Judgment For Refusing The White Man's Burden

vk.com ^ | Sep 24, 2015 | Yulia Latynina

[Kolokotronis]

“Was Islam less of Islam a century ago?”

We could ask Chinese Gordon or the Armenians or the Greeks of Smyrna....

[saleman]

Pretty simple actually.

In the continuing war between right and wrong the world is a better place when right wins.

The left’s continuing battle is to obscure the two.

Moral relativism. Islam and Christianity? No difference.

Communism and Capitalism? The same.

No evil in the world. Just a difference of opinion.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

The difference between a historian and a recorder of events is that a historian sees primary reasons behind the “offering people incentives to come”, and a recorder of events sees “unnecessary verbiage”.

Or, by this definition, a historian is someone who refuses to apply Occam's Razor. People have always migrated for economic reasons. Stop giving people economic incentives to show up and there's no magic in the basic fact that they will stop showing up. No migrants are crashing the gates of former Eastern Bloc nations. They're trying to get in on the social welfare states of Western Europe.

[annalex]

Th fact remains that the Muslim conquest was a geopolitical disaster that we may be allowing to repeat today.

Yes, I agree that distinctions should be made between the peoples of Islamic faith: not every one is slicing throats and destroying their own culture.

On the topic of Armenian genocide of the massacre of Smyrna, horrific as they were it was not a geopolitical event of the scale that ISIS and the mass migration to Germany and Britain is. Our civilization or what remains of it is deliberately dissolving itself. That is unprecedented.

[annalex]

Yes. The notions of listening to both sides, intelligent discourse, mutual respect between opponents, etc. are only applicable inside a civilization. They do not exist when two civilizations clash.

[annalex]

That is no Occam’s Razor, that is the ostrich’s head in the sand. I repeat the question: why do West European governments provide these incentives to the migrants?

[Kolokotronis]

“On the topic of Armenian genocide of the massacre of Smyrna, horrific as they were it was not a geopolitical event of the scale that ISIS and the mass migration to Germany and Britain is.”

And yet millions of people were slaughtered. ISIS’ toll is weak beer compared to what happened 100 years ago. As for migration, hundreds of thousands of Greeks, Pontian Greeks and Armenians fled to Greece, America, Russia and ... SYRIA, where they were welcomed and taken care of.

Like I said, complex.

[annalex]

Yes. I did not mean to sound like nothing else was a civilizational conflict and only this is.

The new aspects are
- ISIS thriving and taking territory despite the air war. That was not supposed to happen: we were supposed to shock and awe everyone.
- Migration is not in the Middle East and south east Europe, where the culture of accommodation existed thanks, probably to the Ottoman Turks, — it is in West Europe
- The collapse of nationalism makes elementary measures like border control politically impalatable
- Strong Western economies dictate terms of radical liberalism to weaker central European powers.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

That is no Occam’s Razor, that is the ostrich’s head in the sand. I repeat the question: why do West European governments provide these incentives to the migrants?

For the same reason they offer cradle-to-grave benefits to their own people, as well as benefits to economic migrants from the Middle East and Eastern Europe - liberal do-goodism enabled in part by over 70 years of US military protection which has allowed Western Europe to avoid most military spending and develop massive welfare states.

[annalex]

Ordinarily a desire to benefit your own people does not translate to a desire to benefit a people quite different than your own who arrive in your own house and demand them. What does the Occam Razor say about that?

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Ordinarily a desire to benefit your own people does not translate to a desire to benefit a people quite different than your own who arrive in your own house and demand them. What does the Occam Razor say about that?

They don't need to demand these benefits. Those benefits are being dangled in front of them - that's why they're coming. Again, no one is trying to get into Russia or Poland or Hungary - those nations don't have the sort of money to finance social welfare states like those of Western Europe.

Stop the social welfare do-goodism, and stop the economic incentives to economic migrants, and the migrations stop. This is not Islamic armies marching in conquest. This is a rag-tag assortment of mostly men from various nations coming in search of easy hand-outs. Stop the hand-outs and the Islamic men stop coming. That's what Occam's Razor has to say about that.

[Kolokotronis]

"ISIS thriving and taking territory despite the air war. That was not supposed to happen: we were supposed to shock and awe everyone." You know, Alex, America understands so little about the ME, mostly because it won't listen to its Levantine friends who actually live there. "- Migration is not in the Middle East and south east Europe, where the culture of accommodation existed thanks, probably to the Ottoman Turks, — it is in West Europe" Most of the Syrian and Iraqi migration, the overwhelming majority of it in fact, to date has been to Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Interesting notion about the hospitality we are seeing from among others the Greeks being Turkish in origin. Could be, but the Greek custom of Φιλοχενια long predates the Turkokratia in the Balkans. "Strong Western economies dictate terms of radical liberalism to weaker central European powers." I suspect you are right.

[annalex]

You did not address the question. Why is Western Europe “dangling” those benefits?

[AnotherUnixGeek]

You did not address the question.

I did. Several times.

[annalex]

Which post?

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Post 29, post 31. Look - you obviously will not be happy with any answer which does not fit your narrative. Why not just clearly state what you think the reason is and we’ll take it from there.

[annalex]

In 29, you describe what is happening: liberalism directed at their own people all of a sudden is directed at the people not at all like their own. I agree that it is indeed happening. I further agree that the US having taken up the burden of military security in Europe has contributed to this diversion of funds away from their own people toward development goals in the Third World.

In 31 you further stress that on the part of the Third World refugees this is purely economic migration that seeks the best welfare. I agree that it is so for some, even though we can’t be sure if that is the motivation of all.

But the question is not what is happening, — on that we more or less agree, — but why the Western governments allow it to happen. Let me frame the question a bit better.

When German (for example) people elect a liberal government because they want a strong welfare state for themselves, that is not surprising. It may be unwise because socialism is unsustainable in the long run, but it is not surprising. It agrees with the human nature to want security in the old age, in the case of misfortune, etc. This is how Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, and to a lesser extent Britain built themselves economies when people work short hours and take two-month vacations, and have nationalized health care and pensions. US relieving them of military expenses of course helped.

The unanswered question is why liberalism turned its benevolence away from their own people toward other and unrelated nations. You would think that a logical approach would be to do the exact opposite: keep the liberal system to themselves so that not to squander the national treasure. So why is the illogical happening?

I don’t think attributing it to some generalized “do-goodism” answers it. It may be an aspect of the answer but it is not an in-depth answer. I think that the active desire to destroy our civilization rooted in the 19c. Marxism is a better and deeper answer. This is why I like this article, with all its obvious flaws.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Alex Baldwin???

[annalex]

She meant, obviously, Roger Nash Baldwin.

I think, this is an oral rant that someone recorded and posted on the Internet. This explains the poor grammar, the repetitive colloquial style, errors like this one, and the confusion between the UN and the pronoun "he", only possible in oral Russian. Whoever recorded it did not bother cross-checking the factual references.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

I don’t think attributing it to some generalized “do-goodism” answers it.

Modern-day liberalism is rooted in guilt. Modern-day liberalism isn't even possible without prosperity, which automatically triggers feeling of guilt in the better-off for the less fortunate. Marxism, on the other hand, is based at the other end of this relationship - it's rooted in the envy and anger of the have-nots and the conviction that those who are doing better are doing so unfairly, and at the expense of the have-nots.

That's why Marxist nations have never had a problem telling immigrants to get lost. The guiding philosophy is that they themselves are not doing well, that they are owed by mysterious "others" who have schemed to deprive them, and they're certainly not going to share what they have with newcomers. Liberals, on the other hand, are plagued constantly by concerns that their wealth comes at the expense of others - the less well-to-do of their own nations, the people of less wealthy nations, the planet itself (which is envisioned as a living organism being taken advantage of by the wealthy). That's the essence of the do-goodism that allows economic migrants to move in and receive benefits. The East Germany that Angela Merkel grew up in would never have accepted these people. The unified Germany that Angela Merkel now leads is far wealthier, and liberal guilt leads naturally to the conclusion that these people are owed by the citizens of her nation.