This is going to be good.

To change the topic. Did anyone look into the "Unbreakable Brotherhood 2016" exercise?

*Fold.*

Somebody else this time, please.

......


https://media.giphy.com/media/3oAt21...K8vK/giphy.gif

Excellent post, thanks.

"The media has to stop giving racist nationalists a platform!"

This is the problem. The neutral/common sense people think they have to give this scum a platform "because democracy" and "can't we all live together". But they do not play by the same rules.
As soon as you let them do their thing you will only hear of them, while the normal media will enter shock state and look stunned at what is happening.
Time to take a more aggressive stance, and not just "let it happen".

Gunnar Heinsohn and some remarks on the demography and migration until 2050.

Only in German, sorry.

LINK - Flüchtlinge für Deutschlands Hightech-Zukunft

LINK - Kleiner Atlas der Völkerwanderungen bis 2050

Link - Afrikanerpolitik mal ganz nüchtern

Militärdemographie (military demography) - I did not even know that such an academic branch existed.

LINK - Die Illusion vom Überlaufbecken

LINK - Die Strategie des Überlaufbeckens

LINK - Sieben Thesen zu Integration und Illusion


I still recommend his book "Söhne und Weltmacht". Heinsohn hats einfach drauf. That the extreme left university community in germany hates him like the plague, just shows how pointy he hits the sore nerves. And no, I do not think that universities in Germany have become any less far left leaning in the 25 years since I studied.

Must I do anything myself? The whole archive at the Achse an be found here:

http://www.achgut.com/autor/heinsohn#artikelarchiv

German "Manager Magazin" reports that in 2016 the number of millionaires leaving germany and giving up citizenship, has grown by a factor of 4, compared to 2015. 4000 millionaires letf Germany 2016, in 2015 it were 1000, and in the years before that it was a number in the low hundreds.

In frtance, the numbers are even worse, it leads the European nations in fleeing milionaires. 12 thousand have left France and turned their backs on French citizen ship in 2016. Asked why they do, the answers focussed on "tensions due to foreign religions" (why pluiral? Everybody knows it is just one certain religion causing troubles, and that is not the Krishna sectarians...), and fears of financial disaster in Europe.

Most flee to Canada and Australia.

This may cause problems sooner or later, if the trend continues, since our political left - and that is practically all parties there are in Germany's Bundestag - dream of plundering from those they demonise as "the evil rich", and with that loot pay for the many have-nots of lacking qualification that are being channeled to Germany in huge quantities, who are expected to produce our pensions in the future ebven if they lack the generla educaiton, qualificaiton, and willingness to integrate.

If net receivers move in by hundreds of thousands per year, and the few net payers of real wealth flee - then you get problems sooner or later. Even Keynesians sooner or later will face the truth that all their superstitious wonder-belief was just an illusion.

Maybe we need to build a new wall, this time around all Germany. To keep fleeing millionaires inside. Or we simply shoot all Republikflüchtlinge once again, and confiscate their wealth completely.

Which leaves me wondering. Do wealthy people grow on trees, or are they raining down from heaven? We need to replace them, don't we, else our business model once again faces problems.

Its not just about fleeing money. Around last christmas I read a long, thorough essay of the massive intellectuol brain drain Germany suffers from as well. It was not German, but some international medium, in English and German. I try to find it again.

The rich people have start to move out. The competent, well-qualified people started to move out. Sounds as if those of a sane mind in general have started to move out, eh?

When looking at those moving in to replace them, I do not really feel relieved. The exchange is hugely deficitary.

http://www.dw.com/en/report-germany-...sis/a-37817614

"No leading German politician was willing to take responsibility for the possibly illegal decision at the end, "Welt am Sonntag" said in its report."

So they have chosen for a fully legal disaster instead.

"(Merkel) also reportedly wanted to limit bad press that would have arisen from pictures of German authorities enforcing the border closure and their interactions with refugees."

Clear case of personal failure(s) then.

Or as Hayek said so nicely: In government, the scum raises to the top.

Yea, my point is that it seems to me like nowadays every populist right-wing idiot only needs to make a fart and the entire arsenal of the western media immediately goes hysterical! Constantly reporting their nonsense all the time only encourages more idiots to talk even more bollocks..

Like this clown here:
http://www.dw.com/en/danish-demagogu...ion/a-37696340

Once everybody said that he's basically an idiot he was like "Hey, I was just joking, alright?"

Who's worth reporting next? This guy maybe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ZGNjZFhM8

I think he has a jolly good point and is definitely an official representative of his government or opposition with a lot to say so let's write an article about him, right?

All religions can, at any point in their history be divided into four segments:

I. "Murderous Fanatics:" Those who engage in murderous violence in the name of their religion.
II. "Accessory Fanatics:" Those who are accessories to crimes of segment I by assisting them in some way.
III. "Complacent Faithful:" Those who do not directly assist segment I, but also do not oppose their actions, and are willing (when queried) to admit that they support the murderous or otherwise authoritarian repression actions in the name of the religion.
IV. "Innocent Faithful:" Those who do not directly assist segment I, and are also not in anyway in favor of violence or oppression in the name of the religion.

At any given time in its history, the proportions in each of these segments might range between 0 and 100%. In Europe in the 1400s, many "Christians" were among segment I and the breakdown might have looked like this:
I. 10%
II. 20%
III. 30%
IV. 40%

The problem we face is one of understanding the contemporary breakdown for any religion in which there have been any religiously condoned acts of violence in recent times. The follow on task is to understand how large a risk any particular breakdown poses for a society.

The 911 attacks against the U.S.

. . . caused long-term health issues for tens of thousands and early death (for example cancers among first responders who were exposed to the toxic cloud that engulfed the murder site) for thousands

This operation was conducted by a mere 19 elite operatives, who had been on long-term sleeper assignment in the U.S. Their support and funding came from overseas and was a small and decentralized entity that is often identified as "Al Qaeda," which is really just the most proximal aspect of a pan-national Sunni Islamic supremacist movement that is common to a number of Wahhabist sects that are prevalent in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states and which are among the most prolific and deadly exporters of Fourth Generation Warfare. "Islamic State" is another subsidiary of this poorly understood, dynamic, chimeric, global criminal organization.

911 was carried out by 19 well-educated Islamic men who had taken the time to gain lawful entrance and residence in the U.S. in 1999-2000 and who did a good job of not breaking the law while they implemented the plan they had been sent here to carry out. Of all religions, Islam is one of the most explicit in adulating crypsis and surprise in warfare. I think it is safe to assume that, in a pool of a couple million people who have been allowed to enter a European nation undocumented, there are plenty of would-be 911 operatives who are highly motivated to achieve similar fame and martyrdom.

Of course, law enforcement is different today than it was in 2000-2001 and hopefully that alone is enough to thwart most would-be Islamic supremacist inspired killing sprees from achieving any success.

Those 19 well trained operatives did more to change America than most nations have ever managed, and the beauty of the plan was that America did most of the work for them.
I imagine that Daesh, if it has any sense, is busy working on a similar plan right now for America, and the other beauty of it is that it doesn't even have to be 9/11 scale any more, a shooting spree under the current social and political conditions in America will be a massive victory for Daesh, because all they need to do is create the snowball and America will push it into the avalanche for them. The same thing is gradually happening across Europe too. Small attacks here and there make big changes. It's not like some kind of mass air bombing raid, or another 9/11...in the grand scheme of things more people are killed by cars or themselves, but the great fear is terrorism when globally more people die from diarrhea or smoking.
So, terrorism, it works, it really works...and so it'll keep on being used.

It all depends of course on what one means by effective.

The NATO invasion and occupation of Afghanistan were a result of 911 and in truth so was the Coalition invasion and occupation of Iraq. If memory serves the total Western death toll from those two wars was no more than 8,000 and probably about three times that many wounded. Nasty business, but nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners (of all four segments I'm sure) who were killed and the millions who were either wounded or turned into refugees. The West accomplished this with both hands tied behind its back and a set of rules of engagement that sound more like they were suited for riot control than for warfare.

The question which has to be kept in mind by all is, whether the West is in fact--no longer capable of unbridled savagery--as the events of 2002 through 2015 might suggest. One would have thought that 911 was a "Pearl Harbor" which gave America sufficient resolve to get the job done, but that was most certainly not the case. Even setting aside the Iraq war as adventurism, the deployments to Afghanistan were ridiculous, and the expectations of how long the occupation would need to persist also ridiculous.

One could easily conclude that both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were tactical victories but strategy losses; honestly I don't see how you could conclude they were anything better, and possibly even worse. Which goes a long way toward explaining the apparent surge of enthusiasm which Sunni groups like IS enjoyed since 2012 or thereabouts.

The playbook which the evil geniuses in charge of Al Qaeda/IS/Islamic Brotherhood seem to follow is essentially Mao's Communist Manifesto, albeit with communism being replaced with the notion of Sunni hegemony. One of Mao's central points is that: guerrilla forces win not by traditional Western European methods of routing the enemy and occupying the valuable territory, but by occupying the hinterlands, annoying and harassing the more powerful enemy and never being defeated. This strategy has proven successful numerous times now, so it does seem to have some merit, at least for those societies which meet the prerequisites to follow the doctrine. Large populations of willing foot soldiers is the only make-or-break requirement for this sort of "national" military strategy to be feasible, though a unifying ideology helps too. You've got to be able to throw away 10, 20, 50 or more of your own people in exchange for the life of even one of the enemy, but if a society is in a position to do that, then Mao's approach can work.

The Sunni Islamic world has both cheap lives and a powerful unifying ideology. Moreover, the notion of dying for the cause is deep in the heart of that unifying ideology. Naturally the full gamut of murderous supremacist movements exemplified by Islamic State find it apparently easy to recruit and maintain some combat effectiveness, even while they are being assailed by the air power of multiple 3rd Generation nation states.

There is no doubt that the problem is NOT going to just "go away" and there is a big question as to whether "the West" will ever have enough resolve to do what it might take to "defeat" the problem . . . indeed it is an open question as to whether it is even possible for secular humanist Western democracies to "defeat" such a diffuse, elusive, obscure and clandestine thing as "pan-national murderous Islamic supremacism." Even Russia hasn't exactly exterminated its troublesome Islamic warlords--merely bought them out--and Chechnya is one of the most war torn nations on the planet.

I suppose if the goal of Sunni Islamic terror is in fact to continue the struggle which _might_ eventually lead to a global caliphate, then yes terrorism works.

You've also got to factor in the manpower situation, coming back to your four groups, the goal, or should I say one of the goals of terrorist groups, particularly ones based around a religious belief is to move as many people as possible from segment four across to three, two and then one. Now westernisation has a dulling affect on religious zealotry, or at least it does in Western Europe anyway, and so in an open and tolerant society you'd find more people in segment four than the others, however you will still get those in others because of the youth factor, those going through hormonal changes, struggling to find somewhere to fit in and drift into 'gangs' or in this case, terrorist groups. Honestly though, some of the recruitment language for the Syrian war would not look out of place in a poster for British people to volunteer to serve in Kitcheners army back in WWI.
But back to the segments. So the likes of Daesh need to turn non-Muslims against Muslims in order to push them from segment four down to three, two and one. So when they open fire in the streets of Paris or Berlin, it's not just a case of killing the kaffir, although that is all well and good for the person who is doing it (who most likely has no thought to the bigger picture other than sacrificing himself for his deity) but it's also sowing the seeds of fear in the populace. It's a powerful tool, it's affected me and I'm the very model of a modern major liberal (I've information vegetable, animal and mineral) and so with each attack it shifts, sometimes in single digits, or even in decimal points, those people across and it increases the enemies manpower gradually.

Of course, such strategies are really only applicable to the west, in the Middle East itself it's a case of put a gun to anything that moves and point it at the enemy, that's a much more base level of warfare and one which they are losing hand over fist. On the battlefield we can kick them seven ways to Sunday, but on the homefront they run rings around us because our response is their weapon. If we don't react then we run the risk of leaving ourselves open to further attacks, but if we do react then we change the normal and throw suspicion on the people in segment four who then are slowly pushed downwards.

I think the biggest problem is that we don't know what the problem is, and indeed whether it is a problem that we can solve, without becoming the very thing that we're attempting to destroy. But you're right, it's definitely not going to go away, other problems might overshadow it (I'm looking at you Vladimir, and you Donald) but it's still going to be there, in and out of the background. One could argue that it has been there for centuries, and will continue to be there for centuries more, most likely.

Yup! You nailed it.

Course it isn't a strictly modern problem. The French suffered similar issues as a result of the guerrilla war in occupied Spain, and even Alexander's armies were bothered by it in India and Afghanistan of all places.

We "Westerners," particularly those of us of a "secular humanist rationalist" bent find ourselves in a real philosophical pickle. A true Catch-22.

Most likely it is a problem that the kids being born right now will still be dealing with and quite possible for generations after that too.

Honestly I'm not that worred about either Vlad or Trumpolini. Trump talks too much, but he doesn't want war. Vlad has about as much as he can handle with his forces in Ukraine having been ground to a halt and the various occupied territories in his toy box always posing some risk.

China is in my opinion a powder keg--has been for decades, but with recent financial events, even more so. The regime there has to walk a delicate line between maintaining control and allowing enough civil liberties that they avert coups and civil wars.

As long as one is okay with periodic spree killers shouting Allahu Snackbar every now and again (along with the interminable drug cartel war in Mexico and the civil war in Syria) as well as the inevitable continued violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. I'd say we're looking at another 8 years of "peace."