Why are catastrophes wishful thinking?
by Benjamin Noyles
Criticized for his “extremism” by Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye was a founding intellectual of the New Right whose ideas and methods are so fashionable today. Now that Convergence of Catastrophes has been translated from the original La Convergence des catastrophes (2004) courtesy of Arktos, we can actually make a proper analysis of this thinking, now that a decade has nearly passed – but from the results it should act as a real wake up call for us.
The premise of the book itself is really quite straightforward; there are a dozen catastrophes that are set to make significant change on the face of the earth, and the events are already in motion. Cataloguing snapshots from the time and drawing conclusions, Faye’s predictions range from a future where western states become third world countries like South Africa (a managed situation with an unclear outcome, but otherwise an end of ‘progress’ as he sees it) to a total collapse that sends the rest of the world back to the Neolithic era and white Europeans get a second chance. All this is happening very soon; Faye gives a timetable of of 2015-2020.
The first thing you will notice from reading is that the real purpose of the book is about wiping the smug grin off all of these annoying people we meet and their overpaid professors who all that think they are going to save the world with energy saving light bulbs, diplomatic talks, and homosexual rights activists. What else is the point of being a catastrophist? Every point Faye makes is qualified with scorn heaped on the liberals for being naive and stupid enough to allow all this – and he really lays it on with a trowel with lots of colourful analogy in case you didn’t get the point. It is here we run into major problems with the book.
Faye’s definition of liberalism is very narrow which means there isn’t much of a challenge; arguing that the idealistic thinking that has intellectuals churning out eccentric thesis for coming universal brotherhood like “IPod liberalism” (if everyone buys an IPod, everybody buys into liberalism) and “Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention”(no two countries with a McDonalds fast food restaurant have ever gone to war with each other). Faye contends that the collapse of the economic global structure that makes humanitarian practices possible signals the end of liberalism. This implies that liberalism requires mass markets, social democratic excess, and the current degree of cultural Marxism to continue survival. This is maybe the view that liberalism itself has also converged into a single post modern liberalism as Alexander Dugin has argued.
There is a great danger for us here. It is very reassuring to say liberalism as we know it will eventually come to end, it is a security blanket – Even Faye admits that the prospect of complete collapse and the world population being shaved by a few billion is the most comforting scenario as the white race will be given a second chance to survive. Does this give us a sufficient idea of what is going on so we can take the appropriate steps?
It is all very negative and arrogant, in true French style. Faye asserts from the start that liberals are stupid – why? Because they are not taking action or preparing, therefore they must be stupid. My first thought was if liberals are so stupid maybe they know something you don’t.
Consider carefully the following; Faye provides several fault lines which will spell the end of liberalism – these shouldn’t be anything new to you, but try to think in terms of developments since 10 years ago. These points are essentially a summary of the whole book.
1. A declining Europe where the social fabric is falling to pieces; so called ‘regenerated’ urban spaces are being turned into financial black holes by waves of parasitic third world immigrants – European capitals, national symbols heading the way of Detroit and there is system gridlock. Where they can people go on strike – nobody is working and everybody is demanding more benefits from the system. Business and the educated youth are fleeing the country where they can. A good quote to describe the system; “In our economy, we have piled the disadvantages of both capitalism and socialism without receiving any of the advantages from either system. From capitalism, we receive only the free market system and the irresponsible open border policy without being helped by the advantages of the freedom to create business; from socialism, we receive only centralisation, union corporatism, high taxes and bureaucracy, with no advantages from social justice, real social solidarity and right to a job.”
2. The golden horn of plenty that is the white man will reach breaking point. In Europe the demographic coma will serve as a tipping point when the boomers reach retirement age and there are not enough new taxpayers to replace them. The system will collapse under the weight of old people as millions of Europeans join the ranks of the retired and hand the feeding of their ‘pets’, bad habits, and unsustainable system to the children most did not themselves bother to have. Europe will lose a population of 100 million between now and 2050 and it only gets worse. Russia, a collapsed society of mostly i
mpoverished Europeans is what we can expect to be reflected in the rest of an impoverished Europe’s future – Russia a country where every year they lose a million people in a ratio of births to deaths. This combined with mass immigration will mean that within this century the nations of Europe will be completely erased.
3. By contrast to the decline of Europe the developing world has been doing lots of developing, and it will all collapse. In half a century world population has doubled especially in the new sprawling cities where it’s formerly subsistence peasant population aims for a middle class American lifestyle. This was simply a terrible idea, these new unstable centres have been established on a model that doesn’t suit them, and propped up by an international system – there is no local economy to fall back on and collapse will be disastrous. The teaming overpopulation of the global south will lead to humanitarian catastrophes and increased mass immigration. It is all too much for the world to bear; though in this instance humans will be the ‘adjustment variable’.
4. A resurgent Islam that will geopolitically threaten the liberal hegemony and whose terrorist atrocities will only increase in scope ‘giga-terrorism’. The role of Islam is the most important because it signalled the first major challenge to Fukuyama’s the ‘End of History’ – this was something liberals had been completely unprepared for. As it stands any continued efforts to defeat Islam militarily will only bring a victory for Islam.
5. A ‘North-South’ conflict. Anti white rhetoric and feelings of victimisation by ‘western imperialism’ provide a universal agreement on who to blame the minute anything goes wrong in the world as is surely the case. International relations will be strained and large third worldist blocs in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East will begin to take what they feel belongs to them. Playing out in demographic disparity on a global level, the collective rage and entitlement of the third world will be felt strongest on the front lines in Europe where civil war is inevitable and is already occurring. The subliminal message in daily stories of ethnic crime which on the face of it appears so cruel, pointless, and destructive – the refusal to integrate, resentment – is evidence we are already in a low key civil war.
6. Ecological disasters that will cause massive destruction and depopulate the earth. Flooding and drought caused by climate change will wreak coastlines and increase desertification. The return of a plague on a global scale is inevitable, and diseases like AIDS may well have only begun to reap their harvest.
7. Shortages; the presence of food and water will dramatically decline in some parts of the world which will promote conflict. There is no renewable energy source to replace the increasing demands on our finite resources.
8. Lastly the spectre of a looming financial crisis which is considered inevitable in an economy based on gambling and debt. This crisis will be worse than the great depression and because the world is globalised it will be a single world collapse. Though specific details can be somewhat vague – it is more implicit that all of the above will make modern economics impossible.
Those things considered they are all just as true today – but now they are explainable. There are any number of examples as to how every one of these points and the ensuing collapse scenario, might in some aspects accord with the long term survival of liberalism: population reduction and economic collapse is the key to disenfranchising the non essential consumer base, it would extend the life of the fossil fuel indefinitely, the collapse of the industrial nation state into manageable and financially enslavable localities is the EU-UN dream. Examples like these are what I am getting at with fatal oversight.
Now we return to Faye’s work with our blind spots uncovered to the long term aims of our enemy, the whole sobering truth is before us, and I think we got played.
The role if Islam is central to Faye’s theory because you have a the West whose goal of implementing global liberalism is being stonewalled by Islam yet the global elites are doing everything they can to destroy that west and empower the Muslims to the point where the Islamic world can conceivably win; their grandchildren have already beaten our grandchildren figuratively speaking. So what is going on here? The conclusion of Faye is that this is simply proof of liberalism’s short sighted stupidity and eventual extinction.
This is not so due to the stunning revelations of the past few years. Faye rightly predicted new Islamic revolutions, but assumed they would stem from what we as anti globalists considered ‘our people’ in the middle east; Libya, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran etc. Who would have believed a decade ago that these parties and regimes would be fighting for their lives and going under an uprising of Jacobin Islamic fundamentalism across the Middle East in 2011 – helped every step of the way by humanitarian airstrikes from NATO? Tens of thousands of foreign mujahedeen fighters who are still affectionately called democracy protestors by the media. Yes, Islamic fundamentalism has been co-opted into the liberal sphere – who the hell saw that coming?
The liberals did; Faye laughs at the absurd idealism being churned out of the institutions of the leftist elites about how the democracy cult will succeed in the Arab world. I remember this was when all the really absurd anti-Islamophobic stuff started to be pushed – followed by more hate speech laws, it seemed like such tripe at the time, It didn’t make sense – all western leaders were unanimous in stressing that this was not a conflict geared against Islam which was our ally, and how the reason for all this was that the Muslim world had not yet had its ‘renaissance’. Though we didn’t have the details, a great many other signs were there, but very few nationalists saw it and that is terrible. That is a major intelligence flaw.
Without the benefit of hindsight we find all those supposed inconsistencies and contradictions have purpose.
Islam was the axis on Faye’s judgment and now in one swoop most of the other points are now accounted for. There is no contradiction in allowing Islam into Europe for instance because they are on the globalist side as an occupying force and the policy of genocide against Europeans is back on a sane and rational course. Who cares if there is a collapse after that? It makes long term sense now; what better market is there for a post collapse society than a population of dumb, backwards, immaterial, and religiously obedient dirt people? It’s perfect, but that is market logic; the market doesn’t care about what your skin colour is, only who it can make the biggest buck off of – the point is to strip us till we have nothing to give before moving on to a new consumer base on the flip side.
There is a ‘convergence’, yes, but it is a managed energy flow – Muslims will be the new ‘West’ born untimely ripped out of Europe. The ‘catastrophe’ is for us, planned by our leaders well in advance. A decade long charade has been lifted and you just have to admire the sheer genius of it all.
So are they still stupid? Perhaps I am right or perhaps I am wrong, this though is a demonstration that we are missing something very crucial. Faye is correct that liberals as individuals may not be the smart people they are cracked up to be, but what he has missed is they have a world view that allows them to adapt, change, project itself into the future.
What this book proves it that without the same solid cause and plan of action on our side – that is the thousand year stare of a world view we will be unable to exploit any development, and the enemy will always be one step ahead.
Faye had his eye off the ball, and by targeting only the already doomed political class world of our current politicians he was putting all his eggs in one basket. How old is this political class and its values – the me generation elite? Only a few decades really, starting at the social revolution. What is to say that what comes after isn’t going to be worse?
With such disregard, Liberal worlds collapse all the time – but independently of one another; In our lifetimes we saw the collapse of a major egalitarian system; communism. Did the areas where it fell in Europe become less liberal? Were even euro-communists and Trotskyites affected by this event? If liberalism ever looks like it is on the way out it will come up with something else to replace it because even in one single liberal there are several contradicting positions. As Faye points out with his denigration of liberals, they are all narrative; big talks, empty speeches, stupid blogs, they will believe anything – that is not the substance of liberalism. Sitting and waiting for a collapse to happen will in no way guarantee a positive outcome, it is something that has to be worked towards; we have a job to do.
If we want a future we need to be thinking about it the same way the liberals do – modifying our approach to fit the events. The strength we lost in 1945 and haven’t been able to replicate since, we can have that again, we just have to bring it into the world with a well thought out plan. We can start cutting out a lot of movement deadwood, things that have weighed us down – all that patriotard stuff can go. A huge movement sticking point has been the inability to develop a new concept of nationalism that is separate from what exists, so its message and ideals cannot be misinterpreted or betrayed – what better precedent for this is there than anticipating the collapse of the modern nation state?
So there are many positive remarks to be said for the work of catastrophists like Guillaume Faye – it helps break down barriers and prejudices, grinds down pretention – it ties us to reality and things that are going on. Forward for the 2012 edition of Convergence of Catastrophes is by Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, stresses the progress that has been made – speaking of Faye;
“As one of the founders of the French New Right, he shared the group’s deep suspicion of Americans, and in his 2001 book Why We Fight he wrote at considerable length about ‘the American adversary’. I certainly do not support most of what the Unites States government does, but I believe Mr Faye was mistaken … Anyone with a vision of the West must look beyond governments to the people they misgovern, and what Mr. Faye and I discovered at the meeting in 2003 was, indeed , what became the theme of his 2012 talk: that the people of America and Europe are brothers-in-arms … For virtually any other member of the French New Right it would be heresy”
To conclude, the key to developing what is called a ‘total strategy’ is the ability to see our fight on a global international level – the closer we are to seeing the whole picture the easier it is to see what it is we are fighting for. When I say fight – I mean a real fight, observations like that of what Guillaume Faye provides the context for. We have comrades around the world, and by seeing what we have in common (not only that we face the same challenges but are in the same struggle) do we recognise it in a universal form that can adapt well enough to see us into the post-collapse future.
Br. Darby
- Edit
Fantastic review.
I have recently read Archeofuturism by Faye, and enjoyed his accurate predictions and observations of contradictory liberalism.
In regards to a fourth poltical theory, Archeofuturism will contribute to our required ideology, but still accepts a status quo, debt based, market-economy which for sure isn’t the future for our people. Talk of a two class system, essentially his master plan; where 20% are allowed to use technology, and the rest must revert to medieval lifestyles, is silly too. You need to look deep into the future, take evolution and genetics into account, to realise that a model like that would give birth to two separate races.
One system, one land, one people, one future. That’s the true vision for us European nationalists.
Steve
- Edit
Also consider the fuss over Iran getting the nuclear bomb, why is it a problem now when it wasn’t one when Pakistan developed one.
Wasn’t it Pakistan that made the technology available to moslem countries?
Aren’t we at war with Pakistan or at least the US is & we allow terrorists to come & go as they please but can’t get rid of them?
I’m sure moslem terrorists have no qualms about using a nuclear bomb if they got one.
Steve
- Edit
I am pretty certain that nature will wreak havoc amongst humans on a large scale, a minimum of a billion dead I predict.
Nothing is being done about the vertical population growth epecially in areas least able to support it.
It’s a clear disaster waiting to happen.
Instead our stupid politicians use climate change as an excuse to fleece us.
BritishActivism
- Edit
Maybe not particularly related to Fayes book or the article, but when it comes to the population growth you cite, what is one supposed to make of “philanthrocapitalism” and the pouring of $Billions into “charity” foundations?
.
(Foundations that apparently only need to give away 5% of their income to retain their charitable status and qualification? Such as Bill and Melinda Gates).
.
What is one to make of such foundations that own shares with companies like Monsanto and are embedded into the Rockefeller Foundation, Glaxo-SmithKline, and other companies that own vast swathes of product markets?
.
What is one to make of the $Billions they are spending to prevent deaths in Africa by sowing the land with GM crops and trying to reduce TB, Aids, Malaria and other killers like dysentery and polio?.
.
Is it all what it seems – wealthy people doing their bit to share the load and solve some of the plights of the most desperate in the world…….
.
……..or, is it in part an elaborate tax avoidance scheme, a plan to get the most desperate countries hooked into patented seeds and GM foods, and a potentially disastrous calamity?
.
A calamity in that by saving all these lives it could just serve to double, triple, or quadruple the populations who are least likely and least capable to sustain that development – thus potentially causing Billions of people to be starving and unemployed at a later date, or piling up a human catastrophe of a monumental kind by them being wiped out by severe famine and spontaneous ‘natural disasters’ like floods and earthquakes in huge numbers (that are currently unimaginable)? (Never mind the ever more vacant Europe being ripe for them to pour outwards to filling).
.
I have my suspicions, usually leaning towards the latter. Things are not always clear cut, and I have become much more distrusting, cynical, and blunt over the years.
.
The trouble is, the Bill Gates and Bonos’s of this world are heaped with praise for (supposedly) giving their wealth and aid to the worlds most needy – and it therefore gets hard to pose any sort of counter argument that would result in letting all these people in the worst parts of the world keep dying when such money is available. (Of course, they are worse for a reason, and no, it is not because of “racism” or “slavery” or “imperialism”).
.
Like many things in Nationalism though, especially to an untrained eye, we can so easily be seen as heartless, callous, uncaring, “haters” because we may take another line of thought which is deeply contrary to prevalent thinking. However, like many things, we often have very good reasons for taking the positions we do. They are often righteous positions which take humanity as it is, unlike the opposition who ignore realities in favour of unachievable (and often undesirable) ideals.
.
Would I deny money simply on the basis of some kind “race hate” (that the opposition would try and claim was the case) – No. That is not what it is about. Would I deny money because of a sense of nationalism and priority to our own people first, never mind a deep concern over the fraud? Yes. Would I deny money because it would be propping up a population which is incapable of sustaining itself (and that by being tough now meant that in the future many millions would be saved from a life of misery?) Yes.
.
So, taking on board what some may see as my ‘simplistic’ view, is Bill Gates and those of a similar philanthropic bent really the saints they are made to be? Or are they actually ‘well meaning’ sinners who are letting emotion rule over logic?
.
I haven’t had time to read the above book review yet, but will endeavour to do so – it was, after all, already on my “books to look at buying” list.
Steve
- Edit
Yes I have pondered “philanthrocapitalism” & the Georgia Guidestones.
One often put view is that capitalism, the corporation, has to continually grow & expand, it doesn’t remain stable at zero growth, everything is boom & bust, cyclical.
They don’t do “tick over”.
So they need to be in emerging markets as they’re at saturation point here.
I can’t gauge whether they (Bill & Bono) are well meaning or are knowingly serving an agenda.
I think the result will be a billion + dead.
Steve
- Edit
How about we talk about race love, not race hate?
The love of our race rather hatred of other ones.
To a certain extent that is being done with anti racism being shown as being anti white.
Steve
- Edit
“I have my suspicions, usually leaning towards the latter. Things are not always clear cut, and I have become much more distrusting, cynical, and blunt over the years.”
You & me both!
Steve
- Edit
I seem to remember someone from the Philippines being very relaxed about their population growth despite widespread poverty, they seemed to think that the rest of the world could take the surplus.
It looks like other countries have much the same attitude.
A selfish attitude to say the least of it!
frederickdixon
- Edit
So what happens when “the post collapse future” (to which this reviewer looks forward) fails to arrive because there is no collapse? I have a strong suspicion that the world we live in now will continue to struggle on for a long time yet. I’ve been around long enough to live through several “the end is nigh” scenarios – U.S./Soviet nuclear holocaust most obviously – but none of these things that terrified us ever materialised. That it is not to say that they won’t, but it would be a dereliction of duty to wait around hoping to be rescued by some sort of eucatastrophe.
We are, rather, faced with a catastrophe of a different kind. We have to assume that the erosion of the position of white people in all of our countries will continue, and probably accelerate, and will in time reach a point where it has become irreversible in the medium term – as it may already have done in the U.S. What we must do is build the institutions within which our race, nation and identity can survive and revive so that in the long term our descendants have a chance of retaking our countries. Transnational “white nationalism”, which our reviewer seems to favour, will not help to build those institutions because it because it has no popular traction; it is rather the old fashioned nationalism of “patriotards” like me which will do what is needed.
Steve
- Edit
At the moment it looks like we are going with the “Whimper not a bang” type exit!
BritishActivism
- Edit
If you have not already seen it, you may find the following video by Alex Kurtagic interesting. It discusses different forms of collapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O–TKIBPTog
.
I think it is a good video. I found it quite insightful. People like to mock these “intellectual” types of discussion – but I have always found content like this to be vitally important to think about, because if such matters are not given thought to, we could be wasting so much time doing the wrong things and just being machines robotically going about futile work in our own micro-bubble.
.
When it comes to a collapse, there are a lot of people out there with a kind of “worse is better” principle. These are people who long for some huge and sudden collapse in which they believe the white populace will rise up and take their own nation back for their people. The catalyst for some kind of magic bullet or knight on a white charger that will rectify everything.
.
I am not really one of them.
.
Whilst I appreciate that a sudden jolt is ideally required to prevent a slow and sleepy erosion (as we are heading on current trends), I do not generally agree with the premise that worse and worse conditions and “more and more immigration” etc will be beneficial to “waking people up” – or it being a straw that breaks the camels back, whereby people will suddenly rise up as a racial or national collective.
.
Nor do I think we can guarantee what type of “revolution” (should there be one) would occur and what form it would take. At the moment, it is even much more likely that some sort of Communist/leftie movement would reap the rewards of a revolt against what is percieved the current landscape.
.
This is because nationalists have woefully failed to manufacture a strong, sustainable and identifiable presence in this country (although there are outside reasons for this as well as the internal). Of course, we have always had the odds stacked against us, despite us having a lot of superior positions and natural inclinations to blow in our sails.
.
If anything, things have recently gone backwards and for me it has highlighted even more that many of us have not much of an idea when it comes to how to properly reach an audience, or on the importance of our presentation, on how nationalists should be seen to conduct themselves, or how to professionaly mount compaigns, build support or produce good propaganda and so on, in the way our opposition tend to do.
.
If nationalists are to win by gaining traction, I think these things have to be addressed. If nationalism is to win any sort of backing or gain any meaningful result, we ideally need to be ready and prepared for governance and control, should some snap event take place. It is no point scurrying around when or if some major event happens, and just expecting the sleepy population to suddenly take your side.
.
We have to exude confidence and act as though we can already run the show if we need to do so, including having plans and positions on how we would untangle hundreds of issues that are present in the current systems around us, or how we would deal with various issues arising from a collapse.
Collectively, I think we are far, far away from that kind of standard. People have next to no confidence in nationalists – and nationalists do not present themselves as being capable of giving off an air of being a successor to what currently prevails. People do not like to back losing causes and no-hopers who have no idea how to run a nation or deal with complexities. They want security, they want prosperity, they want to feel good and righteous about themselves.
.
This is why I think Western Spring is potentially an important concept. It is my understanding that it aims to present itself and our concepts properly in the hope of gaining support.
.
It is my understanding that it plans to set into place a ‘construction’ in this country that at the ultimate end could provide a new kind of society – one that is shown to be capable of looking after itself if (or when) the current rug has been pulled, and one which is successful and attractive when compared to the further rotting of the country around us, as it falls into greater 3rd world status.
.
It is perhaps a plan which could start to provide an alternative to our opponents should such a sharp collapse arrive in the upcoming decade, yet, if the collapse continues to be a slow and suffocating one, at the very least it could be a rallying point and “collective” for the indigenous who are aware and supportive of the message it gives. It would be a step up from being snuffed out in isolation.
.
On a side note (and I have still yet to read this article in full!) when I saw a quip in the review about “patriotards”, I suspect that is going to be relating to those kinds of individuals who are “patriots” and not nationalists.
.
By patriots, I specifically mean people who support the institutions and figureheads of their country and support what their country does whether it is right or wrong. I think Nationalists are different to patriots, because our support is not quite so blind. Of course, we are bound to be somewhat patriotic, but we are not solely patriotic to a flag, or a queen, or the actions of our ‘leaders’. We have a wider and much more deeper allegience and position.
frederickdixon
- Edit
BritishActivism – I think your analysis is 100% correct. I hope too that you interpretation of “patriotards” is right, and that my interpretation – that the word is meant as an attack on people who love their country AS WELL AS their race – is wrong.
Ben
- Edit
patriotard was not a quip against nationalism, just basing an entire strategy on waving the flag and expecting the same kind of response that it got in 1914 when Europeans identified it with their own life. That is a legitimate quip because there are many people today who do believe that we can go back in some kind of time machine to the 1950’s by evoking spitfires and Churchill, and all our problems will go away.
The symbols of patriotism are in alien hands and so they don’t have the same implicit meaning for a polulation that is disinherited and alienated. A Nationalist world concept doctrine cannot fight and win if it allows for the unlimited freedom of anyone to interpret the meaning of the symbols it uses. Nationalism needs to clearly represent a great new idea with a single interpretation implemented by willing believers.
That nation can be British, but the Britain of Churchill and Spitfires is dead. Just as well there is no such thing as a specific ‘nation gene’. If you are right and things chug on like they are, then what is Britain, France, and Germany going to mean in 50-100 years time?
Steve
- Edit
Yes I am loyal to my country but its institutions, no.
Ben
- Edit
That wasn’t my argument. Yes I am a nationalist; it is my hope that nationalists with some kind of integrity do achieve power, and that (if we are going to be realistic) will require ‘events’ that give that endeavour a chance of success – for instance the conditions that gave rise to the fantastic Golden Dawn. But I didn’t say I was ‘looking forward’ to a collapse, and what I was saying was that we are now and for the foreseeable future, completely unprepared – so it won’t make any difference what happens anyway – as opposed to as Alex Kurtagic put it here:
https://alexkurtagicofficial.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/collapse-scenarios-in-west-and-their.html
” The collapse is visualised as follows:
An event occurs, which is disruptive . . .Morbidly obese, obsessed with video games, anesthesised by low-brow daytime television, the White man is suddenly re-Aryanised . . .Brutal and ultra-masculine, with a newly grown pair, he grabs his Magnum 45, and rises up in revolt . . . And a new order rises, founded on organic principles of hierarchy, elitism, and tradition. A golden age is restored”
As you said, you are probably better positioned to see that most of the opportunities of the past 50 years have been squandered.
A point I made also is the doomsaying in the past has not all been fundamentally wrong, but it had not considered the incredibly intelligent ways that Liberals have managed to cope with the situation by turning things on their head; the taming and instituting of the civil rights movement as an example – really no doomsayers; Rockwell, Revilo Oliver, Pierce – saw that coming or believed it could be controlled, but in their fundamental judgements they were still right. I don’t know anything about white nationalism, but the only thing that has ever succeeded in gaining ‘popular traction’ has been fascist movements, consistently 100% of the time. I think this excludes a solution that could be described in any way as ‘mellow’ .
Steve
- Edit
“….he grabs his Magnum 45…”
That sounds a bit Hollywood, the writer of that is not of a police or military background?
I think here, it’ll be grab a baseball bat or a kitchen knife, if it comes to your door.
Ben
- Edit
That was obviously the point being satirical, though I linked the original article to provide context and avoid that kind of misunderstanding – turns out another poster linked you a video earlier of the author publicly reading exactly that talk.
Steve
- Edit
I’ll have to find the time to watch the video, there’s a couple of them at least but they’re reasonably long.
Steve
- Edit
Well he goes along the route of “We’re only 3 meals from anarchy”.
I have had a taste of that on a couple of occasions.
I remember when living in Leyton, the Cathall Road substation went down & the blacks from the council flats swarmed into local shops & looted them, despite there being a police station over the road (now closed).
Also living in a flat when the toilet waste pipe got blocked, I realised how quickly a place like that could become uninhabitable as the toilet backs up.
Localised power failures also remind one how difficult modern life is without electricity.
If the ATMs go down, no cash to buy anything & the EFTPOS cards don’t work either at the tills.
Steve
- Edit
I read a piece about the balance of nature & how it was an illusion, that there’s equilibrium but not a constant balance or state that things revert to.
So if our society collapses, we’re not returning to the past unless it’s the stone age or something similar.
Those that are organised, ruthless & prepared will dominate the mess.
I keep a gas canister mini stove & a kettle to go on it & canned goods.
Steve
- Edit
Who sticks together as a group?
They are likely to come through an upheaval quite well.
I can think of at least 2 fairly large groupings in the UK.
Pingback: The Hug Box of the “Talmudic Jew-Rats” Versus the Barbed Wire Bush of the RPN, by Benjamin Noyles, RPN British Liaison | Hammer & Anvil