Imagine a fortified city that is under attack. The city has walls which are tall and strong, but they are surrounded by the enemy. The defenders are standing firm on the walls and warding off one assault after another. There are sufficient supplies and the city has a very good source of drinking water. If the defenders keep fighting, the enemies will eventually leave exhausted and the people of the city will save their lives, liberties and estates. It the city falls to the aggressors, its inhabitants will be killed with their wives and daughters likely to become sex slaves.
Economic Interest and National DefenseEverybody defending on the walls has neglected their private businesses and lives, which of course is necessary. However, let’s look at the situation from the point of view of Mr. Foxy, a citizen of the city. There are basically two possibilities in front of him:
a) He can ignore his business and join the others defending the walls.
b) He avoids fighting on the walls and concentrates on his business instead. As he is the only one with an active business with everyone else on the walls, he makes a fortune. When the fighting ends, he will be without injury and wealthier than the others. He could then acquire other businesses and hire the brave defenders as his employees, becoming a magnate.
Life, freedom and the property of Mr. Foxy will be saved by other fellow citizens. He loses nothing by avoiding the war.
This means it is rational to not join in with the defense, but instead spend all efforts on continuing your private business. In economics this is described as a “black passenger strategy.” It only makes sense for Mr. Foxy to defend the walls if his participation is the difference between victory and defeat.
Treason Must Not Pay OffLet’s go further. Perhaps Mr. Foxy is not satisfied with just the money he makes while others risk their lives defending the walls, especially when he could be making much more. He could secure a contract with the enemy, taking a considerable sum to open the city gates during the night. Enemy fighters would break into the city, forcing the defenders to heroically fight and push them out of the city. Some citizens will be killed while many others will be badly injured. The advantage for Mr. Foxy is even bigger now; compared to his fellow citizens, he is untouched and very rich.
If we agree that everybody should follow their economic interest, we would recommend Mr. Foxy to do this. After all, if he doesn’t secure a contract with the enemy, another one of his fellow citizens probably will. If the city falls, the one who opened the door has a better chance of being set free than anybody else.
Members of our civilization are rational beings and they tend to follow the private interests of themselves and their families. Therefore it is clear that only a few fools will defend the walls, while the majority of the others will compete to be the first to open the city gates.
Is this immoral? If there is a big group of gate openers, they could collectively create a moral justification for their behavior. They could mutually assure each other that the city is full of disgusting xenophobes and because of its historical guilt the city deserves to be plundered. They would be assured that the attackers are in the right and they deserve compassion and help. In the end, the openers feel they are a morally higher people than the defenders they despise.
If members of our civilization are mostly rational beings and it is therefore rational to open the city gates, why aren’t all cities captured and plundered? The answer is social coercion. This ranges from implementing social values into the minds of individuals by mocking those without bravery to executing traitors. If somebody decided to benefit from opening the city gates, he could be hanged immediately. Such pressure is a critical element of every successful defense. The execution of deserters is as important as shooting the enemies. If someone is not ready to use violence against his hesitating fellow citizen, he will be killed anyway as his children become slaves. This is an iron law of history.
Social Coercion inside OutNow imagine there had been chaos and anarchy in this city for a long time and nobody cared about its defense. Gate openers would gain control over city hall, courts, media, churches and schools. With the enemy already in the city, the traitors are supported. The mechanism of social coercion is now working in the opposite direction; treason is no longer punished, but bravery is. Those who defended the walls are executed and those who call for arms are imprisoned. Naive people who shoot at the invaders are laughed at and excluded from good company.
This is the current state of our civilization. The gates are open, walls have been breached and defense mechanisms are ineffective and the door openers have kept almost all of their power positions. Defenders of the city may hope they can keep an area for a while, but there is no hope of defending the entire city.
It is especially remarkable that door openers already control the education system. They have changed it into a giant indoctrination system focusing on convincing young people that the Islamic invasion is a great good and that only very bad people want to prevent it. This includes several groups of lies and manipulations:
– Blatant lies about Islam and its history with its alleged “golden age” and the alleged fair treatment of Christians and Jews. The allegedly tolerant Caliphate of Cordoba and the untrue list of Islamic inventions and so on. Everything has been falsified many times over, but only a few people spend the time researching the scholarly literature on it. So the same lies are repeated again and again in the media, written into textbooks and confirmed by the “Islamic departments” of universities who are supported by Arab countries.
– Blatant lies about our own civilization. While we can’t deny black moments in our history, there is something bad in the history of any state, nation and civilization. The point is that our bad moments are further exaggerated, overdrawn and supplemented by untrue statements. Overall a pressure is enforced where everybody is made to feel personal guilt for the history of his nation. Those who don’t express personal guilt aren’t good people.
– Blatant lies about other aspects of history. New generations are told that terrorism has been a part of the European lifestyle for many decades, maybe centuries and that it was normal for Europeans to be afraid of attending public Christmas fairs. Perpetual mass migration waves are explained as an ordinary part of history in each nation.
– Consistently stating that living together will require the Europeans to accept all Islamic requirements. If a conflict appears, it will always be the Europeans who are responsible. The lie that Islam has always been part of European societies and its coexistence was peaceful is connected to this.
A Generation Brought up to Its Own DestructionThe generation growing up in Europe has been led to cowardice; psychologists even talk about a “learned helplessness.” Meanwhile, young Muslims are taught to hate unbelievers and trained to fight; that the conquering of another civilization is close to being achieved.
Although houses are only burned down occasionally and white women are only taken into sexual slavery in some regions (such as the English town of Rotherham), the trend is surely heading in this direction. Appeasing phrases, such as “Muslims don’t want to come to our country,” “there are hardly any Muslims here,” “the vast majority of Muslims are moderate,” “it has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism” and “we will be able to keep our values,” will fill the media for years, but it won’t make them true.
Comparison between the Battle of Tours (also known as the Battle of Poitiers) and the Siege of Vienna are often cited, but today the situation of Europe is much worse. Even if the defenders of the West had lost either of these battles and the Muslim armies had flooded other regions, there would’ve been other distant areas that could’ve resisted. There are no such distant areas today with Islamic communities scattered around Europe like the metastasis of cancer; only little Hungary resists.
Only a small proportion of gate openers clearly have bad intentions, as most of them are just bureaucrats. They will keep doing their best to get larger budgets and move to higher positions in their organizations and, of course, keep the graces of the new aristocracy. They are not trained to think of anything else. If one of them opened and read this book, his well-disciplined brain would probably displace all the ideas included. He would quickly cast it aside as the thoughts of a “nationalist xenophobe” and focus on something seemingly more import. That might be to support a program which provides minorities with more public toilets. To make sure programs are well-funded and positions are created for experts, supervisors and project managers are his main focus. In the end, he is assured by his friends that readers of this book are stupid and primarily motivated by their frustration with poverty. The truth might be that people who are able to think about civilizational issues are unlikely to compete for minority toilet grants.
Death, Revolution or OccupationReturning to our story of the enclosed city, there are basically two ways to save it. A revolution or an uprising is the first of them. This will require a fast and deep shift of power with a brutal discouragement of door openers and a quick building of the defense. Keep in mind that the openers are not interested in an erasure of their own civilization; they are just narrowly focused on their budgets and membership in the new aristocracy. Most of them would quickly adapt if there was a significant change in power.
The second alternative requires the arrival of a foreign army able to confront the enemy. Such an army would need the support of most people living in the city.
Readers can determine what the probabilities of these scenarios are.
The situation of the West has never been as bad as it is today, but it could’ve been much worse.
In this chapter, I tried to express that:
■ If a country, empire or civilization is attacked, it is more advantageous for individuals to betray than to join the defense.
■ This is why socials mechanisms preventing people from committing treason are an essential part of any defense.
■ This defense mechanism now works reversely in the West. Treachery is rewarded, bravery is punished.
■ The education system and big media work together to create psychological features in the young generation that prevent people from defending themselves and renders them useless for the protection of their countries and civilization.
■ Defeat is the obvious result of this situation; a very weak enemy can destroy such a civilization.
■ This collapse of defense is a result of the work of bureaucratic systems and the everyday life of the new aristocracy; evil intentions don’t play a key role, if any.
■ The defense can’t be rebuilt without re-establishing a means of punishment for treason. It can only be achieved via revolution or via a third-party intervention.
For further reading, I recommend The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel Huntington.
Breached Enclosure
Peter Hampl
No comments:
Post a Comment