Saturday, January 23, 2016

Western suicide.

Mark Steyn has written a seminal article on the likely extinction of the West. Western intellectual confusion and political dishonesty have simply sent the West down a ghastly dead end. While our leaders dither, Muslims and primitive Africans stream completely unopposed into Europe. And all the Europeans can do is scramble to evict their own citizens and soldiers from their apartments and barracks to accommodate their invaders.

We have, notes Steyn, developed a fascination with the trivial and have an astonishing inability to recognize the immediate threat of enemies flooding into our countries. Our preoccupations are suicidal, whether they are, focusing on America now, Donald Trump's conservatism, homosexual weddings, welfare benefits, "free" health care, the latest stupidities to boil out of the endlessly-aggrieved black soul, or the delicate sensibilities of our resident Muslim enemies.

We are focused on the vapid, the stupid, the ignorant, the obscene, the transient, and the cheap. The word "gun" causes highly educated people in their distant suburban or gated and guarded communities to experience moistness. Illiterates vote and subversives control our schools. We fawn over the foreigner. Certain of our citizens give their children names not even found in a Tarzan novel and smirk at their creativity. The same citizens turn great cities into slums, two-way shooting galleries, and new habitats for wild turkeys. Citizens who object are persecuted. Public officials at all levels cannot master simple arithmetic and their powers of foresight drop off exponentially three days in the future or at quitting time on Friday, whichever comes first.

Westerners are failing to get a grip and that failure will destroy the West:

If you look at European election results--most recently in Germany--it's hard not to conclude that, while voters are unhappy with their political establishments, they're unhappy mainly because they resent being asked to reconsider their government benefits and, no matter how unaffordable they may be a generation down the road, they have no intention of seriously reconsidering them. . . .

This isn't a deep-rooted cultural difference between the Old World and the New. It dates back all the way to, oh, the 1970s. If one wanted to allocate blame, one could argue that it's a product of the U.S. military presence, the American security guarantee that liberated European budgets: instead of having to spend money on guns, they could concentrate on butter, and buttering up the voters. If Washington's problem with Europe is that these are not serious allies, well, whose fault is that? Who, in the years after the Second World War, created NATO as a postmodern military alliance? The "free world," as the Americans called it, was a free ride for everyone else. And having been absolved from the primal responsibilities of nationhood, it's hardly surprising that European nations have little wish to reshoulder them. In essence, the lavish levels of public health care on the Continent are subsidized by the American taxpayer. And this long-term softening of large sections of the West makes them ill-suited to resisting a primal force like Islam.[1]

Mr. Steyn's article about the grim demographics of the Western world – and the feeble Western thinking that has imperiled the West – is now 10 years old. This is a veritable lifetime considering the pace at which Western leaders are eagerly importing their enemies. Westerners are not only fascinated by the trivial but simply have no concept that there are tectonic forces at work and that time is running out on them at a frightful rate.

Now think about what it means when Angela Merkel, in the face of the invasion of over a million Muslim and African primitives, can only bring herself to say, "We can handle this." A more ineffectual, irrelevant, and cowardly response is difficult to imagine.

Notes
[1] "It's the Demography, Stupid The real reason the West is in danger of extinction." By Mark Steyn, Wall Street Journal, 1/4/06.

4 comments:

  1. Hi Col. B. Bunny,

    Thank you for posting this, it's a great article.

    Maybe it is just 'splitting hairs' but I consider it important
    to refer to the mentally challenged followers of mo-hamm-head
    as moslems, not muslims for the reason listed below:

    "According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, “Moslem and Muslim are basically the same word.” But the choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means”one who gives himself to God,” and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means”one who is evil and unjust” when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.)"

    Whether they're arabs or africans, a follower of the child raping, murderous, false prophet mo-hamm-head are moslems and to call them muslims gives them and his ideology of islam (a puturid militaristic expansionistic totalitarian death cult) an aura of legitimacy that it never deserved.

    Yours In Libertyy!!!
    Northgunner

    ReplyDelete
  2. True story. And the cause of my belief Western Civ - including here in America - is FUBARed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yep. "moslem" from here on in.

    Of course, someone is monitoring this website. So free speech means the exact opposite of what we may have thought it means.

    Hmmm. . . a Moslem in Arabic means ”one who is evil and unjust”

    So, we perhaps SHOULD call Obama, Holder, Jones, et. al., moslems?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, Northgunner. That's interesting. I didn't know of the distinction. I've been tempted to revert to the older "Mohammedan" which is more neutral though it does have the added benefit of emphasizing that the Muslims' real worship is of the man not of Allah, though maybe it's a mixture. Since the god of the Muslims is a cruel and vindictive one Muslim may be a perjorative as well.

    I can go either way on this but think, upon mature reflection, I shall stick with "Muslim" as it keeps the focus on the cause of the problem, the savage nature of their deity. "Moslem" seems to cut a little too wide a swath and eliminates those who have a conscience despite the doctrines. I have in mind the minister in Pakistan who was murdered because he advocated dialing down the hysteria there on the issue of blasphemy. I think the crux of the problem is the doctrine of death for apostasy. But for that the terminology would be beyond insignificant.

    Glad you liked the Steyn article. It's like a three-alarm fire alarm for anyone who wants to consider the implications of our present course. Alas, the perspective of most of the political class is measured in weeks not decades.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.