… “progressives” don’t have to travel abroad to feel smug:
She did not look at, nor speak to the other boys and the game went on for at least half an hour. She’d chat with her girl friends … then head to her brother’s table … after she left, he’d chat to his friends about what she had just said. It appeared as if she were taking verbal messages back and forth between the two groups …
They are willing to kill for their way of life.
We are willing to whine on internet forums to preserve ours.
Gee, I wonder who will win?
Gee, I wonder who will win?
~Dystopian Optimist
Our patience has it’s limits.
We’re much better at killing when we decide it’s time to kill.
You should read a few history books.
Oz: One of the problems with Western society is that it doesn’t do the intellectual or preventative work while there is time. Instead, it waits and waits until there is crisis before reacting, and the resultant fix tends to be extreme.
When it comes to armed conflict, the West does only one type well, and that is Total War. It utterly destroys its enemies … but on the flip side it has no stomach for protracted conflicts or even minor brush-ups that can often prevent the larger conflict later on.
Even internally, we’ll generally eat a lot of guano before we react … but then it’s too late for minor tweaks.
Why are we importing Muslims into this country? Everyday I talk with Ukranians, Poles, Brits, etc. who are here and trying to get the rest of their family to Canada. They are not having much luck. In the old days we opened the doors to Poles, Ukranians, etc and let them all in without having the necessary skills and education. Guess what ….they didnt sit around on welfare and riot…they worked and made a life for themselves in Canada. Name me one country in world where there are Muslims and there is peace. No such place. Do you think that Muslims here in Canada are going to be different from Muslims all over the world? It is their so called religion that bounds them to a life of violence, perversion. oppression, etc.
No more Muslim immigration…..stop this now Mr. Harper. Canadian people will love for for it….nobody I know in Canada has any love for Muslims.
Oz
Your comment has much merit.
I tend to concur with Victor Davis Hansen….the main reason the Europeans, who swarmed out of Europe at the end of the 14th century, and proceeded to conquer the world…was simply because they were more efficient killers.
The counter argument, that The failed Crusades counter this ignores the simple inconvenient truth that the Crusaders successfully held the Levant for centuries, and the Levant did not represent a market for Eurpean goods or a source of resources…..or provide liebensrom for surplus population as did North America.
However when ME petrolium and the Suez gained importance…..the ME was promptly conquered.
Persia, left nominally independant was swiftly over-run, following Barbaroosa, by the British and Russians almost overnight.
Indeed the discovery of the New World, immediately solved a dilemma for Spain, post Reconquista…what to do with the surplus of landless warriors…the Hildagos…dispatched to the new World as Conquistidors
“..today’s…mass migration, coupled with the destructive influences of biculturalism, multiculturalism, bilingualism, multilingualism, dual citizenship, and affirmative action, have combined to form the building blocks of a different kind of society—where aliens are taught to hold tightly to their former cultures and languages, balkanization grows, antagonism and conflict are aroused, and victimhood is claimed at perceived slights.”
“Liberty and Tyranny”, Mark. R. Levin, pp160, 2009
The well-being of society depends “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.
Alexander Hamilton
“The policy of multiculturalism was an invitation to newcomers to maintain their own respective religious-cultural values, while embracing cultural relativism—the belief that all cultures are equal…Liberalism’s silence on group identity and group right was…a recognition that when the individual and collective collide, the freedom of the individual take precedence. By promoting multiculturalism, Western liberals began undermining liberalism, since all groups do not embrace liberal values equally, and Muslims, in particular, remain resistant to the idea of individual rights and gender equality…
…In practice, multiculturalism had tended towards a plural “monoculturalism” that allow cultural groups to withdraw into their own spaces…
…new arrives—in particular, Muslims from the Arab-Muslim countries—who came from outside of the West cultural boundaries and were not prepared to fully accept the host country’s culture…constructed their own cultural wall between the host country and themselves, assisted with funds from oil-rich Arab countries…the Muslim children of the new arrivals who came of age in the 1990s found themselves caught between two worlds—that of their parents, to which they could not return, and that of the West, which their parents did not fully accept…This generation of youth has been inducted into the globalized version of an historical Islam that harkens back to an idealized and airbrushed seventh century…which emphasizes the collective Muslim identify of the ummah—the community of believers…
Immigration Policy and the Terrorist Threat, Salim Mansur, Cpt 2 (2008)
The reason the Europeans are good at killing is that they kill each other at the drop of a hat. Since the A bomb they have restrained themselves except for Bosnia, Croatia and Kossovo.
Clunk wrote:
“When it comes to armed conflict, the West does only one type well, and that is Total War. It utterly destroys its enemies … but on the flip side it has no stomach for protracted conflicts or even minor brush-ups that can often prevent the larger conflict later on.”
Can you think of a single example of this ‘Total War’ thingie?
Plains of Abraham? No.
Revolutionary War? No.
1812? No.
Civil War? Perhaps.
Mexican War? No.
WW I? No.
WWII? No.
Korea? No.
Viet Nam? No.
Iraq? No.
Afghanistan? No.
Are you thinking maybe, Spain versus the Incas?
And knowing our aversion to protracted conflict, wouldn’t an observant enemy use that strategy?
Cjunk @ 12:23, exactly. The lead up to 1939 would be an example.
I can’t tell which is worse, the tribalistic violence of these cultural throw-backs or the interventionist over reaction of the state? I mean siezing all their property ?? Just pack ’em up and ship ’em back where they can practise their violent lifestyle without intrusion – best for everyone.
I’m confused, is this not why they call unproven hypothesis “theories”?
Dystopian: the definition of total war is that you try to defeat your enemy on the field of combat using decisive battles. The cost in lives and material of this style of war is enormous. Many of your example are, in fact, examples of total war where the goal was to bring about a complete defeat of the other side. Just because you don’t go nuke; doesn’t mean you are not engaged in total war.
WW1 and WW2 of your examples are clearly total war where the struggle became one of epic battles where all the resources available at the moment were employed, and in the end victory came about as much from material superiority as military.
Perhaps I should’ve used the term “decisive war” instead of Total War, where the goal is to utterly defeat the enemy using “almost all” means available in the shortest time possible using decisive battles. Surprisingly, this is a uniquely Western notion going all the way back to the Greeks … tribal wars seldom led to decisive defeats, only a shifting of the deck chairs. Protracted war is also a tribal concept … not Western.
Occam,
The Muslims will self-deport if they feel threatened by our culture if we refuse to accomodate things like:
-facial coverings
-foot baths
-multiple wives
-5 times/day prayer breaks
-Muezzin loudspeakers on their Mosks
-allowing husbands to accompany wives in hospitals when sterile conditions are necessary and the doctor is a male
-dual citizenship
etc.
The Koran states they are not supposed to live in Dar al-Harb anyway.
Cjunk:
But you had stated earlier that Total War “utterly destroys its enemies”.
In none of the examples I gave, was the enemy utterly destroyed. Shortly after WW II, both Germany and Japan soon regained their economic and cultural might. It was Britain, one of the nominal victors, that never regained it’s position in world affairs.
The point here, is for the West not to assume that its mythical superiority in ‘Total War’, will result in ultimate victory.
By utterly destroy, I meant it in the historic understanding of the “battle”, where you deploy all means at your disposal and keep killing until your opponent loses the will to fight. In battle it means that you keep fighting until either you or he retreats or surrenders. It makes Western styles of war incredibly costly in lives and material.
The Iraq War was an example … where Iraqi forces were engaged as aggressively as possible until they collapse everywhere; any read of the war shows how utterly brutal American forces in particular were.
The “occupation” phase was not “Western” in nature … and thus it became the most contentious. Everyone was on side as long as the fight with Iraqi forces was “total” … go big or go home.
The concept is rooted in “democratic states” and/or nations where there is a class of freemen besides nobility. They don’t want to leave their crops, cities, lives, to get bogged down … so they’ll wait and wait until the only option is War … and when that comes they go into with one thing in mind … winning as quickly as possible. Blitzkrieg … massive invasion … civilian aerial bombing campaigns, etc., are all part of getting it over with max force.
When Western armies collide though, the cost is unbelievable because both sides use the same conceptual basis. WW2 … only 6 years long, but what a cost.
So, we excel at total war … we suck at protracted conflicts … and it spills over into how we deal with potential threats within our own borders.
In true total war, you take no prisoners. Why the phak would you?
They slow you down too much.
Those that don’t run away,have more incentive however. Separates the men from the conscripts.
Estimates of 50 million dead in WW II because of ignoring Hitler until they had no choice.
“We’re much better at killing when we decide it’s time to kill.”
Well, some of us may be,but that history you refer to happened because of a far better generation or two of tough,self-reliant Canadians who are now dead or occupying old folks homes.
The average Canadian city-dweller today is a cross between Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff,and you certainly can’t count on those types to conduct physical violence.
Wishful thinking aside, were Canadians to attempt to take up arms against the Muslims, the federal government would order out the JTF 2,accompanied by every cop in Canada,to stomp on us hard.
Take a long look at Caledonia,that is the fate that awaits Canadians who try to assert their rights.
No, as I posted over at CJunk, we might as well fight fire with fire,a nd ALL convert to Islam, start our own sect,appoint our own Imams, start our own Sharia Courts,and steal the Country back from the politically correct elites that are allowing us to be conquered from within.
eastern paul: In true total war, you take no prisoners.
An interesting concept, but virtually never happened in history on a large scale. Total War meant engaging most of your resources toward the process, and on the battle field it meant seeking out epic battles where there was a clear win or loss.
How many prisoners you took or slaughtered was tangential, because the goal was simply to make them give up the will to fight not only that battle, but the war. In fact, butchering prisoners was often shunned because it was seen as leading to greater resistance on the part of your enemy the next time around. Why quit when you are going to get killed if captured?
but that history you refer to happened because of a far better generation or two of tough,self-reliant Canadians
That’s a myth that they were better.
I knew them, my parents were born in 1922, and they weren’t better than we are.
No myth,oz. They survived two World Wars and a major depression that would have today’s generations reeling in shock and crying out for “the government to DO something”.
Maybe it wasn’t the entire generation of pre-1920’s folks that I knew,as I was acquainted with country folks,not city dwellers. They were people that could and did survive on their own.
Better? Depends on your yardstick,I suppose. But I found an entirely different set of morals and sense of duty in that generation than I see in the “me” generation today.
The people in charge of our Country today can’t even face up to a small group of thieves and usurpers stealing a housing development from the rightful owners. I have no faith in our Leaders or our citizens to stand up to a well-organized,united and aggressive faction.
They survived two World Wars and a major depression that would have today’s generations reeling in shock and crying out for “the government to DO something”.
Some of them did and some of them didn’t survive.
They were the generation that gave us the welfare state, they DID cry out for the government to do something.
Their counterparts in Europe embraced Socialism, Facism, and Communism.
Many of them over here did the same.
FDR and WLM King were eugenicists, socialists, and facists.
That generation did riot, they unionized, they organized.
The American munitions factory workers struck more than 2000 times during WWII for higher wages and better conditions.
They were the ones who gave us SS/CPP.
The were the ones who returned home from Europe and Left the USSR stronger than it was before the war instead of finishing the job while they were over there with superiority in aircraft, supplies, and a monopoly on the A-bomb.
The Soviets couldn’t even feed themselves.
The “Greatest Generation” were Not better than we are.
Every war we have faced since WWII has had the Russians behind it, including this one, and my parent’s generation was full of Communists and Socialists which is why they didn’t finish the job back in the 1940s.
Oz>
“They were the generation that gave us the welfare state………”
Maybe so, but that generation didn’t foresee the millions upon millions of third world squatters that would come to take advantage of what they perceived as an earned safety net for their families and communities.
They lived in simpler times without a crystal ball to see Globalization sweep their future generations into a third world socialist/ pseudo communist existence.
We know better, we need to change it back to rights.
If ENOUGH Canadians decided that enough was enough, there wouldn’t be enough cops and soldiers to contain us. The real tragedy of Caledonia was that the affronted property owners had no one at their backs. If 10,000 supporters showed up, or even one-tenth that number, the government would have had to re-evaluate its actions. To the extent that we just sit here, we deserve what’s happening.
“If ENOUGH Ontarians decided that enough was enough”
There, fixed it for ya.
If you think mcGinchy would respond to anyone other than the constituents who put him in office then you haven’t thought it through.
From the looks of the recent election there, Ontarians can’t get enough of mcGinchy.
What should have been at their backs was the rule of law,not the political opportunisim of Dalton McGuinty and Julian Fantino.Those people had a right to expect that the law of the land would protect them.Instead that supposed law stood by while they were terrorized and intimidated by thugs,most of whom had never held a job or ever contributed a nickle to the society they were demanding retribution from.These people can Boo Hoo on the shoulders of the lefties all they want but their entitlements are like a bank account,before you can take something out you have to put something in.