Friday, September 4, 2015

The intentional destruction of the West.

We do not know the exact population figures of the Roman Empire nearly two thousand years ago. Estimates vary from around 40 million people to over 100 million people. A relatively common estimate is that the total population of the Roman Empire was about 60-80 million people….

By comparison, in 2013 the world’s population grew by 75 million people annually…. Various estimates suggest a global population growth of between 70 and 80 million for 2015…. This means that the world’s population is now adding another Roman Empire every single year, maybe more. Most of this increase is concentrated in dysfunctional countries and regions.

About fifteen hundred years ago Europe underwent a turbulent age which has been named the Migration Period. Yet the population movements then were more limited than those facing Europe today. In both speed and sheer numbers, the current migration waves are far greater than those we associate with the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire.

It is completely unrealistic to solve basic problems through the international migration of billions of people. Most social problems of countries in the global South must be resolved locally. There is simply no other option.[1]

This is one man, Fjordman, a private individual, who is able to do this research and make this kind of an analysis. Entire nations in the West, with astonishing resources, cannot bring this kind of thinking into their council chambers and executive suites.

Western governments are entirely passive in accepting the relocation decisions of millions of individual third-world people who have no idea of civic obligation to their own countries, and certainly have no sense of civic obligation to any white country to which they demand entry. Imagine that. "Demand entry."

Their only purpose is to take jobs from whites, live off of their charity, and enjoy what whites have worked to build over the centuries. If white nations implode or turn into unrecognizable concrete ant hills of resentment and violence toward whites, well, so much the better.

I am being charitable when I say that Western governments are passive in their acceptance of this madness. More accurately, it is clear that they actively pursue this destruction of their countries.

Three logical approaches show this to be true.

1. Holmesian logic.

Consider these four possibilities:

  • Western political elites are unaware of the problems created by prior mass immigration,
  • Western political elites are unaware of the problems posed by future mass immigration,
  • Western politicians love the native people of their own lands and celebrate their nations' dominant race and unique history, culture, and spirit, or
  • Western politicians are stupid.
These are all absurd. It is impossible that any one of them could be true.

Sherlock Holmes emphasized

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
Therefore, the operation of ignorance, stupidity, and love of one's own country and peoples being impossible to entertain, all that is left is the conclusion that Western leaders intend to destroy their own people by means of massive, uncontrolled immigration.

Consider, by way of emphasis, the third point in that list. If you watched the video on white genocide that I posted yesterday, you saw (13:28) former French president Nicolas Sarkozy give a speech on December 17, 2008 in which he said – while in office as the President of France – the following:

What is the goal? It is going to be controversial.

The goal is to meet the challenge of racial interbreeding [m├ętissage]. It's not a choice, it's an obligation. It's imperative. We cannot do otherwise. We risk finding ourselves confronted with major problems. We MUST change: therefore we WILL change. We are going to change.

On what day did this fool, noted French "conservative" and former interior minister, wake up and say to himself, "Self. Interbreeding with Africans and Arabs is something we HAVE to do. This thing where white French people prefer to mate with each other and not people of other races or of foreign origin has GOT to go"? When in all of history was this anything but a matter of personal preference that could take place without such a thing as the weight of the French government behind it? Does this count as preserving "your people"?

2. "What would they do differently" approach.

This second analytical aid merely asks, "If Western leaders do not intend the destruction of their nations and the extinguishment of their own people, what would they do differently from what they are doing now if in fact they did intend destruction?

What would a leader have to consciously and deliberately set out to do in order to turn his own country into a third-world glop with "no-go" zones in all major cities, elevated rape statistics, polygamists on the dole, periodic festivals of torching automobile, train bombings, large-scale child sex abuse operations, and absurd demands for the abolition of free speech and the imposition of shariah?

Why is it the ONLY option to "rescue" seafaring invaders who deliberately put themselves in harm's way, instead of turning them back at the source and discouraging further attempts? Isn't Turkey's complicity in this invasion an act of war? Or is such a question just plain crass?

Instead of taking action like cutting off immigration and telling chivvying Muslims to pound sand back in the Islamic paradise of their choice, Western leaders act like Islamic bitches. What they do officially is exactly what a visitor from outer space – or Indonesia – would do if tasked with an objective of destroying Western countries by non-military means.

3. "Intend the natural consequences of what you do" approach.

British courts in criminal cases do not equate foresight with intention but will instruct juries that intention to commit a crime can be established if there is evidence of foresight of the consequences:

[T]he greater the probability of a consequence occurring, the more likely that it was foreseen, and the more likely that it was foreseen, the more likely it is that it was intended.
The court of public opinion need not concern itself with the precise analysis of the courts (where throwing a cinder block off of a bridge through the window of a passing car isn't evidence of intent to murder) but may properly ask, What about importing 800,000 refugees or bogus asylum seekers doesn't make massive social, political, and economic problems an inevitability? Is the knowledge of hand grenade attacks in Malmo, Sweden – never before seen in Swedish history – not available to Western leaders? Are the 751 "sensitive urban zones" in France not known by them to be filled with Muslims and Africans seething with resentment against the French people?

Clearly, this is all known to these vicious people whose parents were not married to each other. Why not just fire a gun randomly into a crowd of your countrymen every 30 minutes? The deleterious consequences of immigration are no less likely to occur.

The absence of good will and stupidity, the adamant refusal to take appropriate defensive actions, and the obvious intent inferrable from deliberate actions make the willful, malign purpose of Western leaders quite clear.

[1] "The New Migration Period." By Fjordman, Gates of Vienna, 9/3/15 (footnotes and footnote numbering omitted).

No comments: