support teams also have three more qualities: empathy, strong communication skills, & strong working knowledge of autism (becoming client specific over time), meltdowns may occur once every month or two.
Violent men are all too eager to claim more violent men are the answer to violent men. The problem is that only rarely is that truly needed; however, once commenced, it is too late for the other solutions to save those upon whom the violent men act.
Nobody but latent authoritarians want a king, and then only one in their own image.
Also: let’s not forget the Irish were as good at running slave raids as anyone. The Roman Empire was stretched too thin and the indomitable Irish were feared raiders. Where do you think Saint Patrick came from?
“How The Irish Saved Western Civilization” is a great little read.
"Nobody but latent authoritarians want a king, and then only one in their own image."
As opposed to our wonderfully open-minded liberal political class, who are anything but authoritarian.
No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.
So, I agree we need a different way. And so far all the ways chosen by men with guns, have brought us here. Like I say, men with guns always want to participate too soon.
I sure don’t look to accelerationism.
If we were living in northern Gaza on Oct 8 we would be there still, or dead. Families w major disabilities go first when systems collapse.
Have you done a cost-analysis of what such care for a severly autistic human is?
Ideas of rights, -isms and whatnot doesn't enter into it, because they do nothing to mitigate real costs.
24/7 care means at least three full-time employees, probably more than that (weekends, sick leave, et c). That's three adults, and by what you list as "truly needed" you want people with skills and traits you don't get for minimum wage.
Since I don't know wages in Ireland or Britain, I'll not use any numbers but consider this: the autistic produces nothing. That human's economical effect will be an ever-increasing net-negative during his/her's lifetime. The three full-time caretakers are all also a net cost, since caring for someone who can't produce so they can pay for their own care isn't productive either.
Odds are, you're looking at an average net loss equaling a year's average pay, every month. That means that those resources used up cannot be used for others, or for lowered taxes.
Since I know it's very easy to read the above the wrong way I'm putting in a caveat here: the above is the way it is, no matter anyone's opinion. It is not an endorsement for any specific policy: it is simply something that must be considered and solved.
You are absolutely correct. The community or state take on the burden and tax the citizenry, so we as a civilization must decide: support all similarly challenged individuals to the greatest degree possible? Warehouse them efficiently with little regard for quality of life? Or sacrifice all runts?
Some argue the worth of a civilization is revealed in precisely this choice.
And as it is technologically possible for everyone on the planet to enjoy a basic middle class lifestyle, we *can* go with option 1 part and parcel. We just seem to prefer to worship billionaires.
Technologically possible is debatable, since we are not all equal as human cultures. Look at Ethiopia: there's land a-plenty and the nation needn't ever have suffered the famines it became synonymous with in the1980s.
But the communistic regime let party officials confiscate well-tended and profitable lands and farms, making it pointless for anyone to grow more than they themselves needed, ensuring any disruption would result in starvation.
Also, foreign aid ensured the regime could remain in power, keep the people down and even "tax" refugee and expat ehtiopians by holding their kin hostage in the homeland, since the regime completely lacks incentive to change.
Now compare it to Norway, which was a dirt-poor barely industrialised nation during the 19th century and who went from this state to one of the most prosperous, peaceful, least crime-ridden and most high-trust societies inside two generations after gaining independence in 1905.
Point being, each people must develop along its own cultural path, thereby being able to by itself determine what and how to solve problems (and decide what is a problem in the first place) if it is to achieve post-scarcity levels of production/distribution. Imposing a cookie-cutter model or ideology, be it neo-liberalism or corporate capitalism or communism, doesn't work for that very reason: ideologies are culturally coded to start with.
I cannot recommend Francis Fukuyama's works on this topic enough, not just because of his learning but becasue he has shown himself willing and capable to change his position when reality doesn't act according to theory.
Jeremy, you and Rikard have raised some very interesting and difficult questions, to which I freely admit I do not have answers. But here's a thought...
If the rise in autism, allergies and the other tribulations troubling your stepson are in fact vaccine injuries, how about the billionaires in the pharmaceutical industry be held liable for his lifetime care?
We might see a very rapid decline in such disabilities if the concept of Responsibility was seriously revisited in these the late stages of our civilization.
> And as it is technologically possible for everyone on the planet to enjoy a basic middle class lifestyle, we *can* go with option 1 part and parcel. We just seem to prefer to worship billionaires.
True, in a sense option one is in fact technologically possible. However, the only reason society is capable of reaching and maintaining that level of technology is due to the incentives inherent in capitalism, what you derisively dismissed as "worshiping billionaires".
You don’t know whether this particular autistic, or another kid with some other issue, or anyone else for that matter, will “produce nothing.” Sometimes the odds are going to be higher, sometimes lower, but you really can’t know that with certainty. What you can be certain of, is that the odds that a child with a developmental disability will “produce nothing” are much higher, when that child (and its caregivers) don’t have the resources to grow up to its maximum potential.
Sadly, you're wrong. In an older world where most labour was done manually, even severly autistic people could be given simple manual jobs and could provide if not a lot so at least some kind of contribution to the farm's economy.
For the past century or so, that isn't the cae any longer and today an autistic will compete with a lot of normal humans for what low-income low-requirement jobs there are.
Furthermore, consider what I pointed out: the amount of care and time (i.e. cost) required. That cost will never be recouped, it remains a net loss economically speaking, no matter if you manage to train the autistic to stack shelves in a supermarket or not.
Yes, I do know most people who are born retarded or with other disabilities and handicaps will be a net cost to their family or soceity, that's such a basic fact it can't really be debated. Autistics especially are severly impacted by today's extreme focus on personality and sociability over actual skill, dilligence and getting the job done. An employer simple cannot spare the resources it takes to make a profitable labourer out of an autistic of the kind initially described - especially not when said employer can simply hire someone /without/ those problems. It's not any queerer than that a man with two functioning legs will always beat a one-legged one in a race.
The able autistic is largely a myth, enforced by Hollywood and people who feel better if they in contravention to fact and reality see the disabled, retarded and handicapped as equally abled of only society would make it so. The vast majority of them are mentally retarded with low IQ and low tolerance for stress, add to that hypersensitivity and anxiety disorders cause by their inability to comprehend social interactions on insitinct. A tiny percentage are HFAs (or "Aspies") and it is from that group media and sadly many educators have chosen to creat "the able autistic". While HFAs can be very intelligent in their limited way, they are still socially impaired and have to use their rather mechanistic intelligence to compensate their disabilities, something which causes great emotional stress and anxiety their entire lives.
You see, I used to be a teacher, and have taught and trained HFAs for about 25 years, on and off, of all ages from early teens to young adults. Here in Sweden, unemployment among autistics is close to 85% - that includes the HFAs. It's not discrimination, it's that they simply can't compete: they aren't adaptable enough, they are too specialised, and they have meltdowns and frequently need sick leave, and few can take working full time or the rat-eat-rat mentality of having a career.
It's not a question of -isms, as I initially mentioned: it's sadly and simply the way it is, economically speaking.
> Discipline or beating? Because the latter is not the former
It can be.
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/is-spanking-really-harmful-to-children
You’re wrong here, and without addressing the article cited (TL/DR yet), I propose to punch you in the mouth until you agree with me.
Or...hear me out...maybe you’d prefer to discuss it in a civilized manner.
And that, my friend, is all the proof you need. No one chooses punches in the mouth. No one does not resent corporal punishment.
Rationally discussing things in a civilized manner is itself a skill that must be learned and accepted. And that, by definition, cannot be done via rational discussion.
https://www.scifiwright.com/2023/11/believing-is-seeing/
In any case, you are the one badly in need of correction, possibly via physical violence.
Violence works a heck of a lot more than you seem to think it does. I seldom see it escalate. Usually a strong violent rebuttal to violence ends it. What the US does is a tit for tat violence. That is really bad. Someone kills 10 people needlessly. The US kills 10 back. That’s dumb. You want to win. Not ‘get back at them’. I was a little guy in a very tough neighbourhood. 80 pounds in Grade 8. A bully was harassing me for months at lunch. He was two years older than me and normal size for his age. He would grab my milk carton and poke four or five holes in it with his pencil. My milk would stream out from each hole. I would get milky and have to cover the holes with my fingers and gulp it down. He would laugh and insult me. I had had enough so he did it one day and I poured it all over him. From across a lunch room table. He was going to fight me so I ran around the table and fought him. Before I could lose too badly it was broken up by teachers. The after school fighting arena was the church yard nearby. Every day the church yard would be where the days scraps were settled. ‘After school, William. At the church.’ He outweighed me by probably 50 pounds. A totally unfair fight. Everyone said I should not go. It was not a fair fight. I knew it would not end until I fought him. I did okay. Not a win, but close enough my friends were saying I beat him. Which wasn’t true. I remember saying ‘if that is a win I am sure glad I didn’t lose’. Did that end everything? Probably not. But a buddy of mine, one of the tough guys in the area, Golden Gloves champ, who had tried to talk me out of fighting but who had respected my decision said ‘okay. Well done. I am proud of you. Now it’s my turn’. My bully said ‘I don’t have a problem with you Terry.’ Terry said ‘yeah but I have one with you’. And beat him real bad. And the guy never bugged me ever again. Ever.
I did read Cahill some years ago.
I recommend a reading of "Turtles All the Way Down" (not the children's story but the book available from RFK Jr.'s Children's Health Defense) and a perusal of AMidwesternDoctor on Substack with attention to essays on immunisation from fall, 2022.
I wish you the best in managing your son.
I'm not really sure what the point you were making is. I'm not advocating violence, I'm saying that as discipline is inevitable, and the refusal to exercise it doesn't make it go away, it postpones it and makes it heavier when it eventually comes.
Your autistic stepson probably needs to be constantly regulated with a light touch, but if you get tired and let things slide then things will get out of hand and there will be a big, traumatic drama before his behaviour is re-regulated. I'm not saying that drama is a good thing, I'm saying it's inevitable. Your choice isn't whether or not you want to deal with his behaviour, it's the level at which you want to intervene.
Most violent men are nothing like your stepson.
Correct, he is not. In fact he is not a violent person. The meltdowns happen to him, he has no agency, he is as traumatized by what is unfolding as anyone. You can’t imagine it, it’s like nothing you’ve seen.
My point was that employing only the last resort (physical containment capable staff) will result in terrible quality of life for my stepson and constant meltdowns. The corollary for society is that the men with guns are mostly not needed, should be avoided as long as possible; but instead they are unleashed far, far too often.
I say again, violent young men are poorly socialized. I come from a family of educators and education-adjacent, and have a retired schoolteacher partner who spent the last half of her career in kindergarten. She probably knows more about five-year-olds than anyone you’ve met; she’s encountered every kind of personality, just as it is first confronting and engaging with the world. Her job was to lead these kids to cooperate with and value each other (o and curriculum cuz the little workers need their math, cram it in early- NOT! Her play-based-learning classroom always was the best behaved class (just ask the gym teacher and librarian!) and gets the best report card metrics without focusing on curriculum. Once kids learn how to cooperate and get the best out of school, they generally do).
> I say again, violent young men are poorly socialized.
I.e., they weren't spanked enough.
In any case, if people rationally believe violence will get them what they want, they will use it. The expected punishment is a major factor in that calculation.
> I come from a family of educators and education-adjacent, and have a retired schoolteacher partner who spent the last half of her career in kindergarten. She probably knows more about five-year-olds than anyone you’ve met
Given the abysmal performance of our schools, I rather doubt that. Compare our current education system with that from as late a the 1920s. People left after middle school having learned more than most college students today.
You imprison someone for stealing a TV NOT because the TV is so important. But because it is necessary to draw a line that cannot be crossed. Going into someone’s home is one such line. I hope Conor takes over.
So he is a slovakian gypsy. Therefore totally legal immigrant. But do we honestly believe that a gypsy like this is welcomed back happily to slovakia? Bad people are not welcomed in any community.
True, but he likely wouldn’t have chosen to settle in Ireland if they didn’t offer the most generous welfare benefits in the EU. They’re total pushovers.
The Algerian who slit the throat of the five year old girl was due to be deported in ‘05, but appealed and was given an Irish passport.
He was arrested and charged with carrying a knife a few years ago, but the charges were dropped for some reason.
There’s an ominous silence on the condition of the poor child that was most seriously injured.
It is inexplicable the authorities allow violent non citizens to stay in the country. Do they want is to go all vigilante so they can impose martial law? Is that a possibility?
People on welfare, single people, should have to go to the welfare employment office and check in every morning at 8 am to see if any day work is needed that day. Employers can show up and aay ‘I need three labourers for a two days’, etc. if they don’t show up they are kicked ofd welfare.
Damn. You and MacGregor both make me want to reclaim my heritage - and not by drinking Guinness. I’ve been saying it awhile now, the snapback is going to be worse. To quote a friend of mine from Appalachia - “The folks in government need to realize that historically... like, for all of human history, white people don’t lose wars of survival.”
Historically, white people don't lose wars, more or less period. But then, this is why they've put so much effort into defeating us psychologically and emotionally, demoralizing us and turning us against ourselves, while poisoning our bodies in a hundred different ways. The hard kill was impossible, so they went for the soft kill.
But I cannot imagine a better motivator to clean up the diet, knock off the seed oils, porn and computer games and go to the gym than an all out existential crisis. I have always felt this whole shit show will either sink us or trigger a renaissance.
Yes, I agree. And I believe we're seeing the first shoots of spring already. Those choosing death are sinking into the mud. Those choosing life are becoming ever more vital.
I feel it in myself. I see it in others too. I am also seeing people's terminology changing in private. Less polite terms used for what we are seeing around us. That is a shift.
A few years ago, it was a furtive "I don't want to sound racist, but...."
Now, it's "I don't care if this sounds racist...."
Yep. Soon it will be, thanks for noticing.
Ayup. I believe we are in violent agreement, John.
A LOT of my former colleagues and the current generation in the All Volunteer Force are, however, getting their eyes opened rather wide. We are headed for some very interesting times, indeed.
Eyes are opening very rapidly right now. I run into people regularly who are itching for a fight.
The problem with the soft kill is, if the mark finds the antivenom, the poison stops working, and they are very, very pissed off.
Letting loose the dogs of war is very dangerous to the losers. When you lose a war, it is a disaster. When the crusaders lost the wars in the Holy Land, the Muslim slave markets were flooded with European stock. Going back in time, arguably the crusades themselves were a military response to Muslim invasion. On another front, the Mongols almost wiped out Europe. The European Knights were no match for the Mongolian hordes and their tactics; they just happened to lose momentum at the right time.
The Mongols are probably the one example where Europe got very lucky. The Arabs, for all their depredations before and after the crusades, never succeeded in conquering Europe.
Some muzzies have names such as Maher, where do you think it came from? It came when the muzzies took hostages at Baltimore in Cork.
I’ve read a variety of analyses of why the Mongols couldn’t complete their conquest. Like others, I used to believe that Europe got “lucky” when the great Khan died and the hordes abandoned the endeavor because that was the consensus narrative. I’ve since read some more detailed studies, however, that strongly suggest two other critical factors were at play: the castle system and the muddy terrain due to Spring rains. Both of those bogged the Mongols down and rendered their tactics all but useless. Could they have besieged all of those thousands of castles and starved Europe to its knees? Maybe. But maybe not. The soft, muddy, and forested terrain of western Europe isn’t the steppes of the East. It may well be that the abandonment of the effort to return to matters back home provided a convenient excuse to not get into siege warfare with the Euros.
That sounds quite plausible. The Saxon system of burhs, which ultimately developed into castles, was an adaptation to Viking raids that proved very successful. The Dane did not enjoy siege warfare. It makes perfect sense that the Mongols would be equally unenthusiastic upon finding that the Eurasian peninsula they intended to conquer was wet, mountainous, difficult to traverse by horse, covered in castles, and populated by a professional warrior aristocracy that had been sharpening its teeth on itself for several centuries.
Europe is also laced with rivers which add a dimension to warfare that would have been largely foreign to the hordes. i.e. How many boats did the Mongols have? How well prepared were they to defend against those kinds of tactics? Were they going to put their own horses on captured boats and float them in response? Who would pilot the boats? etc, etc.
They got as far as Vienna and the March River IIRC, but that's it. The Croatian mountains caused a lot of problems for the Horde en route. They captured Poland, and made a mess in Croatia, but by then they had started taking heavier losses as they moved westward into Austria. I think the narrative that Europe was "lucky" that the Horde turned back voluntarily is largely some self-loathing, ahistorical, academic bullshit. The Mongols were not Super Warriors - they were simply ruthless in a way that Christendom no longer was because chivalry had by then taken hold. Hell - the Chinese kept them at bay for centuries with the Great Wall. (Which, when one sees it up close, isn't hard to understand. It's like a giant long castle wall set at the top of steep, massive ridgelines that today uses ski lifts to take tourists up to the top of.) Indeed, the Great Wall is exactly why the Horde went west into Russia, rather than sacking China. The Great Wall is likely the first ever large-scale immigration restriction to preserve the Han culture and keep out those "icky" Mongols.
Certainly the Mongols were not seafarers. Their two disastrous invasions of Japan demonstrated that. To be fair, the second was wiped out by the Kamikaze. But the first did make landfall ... and they got cut to pieces in the mountains of Honshu by the samurai.
Another factor is weapons technology. Light horse cavalry armed with small compound bows are deadly against conscript peasant armies lacking discipline and armor. Against European heavy cavalry in armored plate? In an environment where withdrawing is made difficult by rivers and forests? I'm skeptical. A similar story with the samurai, for that matter.
Another aspect is physique. The Mongols were larger and stronger than the Han, and probably most other peoples they encountered. The European knight, raised on a diet of meat and milk and trained from boyhood in weapons and tactics, was a different story altogether.
Good points. Relatedly, the crusader castle system was a major problem for the Saracens. Had the crusaders played the hand differently at key campaigns and time points, they may have succeeded.
Indeed. From what I've read, the crusaders' main enemy were themselves. Much of what led to their ultimate defeat were a series of unforced errors, infighting, etc.
They took back quite a bit of what they had lost, e.g. all of the Iberian peninsula, and parts of the Holy Land. It wasn't entirely successful, but had it not been for the Reconquista, the world would look very different today.
Wouldn’t a simpler explanation be that 10,000 Mongols arrive, have a battle, and 9800 remain. Next battle, a great Mongol victory, but 9600 remain. And so on. At some point, the maimed remainder say ‘am I the only one not having any fun?’ Plus, can you imagine being on the road for many years?
LOL, historically, white people were the first to innovate military technology and military science. *It's a little bit difficult to lose a war when you have a gun and the other guy doesn't.* ;) After all, was China ever colonized? Yes they had a Century of Shame, but where they actually colonized? :)
And I would be interested to know how is that statement on white people not losing wars derived. I mean, what kinds of wars are included here? Are the wars the "white people" waged against "brown people from Middle East" admissible? Because if they are, oh boy, it's actually the other way around! White people fought long and hard against brown Ottomans but did they win? On the scale of a thousand years yes, but is that the proper scale for measuring this? Perhaps you're only including the wars English fought against other skin colors, and yes in that case you could say they "didn't lose".
Remind me when the Ottomans conquered Europe, again. Versus say, when the Europeans carved up the Ottoman empire.
As to China, they were absolutely colonized. Look at their fashion. Look at their ideology. All derived from Europe.
Firearms helped but were hardly the whole story. The Greeks didn't have firearms when the Persians failed to conquer them, nor did they have firearms when they dismembered the Persian empire.
> Remind me when the Ottomans conquered Europe, again. Versus say, when the Europeans carved up the Ottoman empire.
Okay, so you're taking the position that the appropriate time horizon is over 600 years. Personally, I'd take the position the comparison is inadmissible as Turks are white. I mean, can you realistically look at Erdogan and tell me he's "brown"? xD But, back to the 600 year time horizon. That would imply it's invalid to pass judgement on a thing unless at least 600 years have passed. Yet no West European colony is that old. Therefore, any judgement on West European's "conquests" are invalid for at least one more century. The century, I might add, that West Europe might not survive.
Obviously you're now going to require that Ottomans conquer entire Europe - as if conquest of that scale is even desireable to begin with - to be admissible as evidence. And you're going to point out that Westerners tore up the Empire - ignoring the fact Turkyie is independent - as evidence. But you'll completely miss both the relative geographic scales as well as relative temporal scales.
> The Greeks didn't have firearms when the Persians failed to conquer them, nor did they have firearms when they dismembered the Persian empire.
This is likewise suffering from a mismatch of scales. The Greeks did dismember the Persian empire but how long did that last? And Ottomans did eventually dismantle Greece, but how long did that last? Apples to apples, oranges to oranges.
> As to China, they were absolutely colonized. Look at their fashion. Look at their ideology. All derived from Europe.
That's not what I had in mind, really. India was colonized, clearly, China wasn't, again clearly.
Turks are both White and not, depending on which part of the country. Some are basically Greek. The ones in the west are not.
Fact is, Europe has never been conquered by non- Europeans. Large parts of the world have been conquered by Europeans, and often relatively small numbers of them. Sometimes fast, sometimes it takes longer. But generally speaking Europeans win, and this has been the case for thousands of years. No one has yet matched us in war.
I would reduce that to "been the case for 500 years", maybe "a thousand years" and agree with the result. Otherwise, yeah, ok, fine...
> Remind me when the Ottomans conquered Europe, again.
The Ottomans got all the way to Vienna, twice.
Close, horseshoes, hand grenades, etc.
And that wasn't even all that close.
Besides which they needed white people to do their fighting for them.
They conquered the entire Balkan peninsula.
Viet Nam? Hardly a victory.
Mind you. It wasn’t white people fighting for survival.
Yes. Um, in case anyone didn’t notice, there were a couple of events in the 20th century, um, what were they now? Ah, yes - the world wars. Mass bloodletting on an unprecedented scale. What happens when the beast is unleashed.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, David.
I'm a retired Marine officer and I saw - in the recent unpleasantness - what it looks like when we "Cry Havoc!"
I'm not for military adventurism abroad, but I also think if one doesn't have something for which they are willing to fight, then they don't really have anything at all.
> What happens when the beast is unleashed.
The Russians put the beast back to it's place. Again.
Russians are White.
I suspect the politically correct haven't seen Zulu. An aversion to "inappropriate" racial stereotypes in films from the past comes at a price. 😜
Some day, a movie will be made about the Rhodesian Bush War. Most lopsided casualties in history. They won every battle and it wasn't even close ... yet still lost the war. It's a gloriously tragic epic with many lessons for all of us.
I could imagine if that was crowdfunded it could have a budget of $500m lol. It would be a nice bellweather to test things.
As Americans say, when blacks get angry they inexplicably burn down their own neighborhood; when whites get angry they'll need to redraw the maps.
Level 1: "Now wait just a moment...."
Level 2: "Hold on, buddy...."
Level 3: "Newsflash, pal...."
Level 4: "You just hold your horses...."
Level 5: *Heavily armed storm troopers marching in formation with death in their frozen blood and devastation written in their ice cold eyes*
Ha ha. I have seen those memes.
One of my favourite variations is the German one.
The top pic is German men in lederhosen dancing - When you visit Germany.
The bottom pic is a Panzer tank and young uniformed Germans with Flammenwerfers - When Germany visits you. Lol.
I think we've just committed our daily quota of hate crimes. The ADL may want a word.
Kek
> “The folks in government need to realize that historically... like, for all of human history, white people don’t lose wars of survival.”
Depends on which White people. The Gauls once stretched from Spain to modern Turkey, and have been gradually pushed back to the fringes of the North Atlantic ever since.
White on White is of course an entirely different question.
Julius Caesar did a number on ‘em. Maybe 1 million killed during his campaigns in Gaul.
Ireland has Connor sounding the alarm.
America has Alex sounding the alarm.
"We are supposed to say we are for Hammas sneaking in and attacking a bunch of innocent people or we are for Israeli ethnic cleansing.
No how bout this, I'm not part of your operation.
I'm not gna sit here and watch while my life and my children's lives are ruined while you put your wreckage in my country. I demand Benjamin Netanyahu take 20 Palestinians into his house and I demand his candy ass son in Miami suit up in body armor and go to Gaza and fight these people or get the hell out of my world and I don't say this because I hate jews. I say this because I'm not a toilet bowl for you to sit on and shit on"
Alex Jones
Extremely based.
The suggestion that Israel can export its problems to our countries, and that we should thank them for the privilege, is the sort of arrogance that invites Nemesis.
Alex Jones is based (and entertaining) but historically illiterate. The West (above all the UK and the US) assisted the Arab League in weaponizing the Palestinian refugee issue from 1948 onwards. The US played a central role in establishing UNRWA (the UN agency that services the refugees) and at the time the US expected the Arabs to win the conflict. The US and its allies also agreed to create a special definition of refugee for the benefit of the Palestinians alone. Plenty of work for Nemesis.
The urgent priority for the West IMHO should be repudiating the international convention on refugees. This confers an automatic right for refugees to cross borders and is the legal foundation for Europe's permanent refugee crisis. So long as the treaty stands there is no way to protect Western peoples from being swamped. Blow-hards like Alex Jones never discuss this.
Yep. I've heard that treaty cited quite often by the globalist scum and their useful idiot fellow travelers. They love nothing more than doing an end run around the national interest under color of law.
International law is an astonishing force multiplier because domestic governance has to be fully compliant with official commitments. It lends unjustified respectability to every conceivable mischief. Normies give the system the benefit of the doubt because politicians never explain that international agreements are designed to take issues out of the hands of electorates. Turning the rule of law into a skinsuit for the Longhouse is a civilization-ending event.
On the other hand, international treaties such as the UNRWA are essentially gentleman's agreements within the elite club of the transnational class. They lack direct enforcement arms outside of occasional trade sanctions, and rely instead largely on the elite of a given country wanting to be part of the club. The entire system is very fragile.
International law is legally phony though. Saying it overrides the Constitution and national law is just a bluff. Treaties are by definition voluntary opt-in agreements by signatory nations and cannot override their laws. Very explicitly so in US law, and every other country if you just think it through.... at least if anyone was actually following laws and Constitutions. As we know, they are going to do what they want now anyway, because they have enough power to get away with it, so international law and treaty talk is really just an excuse for elites/leaders to minimize pushback when they disregard law, not about following higher laws.
Main point is, repudiating any treaty or international law would not make the problem go away. However, if you put enough pressure on gov't to do it, the fact that you rallied that much political pressure itself would be the important part. With the gov't on the right side of the issue, the treaty could just be ignored or overriden by domestic law.
Correct. There is actually no such thing as "international law", just a series of treaties the provisions of which are open to endless interpretation. Even more spurious is the oft-quoted "international humanitarian law" which REALLY doesn't exist but is wielded like a cudgel whenever white people have to defend themselves. It's a make-it-up-as-we-go-along law.
Next time you encounter someone wielding "international humanitarian law", simply ask them to cite their legal authority and which precise law is being broken. Stand back and watch them mentally flatline.
Our occupation government has been laying the groundwork for this for a long time, coordinating things at the international level to subvert local autonomy.
Been saying more-or-less the same thing for 25 years now, using different words and in my language (obviously).
It's not our fault. It's not our responsibility. Leave them to it. Keep them out. Send any intruders packing. Offer to do business with them - trading - but nothing more.
That goes for all conflicts and countries in Africa and Asia.
Same principle as when talking early parole from prison or court mandated stay in mental hospital: the released person is to go live with the family of the judge or psychiatrist deciding their release. They don't want that person in their home, they don't want to pay indefinite welfare for a criminal or a psycho, then that criminal or psycho stays locked up.
Can't say fairer than that, no?
A few years ago I saw a clip of a journalist walking around Stockholm asking people if they supported refugees. They all said yes. Then he asked if they'd be willing to put them up in their own homes. He even had a Somali migrant with him to help press the point. They all said no. It was hilarious.
If it was a swedish journalist, it must have been Jens Ganman or Chang Frick or Mats Dagerlind.
I know Tim Pool visited years ago and our main-stream media nearly prolapsed that an "american right-wing christian conservative white supremacist" was allowed into the nation and even worse was allowed to move freely and report whatever he liked un-edited for political suitability.
I'm not making this up: these were the publicly expressed sentiments of our most prominent jounralists and not a few top-level politicians at the time.
Yes, it was a Swedish journalist.
Hilarious that they'd describe the milquetoast libertarian Pool in such terms. I don't think he even goes to church, and in 2016 he was anti-Trump.
It serves very well to show foreigners how extreme the "middle" swedish politics is: Tim Pool is considered to be one armband away from full nazi.
For many, even the act of partaking of other media than nation regime-loyal ones or state media is seen as beyond the pale, like a thing that's simply not done - no matter how they vote.
It probably reflects the circles I moved in, but I met quite a few Swedes who went hard in the other direction. There's a powerful undercurrent of reaction in Swedish society moving just beneath the surface.