Ensuring the end of Western Civilisation

This is the title: Western Civilization: The Final Frontier?. Here is what she said in her text, with the word “practically” inserted so as not to rule out divine intervention or some such thing:

What is particularly appalling about the ill-informed Western elites is how their policies are practically ensuring the end of Western Civilization. They refuse to acknowledge the need for border security –sovereignty — and allow, if not encourage the wholesale influx of third-world immigrants (who do not wish to assimilate) into states with generous welfare policies.

I’m sure what comes next will be an improvement on what we have done. We obviously don’t know what’s good for us anyway. Here’s another perspective: How Mainstream Media and Social Media Present COMPLETELY Different Views Of Syrian Immigrant Crisis. Its opening statement:

The “Great Replacement” has begun, and social media is showing what the “refugees” from Syria are really all about.

It’s not the world I was born into so I wouldn’t be expected to like it. But others are being born into this one so maybe they’ll like it better. But it is amazing to be there at the end, although it may limp along for a bit longer still. Read The Swerve. Think about just how well this passage from a hostile review fits the world we are on the threshold of entering:

It is possible for a whole culture to turn away from reading and writing. As the Roman Empire crumbled and Christianity became ascendant, as cities decayed, trade declined, and an anxious populace scanned the horizon for barbarian armies, the ancient system of education fell apart. What began as downsizing went on to wholesale abandonment. Schools closed, libraries and academies shut their doors, professional grammarians and teachers of rhetoric found themselves out of work, scribes were no longer given manuscripts to copy.

The most haunting part of the book was the description of fifteenth century Rome, the centre of an empire a thousand years before. It was not until the middle of the 14th century, perhaps even the 15th, that living standards in Europe rose to where they had been in the 2nd. You think it can’t happen until it does, and it does now look like it might.

The Islamic State and the Nazis

Here is the Nazi propaganda film.

And here was the truth.

The point? The Nazis understood what they were doing was evil and could not be exposed to the public. With ISIS, they are actually proud of what they do. They see nothing evil or immoral in any part of their program. And they are winning, not losing. Indeed, they are right this minute invading Europe with virtually no one at all trying to stop them.

Waffle Street and Say’s Law

In re Waffle Street, Jimmy Adams has himself put up a comment in the comments thread.

While Steve may be unwilling to take an ounce of credit for it, allow me to publicly recognize his “little red book” as being the most influential of all the economic literature that I referenced in writing “Waffle Street.” Say’s Law is the transcendent and ironically, least appreciated, principle of economics. And no one explicates it better than Prof. Kates. Thanks again, Steve.

says Why is it my “little red book”? That’s why. The most astonishing part is that around once every decade or so some economist ends up stumbling onto Say’s Law and realises what it actually means and then tries to tell everyone else. The list is not that long, but includes Benjamin Anderson, Henry Hazlitt, William Hutt, Thomas Sowell, Art Laffer and Murray Rothbard. Once you see it, everything about how an economy works suddenly changes shape, and most importantly, Keynesian forms of economic management seems utterly insane. No one who understands Say’s Law is ever surprised that some Keynesian stimulus didn’t work, or that the rise in public spending ever does anything other than pull an economy down. And each of us has tried to explain as best we can why Say’s Law is so important but no one gets it. They don’t even get it to the stage where they could really answer that I see what you mean but I disagree. They do not even understand this enough to be able to explain what it is they disagree with. If you think that “supply creates its own demand” covers it, you have to ask yourself why no classical economist ever said it. The phrase comes from a book published in 1933 by a critic of Say’s Law which was then purloined by Keynes in the General Theory published in 1936. Say’s Law is not even all that hard to understand: all economic activity is driven from the supply side; none of it is driven from the demand side. What is true for an individual product is not true for the whole economy. If there had actually ever been a single Keynesian success story, there might be some case for the continuation of Y=C+I+G in our texts. But a Keynesian stimulus has failed, and failed spectacularly, on every single occasion it has been tried. Yet Keynesian macro persists in our texts. If you would like to understand the entire sordid story, my little red book will explain it, and is also the only place you can find out how the Keynesian Revolution came about.

Roncesvalles and the Europe to come

We live in such blessed times, as good as it has ever been if you are in a first-world western country far from the horrors elsewhere. The aim was always to bring the rest of the world up to the standards we created for ourselves and have continuously improved on. The reality will be that our way of life is being destroyed to the point where not all that far in the future, we will have our elites, as does every society, while the mass of humanity will live like dogs. A fascinating paper brought to light by John Hinderaker at Powerline: The Treason of the Professors. He has a summary of the paper he links to: Trahison des Professeurs: The Critical Law of Armed Conflict – The Academy as an Islamist Fifth Column.

The left in our societies has been a fifth column for the longest time. They have been enemies of the bourgeois state since the middle of the eighteenth century [vide French Revolution]. Over the past century, they teamed up with Stalin and have now joined Islamists in doing what they can to bring down the West. Many excerpts at the Powerline link but the article is long. Here is his abstract, itself as bleak as anything you might read anywhere:

Islamist extremists allege law of war violations against the United States to undermine American legitimacy, convince Americans that the United States is an evil regime fighting an illegal and immoral war against Islam, and destroy the political will of the American people. Yet these extremists’ own capacity to substantiate their claims is inferior to that of a critical cadre of American law of armed conflict academics whose scholarship and advocacy constitute information warfare that tilts the battlefield against U.S. forces. These academics argue that the Islamist jihad is a response to valid grievances against U.S. foreign policy, that civilian casualties and Abu Ghraib prove the injustice of the U.S. cause, that military action is an aggressive over-reaction, and that the United States is engaged in war crimes that breed terrorists, threaten the rule-of-law, and make us less safe. Rather than lending their prodigious talents to the service of their nation, these legal academics, for reasons ranging from the benign to the malignant, have mustered into the Islamist order of battle to direct their legal expertise against American military forces and American political will. This psychological warfare by American elites against their own people is celebrated by Islamists as a portent of U.S. weakness and the coming triumph of Islamism over the West.

This Article defends these claims and then calls for a paradigmatic shift in our thoughts about the objects and purposes of the law of armed conflict and about the duties that law professors bear in conjunction with the rights they claim under academic freedom. It then examines the consequences of suffering this trahison des professeurs to exist and sketches key recommendations to attenuate its influence, shore up American political will, and achieve victory over the Islamic State and Islamist extremism more broadly.

I don’t have to read the full article to know what he means, but I will do it anyway. Here is the last para which has only melancholy about it. There is no Charles Martel, nor with democratic politics as they are, can there be.

The warison sounds; the warning is sent; the assistance of the sacred and the profane is summoned. Whether once again the West will heed the call, march apace against the Islamist invaders, and deliver justice swift and sure to disloyal courtiers abasing it from within, or whether the West has become deaf to the plaintive, fading notes of one encircled knight who long ago called forth its soldiers and calls them yet again, will decide if the Song of Roland remains within the inheritance of future generations of its peoples. If the West will not harken now to Roland and his horn, neither it, nor its peoples, nor the law they revere will outlive the bleak day of desecration when Islamists, wielding their Sword, 776 strike his Song, all it represents, and all it can teach, from history.

To mention Roland and Roncesvalles to a modern European is as dead a notion as it is possible to be. When we were in that part of France a while back we went to the tourist office to find out where the battlefield had been. I admit to being surprised by this, but not only did no one know where it was, no one even knew what it was. I really don’t know how we get back from where we are.

How is this not the death of the West?

The only part of the globe in which individual freedom is among the highest and most important values is being inundated by people for whom individual freedom has next to no value within their cultural norms. Listening to the chants of “freedom, freedom” from people who have no idea what freedom means in a Western context makes me worry about the future like nothing else I have seen in my own lifetime. The virtually unknown lessons of Palmyra make you even wonder whether the architectural glories of Europe will remain a century from now.

And then there is the deal with Iran, a minor item on Drudge today, already old news.

ARMS RACE: Kerry Promises Billions in Weaponry to Israel, Saudis in Wake of Nuke Deal…

TOP BRASS: Deal INCREASES Likelihood of War…

You give the most belligerent and ideologically crazed nation in the Middle East the right to build nuclear weapons, and what else can you expect other than an increased likelihood of war. If we thought the twentieth century was the bloodiest in history, wait till we count up the dead at the end of this one.

A very dark age coming

This is a long article by David Solway on Nine Signs of the Impending American Collapse. Written in an end-of-times style, but get past that opening if these are the kinds of things that put you off, and get to the secular version Solway has outlined. There are nine different harbingers for the descent that is about to visit us. Almost prosaically, I will list his very last, which is the presidency of Barack Obama, about which he said this amongst other things:

Under Obama’s nation-withering hand, the land of the free and the home of the brave is fast becoming the land of the hunted and the home of the suborned. Obama is like a Judas goat leading the sheep into the abattoir. If this ruthless minion of the left completes his term successfully according to his intentions, the United States will not recover. It will be fatally riven by internal dissension, infiltrated by avowed enemies and millions of so-called “undocumented workers” and queue-jumpers, drowning in unpayable debt, subject to judicial intimidation and repressive state control, and vulnerable to a host of hostile nations—China, Russia and Iran, to name only the most prominent. It will be game over.

Is it game over? Is all that will remain of the West, the Judaeo-Christian West, be a few enclaves that will need to defend their historic purpose and historic identity? Read Solway’s article only because we are still, for the most part, in the best of times. It won’t last, but for now we have the time and leisure to reflect on what is to come, although, as always, the future cannot be known.

But it was only number 10 that actually made me laugh

The ten funniest jokes from the Edinburgh Comedy Fringe Festival.

1. “I just deleted all the German names off my phone. It’s Hans free” — Darren Walsh.

2. “Kim Kardashian is saddled with a huge arse … but enough about Kanye West” — Stewart Francis.

3. “Surely every car is a people carrier?” – Adam Hess.

4. “What’s the difference between a hippo and a Zippo? One is really heavy, the other is a little lighter” — Masai Graham.

5. “If I could take just one thing to a desert island I probably wouldn’t go” — Dave Green.

6. “Jesus fed 5000 people with two fishes and a loaf of bread. That’s not a miracle. That’s tapas” — Mark Nelson.

7. “Red sky at night. Shepherd’s delight. Blue sky at night. Day” — Tom Parry.

Equal 8. “The first time I met my wife, I knew she was a keeper. She was wearing massive gloves” — Alun Cochrane.

Equal 8. “Clowns divorce. Custardy battle” — Simon Munnery.

10. “They’re always telling me to live my dreams. But I don’t want to be naked in an exam I haven’t revised for.” – Grace The Child.

What is the economic return on an unskilled migrant?

First there’s this: EVERY DEPORTED ILLEGAL HOUSEHOLD SAVES TAXPAYERS MORE THAN $700,000.

Migrants, even the best of them, take a long time to pay off the resources they absorb when coming to a new country.

And then there’s this: Sorry, Donald Trump: America needs birthright citizenship.

Fine. But tell me this, is there an upper limit on how many migrants we should take in or what sort of personal characteristics they should have?