Whither the West?

Watching CNN last night, they had a special on Osama bin Laden that raised several interesting points on the so-called war on terror. One segment showed a Belgium jihadist going back to Afghanistan on bin Laden’s orders to kill a powerful warlord that was problematic to the Taliban, to gain the Taliban’s cooperation in allowing him to operate within their territory. But that was not the interesting part of the piece.

It also displayed how Islamists can martyr themselves so easily. This man’s wife, still in Belgium, was very proud of her husband’s sacrifice (though her face was veiled—maybe he desired release from her). She indicated that she was getting praise from her friends and kin, and she also received money from bin Laden. This makes this form of extremism much more difficult to comprehend, as Western morals do not allow suicide without bringing great shame and grief to friends and relatives. I know that one restraint for not lashing out at someone else violently, or even verbally in this politically correct world, is the fear of hurting my people. But what if violence was seen as honorable, with my family being proud of my actions? A very different set of circumstances emerges.

We were also led to believe that democratizing the Middle East would also liberate the oppressed women under strict Islamic rules. When I worked in Saudi Arabia 25 years ago, it was assumed by Westerners that these women needed to be liberated, but that does not seem to be the case—the women are as fanatically religious as the men. Any type of liberation from that fanaticism will take some time to overcome for both Islamic men and women, though I certainly do not embrace them doing it on Western soil.

After 9/11, I was hoping that instead of fighting another Vietnam, that the West would instead just stop immigration, and clamp down on the Islamists already here, deporting as many as possible. Instead, immigration as national policy has been so persuasively sold to Westerners that we are still unable to close our borders, even though the Department of Homeland Security is well aware of jihadists now crossing the Mexican border (see Buchanan’s State of Emergency). So focused was Bush and the neocons on democratization/pacification of the Middle East, they lost site of a rational approach to fighting terrorism.

Our only hope now is that an all-out war, World War Three, may bring around another sea-change in public opinion. 100 years ago the West was racialized and clearly understood that immigrants were not all the same. Then, through the twentieth-century, radical egalitarianism displaced racialism through indoctrination from the media, academia, and government. The pendulum I believe is swinging back towards a more balanced and empirical appreciation of human and tribal differences, but it is a slow process. But a major war could help accelerate a backlash against the current liberalism.

The down side is that we could also be flooded by millions of refugees, like after the Vietnam War, only far worse. I am not sure that Whites have enough tribalism to secure for themselves a future without complete mongrelization. (See Kevin MacDonald’s excellent chapter on how Whites may fair in these future conflicts at http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/whither.htm.)

Posted by Matt Nuenke on Monday, September 11, 2006 at 02:03 PM in Demographics
Comments (9) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Daedalus on September 11, 2006, 02:46 PM | #

War has traditionally played a major role in changing American racial attitudes. The American Revolution, Civil War, and the Second World War/Cold War were all followed by major bouts of racial egalitarianism. The Mexican War, Spanish-American War, King Philip’s War, French and Indian War, and the other various Indian Wars of the nineteenth century had just the opposite effect. As a rule, wars against nonwhites tend to harden American racial attitudes whereas wars against other white nations have usually been corrosive of racial identity.

The best example of this is WW2. The war against the Nazis forced Americans to stress their commitment to their egalitarian principles whereas the war against Japan led to renewed fears about the “Yellow Peril” on the West Coast. So, in the long run, the “War on Terror” might be a plus for us in some ways; the ever present threat of nonwhite barbarian hordes has already gone a long way towards undermining multiculturalism in Western Europe. PC hasn’t been totally defeated, but it has been somewhat weakened.

Posted by James Bowery on September 11, 2006, 09:56 PM | #

The future of warfare looks very different from WW I and WW II due to psycho clown immigration policy.

As I previously predicted there is a very good chance that a literal confligration could consume the west—not nuclear but fuel-air—triggered by the US’s use of thermobaric weapons against rebel forces.

If this happens don’t expect martial law to produce anything but profound resistance among the US citizens that are now getting wise to the psycho-clown governance that has utterly failed to reprsent their best interests.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 11, 2006, 11:39 PM | #

“The future of warfare looks very different from WW I and WW II due to psycho clown immigration policy.” (—James)

This is exactly what’s going on: war today is being waged using forced race-replacement as the weapon of mass destruction, forced race-replacement being not just the physical bringing-in of wholly-incompatible Third-World populations in replacement volumes but also the entire governmental panoply of laws, policies, rules, directives, and punishments which together force the subordination of whites to non-whites and mandate punishments ranging from a slap on the wrist to heavy fines plus hard jail time for whites who dare to question any of it. This weapon of mass destruction the élites are using against us is way more powerful and efficient than all the thermonuclear devices, poison-gas stockpiles, and germ-warfare labs in existence.

Posted by Boris on September 12, 2006, 12:20 AM | #

Matt
You’re not distinguishing two separates circumstances. Violence has nothing to do with it, but it merely a by-product of one of this two circumstances:
1- This arabs do not commit suicide(think about it, they don’t just kill themselves they take someone down with them, hows is that different than Marines strategy?) rather they commit martyrdom. Think this is alien to western society?
2- Present the Dutch boy who to his peril kept the dam plugged in with himself, again to his peril. Is this suicide or martyrdom?
We’re both capable of martyrdom, or cause just seems to stress it less…..................

Posted by Boris on September 12, 2006, 12:27 AM | #

To cap things off:
Sacrifice is not only no longer ‘needed’ it’s intentionally discouraged by the ruling elites(fill in the blanks here if you’re aware). In other words their grip on this mindless, consumerism intensive, racially correct society(in which white girls routinely express desire for big black athletes, out of the misconception that they somehow are more sexually gifted than whites) is all consuming. Enter the jokeyfycation and the dumming down of America.
The information age can stay with the jews.
We should go back to the industrial age.

Posted by Matt Nuenke on September 12, 2006, 08:07 AM | #

Boris,

I should not have used the term suicide. Bad choice of words. Humans have always died in different ways for their tribe—that is the accepted means change but the result is the same. If you are one of many, and can kill an enemy, it can be a service to your people.

Posted by James Bowery on September 12, 2006, 11:58 AM | #

The real long term question for any people is how do they compensate for the dysgenic effects of altruistic self-sacrifice.

Posted by Boris on September 12, 2006, 04:58 PM | #

Matt
The fact that self sacrifice is no longer predicated by the elites is a more telling story. It implies the fact that they know that in the long run this may lead to their downfall, therefore they do not ask for it. Quite to the opposite their responce in times of crisis has never been that of the WWII generation but rather one of going to the mall and restaurants and spending money. Ask ourselves why there is no draft, why taxes haven’t been raised, why there’s no reasonable rationing, why voluntarism hasn’t been stress more on the population. the answer is simple, this ‘wars’ we’re fighting are crap and nothing more than smoke and mirrors. To ALL of our serviceman/woman thank you for serving and dying for us, but the truth is this no war of 1812(probably the only war of agression the US has ever suffered, WWII was very limited in scope, its not the same to attack HI. and AK.) Just because I consider this war totally useless don’t think I don’t support our troops, I want them back home enough of them have been injured or died. Yeah, and stop all that MAD borrowing we’re doing .

Posted by rustymason on September 12, 2006, 06:45 PM | #

Our only hope now is that an all-out war, World War Three, may bring around another sea-change in public opinion.

Our best hope is for WWIII? I’m sorry, but I don’t quite see that.

Next entry: The Taming of Chance

Previous entry: SAT State Ranking Adjusted for Participation Rates

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa