Good luck, Hungary! (and other nations resisting in Europe!)

The European Union always struck me as a very bad idea. Blatantly Orwellian in nature. And now we watch to see if it will finally unravel under the tensions of its leaders inviting in millions of so-called “refugees” from Africa and elsewhere.

Above is a video discussing what’s happening in Hungary when they refused to allow in droves of illegal aliens (invaders, call them whatever you will). Sanctioned. Threatened with being disallowed a vote while still being taxed by the EU (in other words, straight-up taxation without representation). Vilification. Negative press.

In a January 8th [2018] interview with Germany’s tabloid Bild newspaper, Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban said “we don’t see these people as Muslim refugees. We see them as invaders.

Multi-culturalism, he asserted, is an illusion.

That excerpt was from The Globalist article titled “Hungary’s Viktor Orban: Europe’s Flame Thrower” (Jan. 14, 2018).

If you conduct a search yourself you can read all the articles dating back at least a couple of years discussing how the EU was threatening to take actions against Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic for these nations’ unwillingness to accept a QUOTA of refugees from third-world nations. Primarily Muslim, as we know. It’s beginning to sound like the Eastern European nations ought to start seriously entertaining the idea of exiting the European Union, and I sincerely wish them well if ever they do so.

Consider this. Why would the EU require nations therein to accept refugees who are culturally incompatible?

Wait, stop. Drop all the BS you may have heard about “those poor people needing help.” Suspend beliefs and set aside ideology for a minute and really think about the implications of such a practice. Look around and read and pay attention to how much crime rates have increased in nations like Sweden, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the UK since going along with this program. It’s not racist to simply open your eyes and be willing to accept information for what it is, in the raw, unfiltered by what we might wish were true.

I personally don’t have any particular vendetta against people from Africa or the Middle East. Not necessarily anyway, though I’m admittedly uncomfortable with Islam, as an American woman who appreciates the legal protections and freedom afforded to us in Western nations with zero interest in ever being made to wear a burqa and no tolerance for female genital mutilation or the taking of underage brides. As someone who’s half Arab by blood, still it’s safe to say I wouldn’t last a day under Saudi Arabia’s rule of law. Probably couldn’t make it off the plane without managing to get myself stoned. So, what informs my opinion, aside from those personal biases, mostly has to do with what I’m observing across societies in over the years. Where I live we luckily don’t have a Muslim migrant problem (which is to say a boost in crime and harassment of women or dangerous enclaves where even the police shun entering), though a state to the north of here does and has plenty of news headlines to attest to it.

Mostly I get nervous when I read and hear what all is going on in Europe. Pew Research findings tell about how Europeans’ ideological positions impact how favorable they view the newcomers. Nevermind being displaced in their own countries. (Perhaps that’s not a great concern to many Westerners anymore…) Beyond that, I read a good many crime reports that are particularly chilling due to the nature of the crimes committed. Stabbings, gang rapes, vicious and senseless attacks on the innocent out in public, and even the occasional beheading. It’s enough to make anyone feel unsafe and unsure of why any nation ought to continue importing people (or at least a very rowdy, violent fraction thereof) intent on dissing the laws and citizens of their host country. All while KNOWING our leaders are doing a shit job of vetting the “refugees” they’re admitting (assuming there’s any way to successfully vet people without identification, documentation or searchable background records from war-torn regions).

(Daaaammnnn…that was savage, but not untrue!)

Why are these migrants in a position where they feel the need to leave their homelands? Particularly young males (much less often bringing along with them women and children). Well, I don’t doubt for a minute that my country’s wars launched in those regions have certainly created, or at least contributed to, the crisis. Air strikes, drone attacks, and arming various groups down there on the ground to fight one another. That part is unfortunately our fault, and by our I’m referring to the U.S. government along with me and you and anyone else here who pays taxes that funds this bullshit (plus whatever other foreign allies aid us in these endeavors). And coming to terms with that is how they get to us. This realization guilts us, as it probably should since our military had no business interfering in half the places it has over the last 17 years. So we get to thinking we owe it to those folks to cart them over here and everywhere else, to give them comfortable places to stay in a far more civilized environment in an effort to make up for government-funded exploits we feel powerless to do much else about.

But that’s the wrong answer. Understandable as this sympathetic response seems, it won’t do us or them any real good to continue with the current strategy. Well, maybe them on down the line— assuming it’s possible for the bulk of “refugees” to ever get their shit together so as to assimilate or to return home and rebuild their nations—but so far it’s clear that those folks don’t fit into our societies or appreciate our ways, expressing feeling alienated within advanced, non-Muslim societies. Their ways contradict our laws. Their expectations and treatment of women results in tragic crimes here where underage girls wind up “groomed” and taken advantage of and adult women are randomly accosted out in public. Even our educational curriculum isn’t appealing to them. Instead they retreat into enclaves where they recreate conditions similar to what they had back home, violating our laws and customs in the process while basically incubating hostile factions within our own borders.

Not too smart, folks. This is the wrong way.

Consider this. With the EU, the U.S., Canada and wherever else pumping millions and millions of dollars into supposedly helping “refugees,” don’t you think that money would be better spent aiding these people to construct communities in their own regions of the world where they speak the language and are accustomed to the cultures, food, and religion? Absolutely it would! But that’s not happening. Why not? Why do you figure all these leaders of Western nations are throwing an absolute fit about wanting to bring in millions more “refugees” in a bid that neither suits those they claim to be helping nor the native populations? Do you think it’s a complete oversight on the part of our leaders, like they’re just somehow too stupid, naive, or ideologically possessed to comprehend what damage is being done? Do you really believe the hype that, like with our issue in the U.S. where Democrats want to open up our borders, it’s because they’re simply desperate for more votes? Do you honestly believe that these leaders are motivated by strong concern over our falling birth rates and, for the benefit of our economies, are working overtime to stock more people seeking employment opportunities to replace those aging out of the rat race? That all of this somehow makes practical business sense?

I don’t.

I think that’s just what we’re being told, because shortsighted as those claims may sound, they’re nowhere near as heinous as the real reasons. I’m beginning to think there is an active agenda to replace native peoples. Why? I’m not certain. Won’t claim to know more than I do here. But why would the EU put that much pressure on nations who refuse to comply with immigration quotas? Because Angela Merkel has a super soft spot for Syrians and Somalians? Gimme a break! You know better than that. She doesn’t give a damn about them just like she obviously doesn’t give a damn about the German people who keep electing (/not ousting) her corrupt ass. There’s obviously more at play here.

Why has it suddenly become so incredibly taboo to say anything deemed offensive against Muslims here in America, the land of crude humor and screwing with one another over everything under the sun? Why must these folks specially be defended as off limits to all humor and derisive comments?

Why are feminists, here and abroad, being trained to betray their own interests (and those of ALL OTHER WOMEN IN SOCIETY) to cater to Muslims by defending hijabs/burqas (symbols of female disempowerment), joining in feigning outrage over cartoons and parroting how Islam is a “religion of peace,” all while ignoring sex crimes against underage girls and women? That’s a mind-bender there.

Why is Canada’s Trudeau falling all over himself to defend Muslims? Why is Theresa May? Why was Obama and Clinton and all the rest? Ideology, sure, but there’s something more to all of this. That’s the surface excuse. It’s what’s been used as a vehicle to make this all seem palatable to those with a liberal persuasion, forever wanting to see themselves as “inclusive” and “open-minded” and “against hate” (except when it comes to conservatives or those within their ranks who talk back without sufficient clout according to their “progressive stack”  ).

Naw! This goes beyond mere Leftist ideology, at least as we commonly know it to be. Think about it: our politicians and leaders care more about money and consolidating power than pretty much anything else on earth. That’s what drives them. So where’s the money incentive here? Fresh cheap labor pools to exploit? Sure, that’s appealing to your average neocon, but here in America we have Mexicans for that (mean as that may sound, you know I’m not making it up — they’ll tell you this themselves). What do a bunch of (more often than not) low-skilled Middle Eastern and African “refugees” bring to the table, especially considering how many of them wind up becoming dependent on government aid and social programs once they are here? Looks like more of a net drain on the coffers of society than anything else.

Is Saudi Arabia somehow behind this? Is there some sort of wheelin’ and dealin’ occurring between our nations in which our leaders agreed to bend over backwards to help Islamify the world? Maybe.

If not Saudi Arabia, then who? You’d think Israel would be opposed to this gameplan, but I guess those Zionist leaders don’t give much of a damn about their Jewish constituency either. Which really wouldn’t be surprising. That’s how heads of states roll. Telling us what we want to hear just enough to keep us from revolting so they can keep milking us as the tax slaves we’re willing to be. Besides, the U.S. keeps Israel very well armed. Though, in a strange turn of events, Obama generously gifted Saudi Arabia with more weapons and money than ever before prior to leaving office, hence why Saudi is now able to lay waste to Yemen like a proper first-world nation.

 

I’m not happy about any of this, but laughing keeps the rage at bay.

Where’s the money trail in all of this? Sure, George Soros is likely using his immense riches to not only recruit Antifa to tear up Starbucks and hit people with bike locks but also to finance pro-Muslim “refugee” efforts. But still, he doesn’t work alone in this. Otherwise he’d be resisted by other powers, yet he’s not. There’s a concerted effort being made here, folks. Who all is involved? No clue. But there’s a big money payout somewhere at the end of this rainbow or else these big dogs would’ve changed their tunes by now. There’s an agenda that we’re not privy to. The folks who talk about Agenda 21 don’t seem to have pegged this correctly either since importing a bunch of high-fertility third-worlders to the first world is the last thing you’d want to do if your ultimate goal is to reduce the human population and our consequent carbon footprints.

Maybe it’s no longer about money…  Maybe they’re already so powerful and wealthy and corrupt that they’re on to the next stage in their plan. We know they like to centralize everything and destroy nation-states through getting them to unionize (e.g. EU). There’s a global agenda in terms of forming an economic superstructure. But then what? Ugh…a line of inquiry I have no answers to and might as well quit chomping on for now…

OK, backing up, what are these “refugees” actually doing in Europe? Attacking people and trying to push Islamic acceptance onto those nations. And what are the leaders doing in response? Ignoring it, making excuses, accusing Europeans of being a bunch of nasty racist xenophobes if they voice their concerns about it. Sounds to me like they’re essentially telling their citizens that their interests no longer align with those they pledged to serve. Basically you’re on your own. Begging for your governments to do a damn thing about any of it is losing battle since they’re the ones responsible for unleashing this problem on you. And they won’t stop. Won’t even slow down. Not even a little bit.

OUR LEADERS DO NOT CARE ABOUT US.

Nobody is going to swoop in to save Europe. Our hands are already full and all of our leaders are in cahoots with one another. Europeans have to figure out a way to save themselves. The United Kingdom made a bold move in voting to exit the EU, but look how long that process is taking and how they’re being punished in the process – WITH THEIR OWN ELECTED LEADER WORKING AGAINST THEM. Yep. Sad but true.

And it turns out disarming swaths of the UK police force (and traffic wardens too?) wasn’t such a bright idea since they now are getting their asses handed to them:

Very sad. Hard to watch. The thugs were brutal and acted with no remorse.

Thank goodness they let a few of ’em keep their tasers.

Not that Sweden’s looking any better:

Yeah, hard not to be embarrassed for them with all that nonsense going on.

Anyway, we like to think if we could reach some sort of critical mass, maybe then the folks in the military would cease taking orders from on high and instead turn their efforts to defending the peoples of the nations they swore to serve and protect. But I’m seeing a whole lot of paycheck-chasers out in the crowd, truth be told. Same as among the domestic police force. Where do you turn for help when this appears to be the situation at present? Keep waiting for shit to change and for more eyes to pop open and for people to find a way to peel ourselves away from our screens long enough to maybe, possibly, do something to enact change?

I don’t know. We may be waiting a long time, folks. And so many are dependent on these systems to where if it came down to it, I think they’ll opt to be on that side of the fence, aligned with their power-hungry leaders, working to protect the lifestyle they’ve grown accustomed to that preserves them in relative comfort. They’ll cry about how they have kids to feed, bills to pay — like they always do. As if nearly everyone isn’t in the same boat on that. But that’s the bootlicker’s favorite excuse. Count on hearing a lot of excuses along those lines.

Hopefully the people of Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and now Germany and Italy will prove successful in their ambition to stand up for themselves, their cultures and their values. It’s such a mixed bag over here in America that I’m not sure what sort of effective resistance we’d be capable of constructing anytime soon. A nation utterly divided. Nowhere to run. Preferring to shout at one another on college campuses and online, as if that’ll ever change a thing. Or lose ourselves in video games, television shows and porn. Really useful endeavors such as that occupy our time and energy.

It deserves to be restated that this third-world onslaught isn’t typically my primary focus. Got other concerns on my plate, though I keep an eye on that ordeal since I don’t want it sneaking up on me or my loved ones. We can bet it’s coming here too eventually. Appears to be heading everywhere, worldwide. WHY? Because certain entities out there have decided they want it that way, even if that abandons us to sink or swim. Guess it’s ultimately up to us in the end on how that plays out.

Lastly… “Hungary has cut its illegal migration problem by 99 percent. Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó explains how”:

“Joe Rogan Experience #634 – Abby Martin”

REALLY enjoyed that podcast. Very worthwhile.

“There is NO HONOR in this shit!” . . .

“Let Your Life Be a Friction to Stop the Machine”:

A very worthwhile video I recommend to all, most especially my fellow Americans.

A comment was left on the video’s comment section if anyone cares for my elaboration on the topic.

Thanks to Janet (known on YT as Janet OntheSpot) for bringing this channel to my attention through her feed.

“The Revolution Continues”

Josie the Outlaw talking about the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and our founding fathers:

Josie has a handful of awesome videos totally worth checking out.

Josie the Outlaw

This week I came across the channel of Josie the Outlaw on YT, and damn, people need to check her out. She has only 6 videos uploaded thus far, but they’re all totally worthwhile.

An organization Josie mentioned in that last video is the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA).

“Financial Terrorism Exposed!! – Thomas Sheridan (Psychopaths in Public Life)”

Just finished watching this video this evening:

A dialogue between Professor Corey Anton and Stefan Molyneux from 2011

A dialogue between Professor Corey Anton and Stefan Molyneux from back in 2011:

Watched it once a while back, but tonight watching it again, paying closer attention now that I’m more familiar with Stefan’s positions after having watched several of his videos over the last many months.

Pausing at 16:34, yes, Prof. Anton was getting at there what I’m wondering about too. “Why do people become so slavish to institutions?” A top-down approach will never prove sufficient, not unless the plan is to someday turn us into droids, maybe require us all to be on prescribed drugs or find ways to genetically alter future generations (good luck with such a scheme and all that can and will go wrong with it). If we’re to exist as free individual agents with autonomy and power to live productive, meaningful lives, then it really does boil down to each of us individually, because an authority can not live our lives for us, and why would we want it to? Authorities and economies cannot provide all moral guidance, and again, why would we even want them to?

Yes of course each individual is molded by the culture(s) they are raised in and who they’re raised by and all the institutions and other external factors that shape reality as we experience it. And that’s where we run into the problem of the paradox: people are not strictly individuals nor strictly members of a collective. We are both, inescapably. It cannot be helped.

The libertarian argument has been augmented to suit modern economics and all talk of rugged individualists successfully striving for the top is a rarity-turned-myth promoted by this new narrative. It’s a fantasy that will remain very far from reality for most. This idea of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps is overplayed but useful in shifting all responsibility onto individuals, furthering this trendy belief that all the power lies within our own selves and there’s no one to blame but oneself. It’s an oversimplification, to say the least.

Stefan does not argue along that line and clearly does acknowledge educational and social influences, but he steps in another hole that plenty of “anarcho-capitalist” atheists step in, which is placing so much emphasis on the ‘science’ end of things without paying much attention to the history of how humans have behaved socially. We are not merely bags of bones, flesh and DNA — we are hugely defined by our relationships with one another, but we also have these inner lives and drives created through who we are (as is always evolving, but beginning with our core personality traits) meeting with our environment and all entities and people in it, both directly and indirectly. In short, we’re complex creatures with complex needs and a complex history. For some to assume that human nature can be rather easily molded to fit the latest ideology is a scary proposition, and I don’t see how this might be grandly accomplished except through some method of compulsion. This logic is premised on the notion that humans are significantly malleable while maintaining sane states of mind. I do not agree with that assumption. Look around and ponder it.

What Stefan is proposing is a theory that we have no way of knowing if it’ll prove successful, and the odds look to be against it on several levels, particularly when it comes to thinking people only behave violently because we are taught by authority figures to do so. That’s simply not true, and in the absence of any form of government providing some level of protection and redress for aggrieved persons, it’s going to be a painful lesson to contend with. Think corporations are going to come to our rescue? Would we even want that?

But what I think Professor Anton is getting at is us striving against some of our base-level motivations and drives and transcending them so as to become the moral beings we wish to be is the only way one truly becomes moral, because morality isn’t a top-down affair, at least not beyond superficial appearances. As much as culture and environment influences each individual, it ultimately winds up coming down to each individual’s striving.

Stefan differs from this in that he seems to believe a societal overhaul along with the creation of a new culture (somehow — that part’s never clearly explained, leaving us to wonder how the chicken will manage to come before the egg?) will impel people to do what is in the best interest of this new setup. His reasoning for this seems to be that it would be the rational thing for people to support — but how often are people all that rational is what I want to know? We have an entire history of acting irrationally on plenty of levels. In fact, it can be said that humans have never acted all that rational. But now, apparently, we’re ready to become rational. Why? Because we’re capable of reasoning and therefore should be able to assess what’s within our collective long-term best interest. This notion is predicated on the idea that we humans just keep evolving to become better and better, or at least we possess the potential to be so. And to an extent I agree — the potential does exist, potentially. Stefan’s argument seems to be hinged on this, plus the idea that people will opt for a 100% non-violent society. But on that latter point I couldn’t disagree more.

One reason being that if all others choose non-violence as their response, it leaves those with the willingness to act aggressively or violently with an advantage. They will do what the rest refuse to do — they will go on the physical offense. And believe you me, that will occur. It will always occur. We can adopt defensive strategies for dealing with it, but a non-violent strategy will render folks sitting ducks. And that’s fine if one wishes to abide by a pacifist code of ethics — go for it, but don’t expect everybody to go for it.

And I’m not sure we’d want a completely non-violent society anyway. We’re aggressive beings at times, and it’s so far proven the only effective way of handling certain disputes and violations. Stefan’s concept of non-violence extends so far as to include all coercion and force. Can there be a way to hold a person against their will without the use of force? Because they will resist with force. We’re active, physical creatures — this must be accepted. It is who and what we are at the core, and I can’t think of any way to transcend this if we are to continue to care about protecting ourselves and others (which we very much do care about).

In another video by Stefan he talks about all money being basically on debit cards where a bank or whoever, in response to a violation, has the ability to simply cut off one’s access. Now, I have trouble seeing this as much better than the use of force. We’re talking about a State-less society here so I’m unsure who decides and enforces the laws in this sort of setup (well, obviously it’s major corporations and banks, as he eludes to), but whoever or whatever does wields an awful lot of power, more than any entity really does today. Because there he’s envisioning all money going digital and all purchases requiring some sort of card or chip, all of this taking place within a corporate wonderland. Those with the power to control access to money control everything. They control all of society and nothing really stops them from coercing us, especially not if we’re all set on remaining non-violent.

Ya’ll tell me, how does the logic go here? How might people maintain power to keep mammoth corporations in check in the absence of any form of government? Some major corporations today are already proving more powerful than nation-states, and we’re seeing what they’re driven to do.

I must agree with Prof. Anton that it seems that logic is predicated on some sort of Social Darwinist theory, which is potentially dangerous. This is where all talk of evolution winds up troubling me a bit, because the reality is, counter to what some folks like to believe, that how we best adapt to a given environment doesn’t always turn out to be in humanity’s long-term survival interests. We’re not just ascending ever higher and higher, even though it appears right now our technology indeed is.

To be returned to at a later date…