Chaos: The Harbinger Of Order

WHEN THE BANKS STOP LENDING and the dollar drops dead, the leonine principles of chaos will pounce upon us, claws poised, teeth bared. But as horrible as that bit of declarative sounds to the victims of chaos, there may still be a ray of sunshine for America and in turn, hope for humanity, and that hope is presented here in an adaptation of a wonderful comment by a reader at American Thinker in response to an article on The Coming Chaos.

John Griffing has stated the obvious and drawn a single conclusion among many possibilities—avoid default of the American debt crisis at all costs. Financial chaos because it cuts to the root of our sense of well-being can be and in most situations is really frightening. People suffer and die when money values go hiking off in many different directions at the same time. But one of the most unnerving problems with modern America is that no one has suffered recently and we are not sure that we can tolerate feelings like hunger and uncontrolled weather in our living rooms. Whole families would have to take to the roads with backpacks as winter approached like migrating birds.

Yet, I am not pessimistic. While Mr. Griffing is correct about bad things happening to good people, I am just as certain that "this too will pass." Why?

spend, spend, spend

Chicago Tribune, 1934. Sound familiar? Took a war to change things, then, too.

Because economic equilibrium will reassert itself. Chaos is too chaotic to last. Organization is an occasional, but natural state of affairs. We know this from the movies of the end of the world. Each time the world reaches a precipice, it draws back in horror. These movies will be our models. We may have to mimic the Amish or become members of a kibbutz, but with great buffalo meat in our bellies and mighty thunder in our throats we will survive as a people. Extra-privileged classes will have to disperse or reorganize to use less energy—like universities and governments, Hollywood and the NFL.

But physicist Stephen Hawking from the strength of his wheelchair has assured us that knowledge is never destroyed, but merely displaced. In the end we will be fine and the world will be at peace again. Bingo! Now I can go back to sleep and have a sweet dream untainted by reality! Tomorrow I will plant my winter collards and broccoli. If global warming doesn't get me first.

Adapted from a comment by J Levy

The Meaning Of Mayor Freddie's Words


Brussels mayor Freddie Thielemans

Io the mayor of Brussels, Freddie Thielemans, refused to issue a permit for a September 11 march on the EU headquarters to protest the continuing Islamization of Europe on the grounds that he could not guarantee the marchers' safety. Only NOW do we know what those simple, hardly difficult to parse, words really meant. Not safety from crazed Muslim youths attacking with sword and swagger shouting Allah Akbar with every step!

No, it turns out he was not talking about the immigrant population, but what he meant was he could not guarantee these mostly indigenous Europeans any safety from the fully loaded stormtroopers he called out against the mere handful of 200 peaceful, middle-aged marchers. The mayor had banned the protest, held on the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the US.

Police arrested two far-right political leaders at a protest against the "Islamisation of Europe". Frank Vanhecke and Filip Dewinter of the Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) party. Vlaams Belang has recently been critical of Muslim immigration to Belgium. Police clashed with some of the 200 demonstrators and dozens more people were reported to have been arrested.

The protest organisers had promised a large turn-out, but the approximately 200 protesters were nearly outnumbered by police and reporters.

All in all, the police and the government in Brussels acted criminally, since they refuse to carry out their basic role of protecting the rule of law and protecting the polity. That they would attack law abiding citizens gathered in a peaceful demonstration to protest a foreign threat indicates that Brussel's secret plan is Islamization. What were these enforcers paid? And by whom?

Send Them Home


With wars like these...

SOLUTIONS AT HOME. Recent history offers us a few choice examples of practical reactions to an enemy within. From the ever vigilant Hugh Fitzgerald, a primary contributor to the Jihad Watch website:

Fatalism is not supposed to be a European trait. One usually speaks of "Oriental fatalism" and by that is meant not something to be found in the Far East, but among Muslim peoples. Inshallah-fatalism doesn't look good on non-Muslims. In 1946—surely the Austrian minister recalls—7 million (or was it even fewer?) Czechs (that is, Czechs and Slovaks) expelled from Czechoslovakia 3-3.5 million ethnic Germans. They did so because, before the war, under Heinlein, the leader of the "Sudeteners" (the Germans who lived in the "southland"—that is in Czechoslovakia, all along the border—and who became for Hitler such a useful cause.

All through 1938 he could hardly speak of anything else except the supposedly cruel treatment of the "Sudeteners" by the Czech government. Nazi agents gave Heinlein orders: start riots, so that when the Czech police put down those riots, their actions will be depicted as those of "brutal" Czechs "suppressing" the "Sudeteners" who were merely "demanding their legitimate rights." And so they did, and so the papers, including the London Times, reported, and so was Czechoslovakia, in truth the most advanced, tolerant state in all of Eastern or Central Europe, had its name blackened in the very countries that would find such blackening made it easier for their leaders to betray the Czechs at Munich. And those pictures of Heinlein's parents, so gemutlich (you can find an example in the Life Magazine anthologies—the aging mother and father of Heinlein, in their cottage, a picture taken by Marguerite Bourke-White). Tugs at the heart strings, if you don't know better.

During the war, the ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia were treated, like ethnic Germans in other conquered lands, as "Volksdeutsche," and given the food rations of Germans (as opposed to what the non-Germans got) and otherwise were, so many of them, treated so very well and, in return, were happy to collaborate with their fellow members of the Deutschtum.

After the war, Masaryk (Tomas, son of the even more famous Tomas who founded modern Czechoslovakia in 1919) and Benes and every other thinking Czech, was determined that, even though Germany lay in ruins, never again would the people of Czechoslovakia have to take a chance, never again would they have to endure such a threat to their security. And they decided to expel all of the ethnic Germans, and did so. It was the famous Benes Decree, or rather one of the series of Benes Decrees, that removed what was correctly perceived as a potential threat, and removed it forever.

No one objected in Czechoslovakia. Not then and not later. Not General Ludovik Svoboda. Not the poet Jaroslav Seifert. Not Aleksandr Dubcek of the Prazhskaya vesna or "Prague Spring." Not Pavel Kohout. Not Vaclav Havel. Not Milan Kundera. Nor did anyone outside Czechoslovakia. Not Churchill or Truman or De Gaulle or later, Attlee or De Gasperi or anyone at all, not a single figure, not a writer, not a statesman, no one, in New York or London, or Paris or Rome, dropped a single tear, objected with a single syllable, to the removal of the ethnic Germans—3-3.5 millino of them—removed, expelled, virtually overnight. Indeed, the only people who have objected at all have been right-wing revanchiste groups in Germany and Austria. And even if there were injustices done, that is because in all of politics, when large groups and not individuals are being considered, there will necessarily be some who should not have been considered part of the affected class. It is the the perennial problem, both of politics and law.

Why does one refer to the Benes Decree? Why does one note the absence of moral objection? Because what the Czechs, and the Poles, and man other countries did, expelling ethnic Germans after the war, because of what happened during the war, or what they reasonably foresaw, given the history of the past century, of a threat that might recur, could happen again.

Now an unheard-of event has happened. The source, the center, of Western civilization, Europe, could be transformed, and its entire legacy of art, science, and mental freedom, its achievements in every area, not one of which could have possibly occurred in the Lands of Islam, where "Islam dominates and Muslims rule," could be inherited by the wrong people, who cannot possibly understand, much less have any desire to preserve, them—Muslims, who will have conquered only because Europeans compounded the initial error of admitting large numbers of them into their midst, and now, because of fashions in behavior and thought, are unwilling to do what would have seemed so obvious and so right not a thousand years ago, but merely sixty years ago, in 1946, in that most advanced and tolerant of Western lands, led by two of the products of high European civilization, Tomas Masaryk and Eduard Benes.

The current leaders of Europe who are unwiling to study Islam and to grasp its meaning, who refuse to see what a threaat it is, however packaged or smoothly presented by some smiling tariq-ramadans, should make way for those who have a sense of what can be lost, and take a more rational, and some would say—quite incorrectly—a harder view, precisely to the extent that they are passionately attached to, and know about, that civilizational legacy.

But if you have no idea what it is in the first place, then it won't matter, and you will be happy to throw in your lot, or will not realize what you have inherited and what needs to be protected.

Plassnik deserves no quarter. But then, there are so many plassniks all over the place. They should be, possibly, in prison for treason. Instead, they are in power.

It is an incredible thing: it is all happening right before our eyes, and we cannot as yet find the leaders able to see this, and willing to do something.