Geopolitics and ideological motivations for the betrayal and destruction of European civilization

There are two basic models which are used to explain events in the complex and often violent events which shape human history. The geopolitical and the ideological. The two camps differ in the following way. The geopolitical view says that certain factors present certain problems to a population which will react in predictable ways because of the inevitable consequences of the existence of certain geographical factors.

Examples might be that mountains make it difficult and expensive to move goods or grow food and so they tend to be poor and conservative. Rivers make for good borders, Island people tend to build navies and create empires (Japan and England) etc.and coastal people tend to be wealthy from trade and more liberal from interactions with non-locals and an easy life. Interested parties might want to read the originator of this line of thinking, a Prussian general named Von Clausewitz. 

The ideological camp says that geographical factors can temporarily be overridden by a strong ideology which will make a population act beyond or out of character with the usual geopolitical considerations. So communism, Nazism, islam etc. may cause a group to go beyond what they would normally do to deal with the basic geography of their region.

It may help to think of what we see as a combination of both where islam is driving populations to act in the perceived interest of that population, Islamic conquest, coupled with the real geopolitical aspects, such as the need for more leg room, trying to escape the actual consequences of Islamic thought, namely the destruction of the local environment and a very poor standard of living for pretty much everyone. (occasional vast oil wealth not withstanding)

The conquest of Europe is being achieved by both ideological concerns, the strong ideology of islam aided by the self weakening ideology of political correctness and cultural and moral inversion on our side, which make the benefactor the villain and the invader the victim etc. as well as geopolitical factors like cheap transportation for poor populations who see an opportunity for pillage in Europe. (a large percentage live on welfare intentionally which is tantamount to pillage as well as additional factors of invader behaviour such as theft, violent crimes, rape etc)

Many people who refuse to see islam as an ideological component will view this as a purely geopolitical problem. Clearly it is not. This population is acting in exactly the same way as previous islamic invasions with subtle variations due to the fact that this time, we are assisting them in their ambitions, even to supplying transportation, food, lodgings and even throwing our own people out of their homes to house the invasion forces.

The UK is very familiar with this where military veterans and the working poor are often unable to find shelter while illegal muslim recent arrivals often get nice homes courtesy of local governments. Germany is just beginning to apply these same measures now.

The videos below may offer some insight as to who is responsible and how this is being done.

The why of it is another matter. But before we can even ask that question. people need to accept the facts on the ground. What is taking place, and what does it mean. While comments on news posts and videos and calls to talk radio would indicate that more and more people are starting to get a grip on reality, leadership would not indicate this outside of a very few countries like Hungary and the Czech republic.

Certainly however the time for each and every one of us to recalculate the cost benefit of examining reality and speaking plainly about it is here and needs to be done perhaps even on a daily basis given the rapid pace of change and the increased threat level to Western civilization and even Greek thought and reason itself, rapidly being made illegal by the political left and celebrated for its renewed ability to oppress thought and even facts it does not like.

Eeyore for VladTepesBlog

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

12 Replies to “Geopolitics and ideological motivations for the betrayal and destruction of European civilization”

  1. I hate to sound like a naysayer but the ‘honeymoon’ will soon be over when the ‘new arrivals’learn what they can get away with. Believe me the local ‘followers of the teachings of the prophet’ will ‘instruct’ their ‘visiting’ brethren. It has been said that “a country is defined by it’s borders,language and culture”. RIP Europe.

    • Don’t hold the funeral yet, if enough people start to fight back Europe can stay European, the fight will be long and nasty but it can be won. Of course if the collaborator governments maintain enough power to stop that resistance then after enough of the others have thrown out the invaders they will have to liberate the ones that are occupied. Throwing them out of the occupied countries is a must since leaving them in place is letting the invasion have a safe haven to build strength for the next move to conquer the world.

      There are signs that some of the European nations are waking up and will resist the invaders, hopefully this isn’t a case of too little too late because this time North America will have to remove the invaders from our homelands before we can go help Europe.

      • Two things will determine if the people or the collaborator governments win1) Which side will the police support? 2) Which side will the military support. I am not talking about the political bosses of the Police or the top Generals (in the US the vast majority of those who are true to their oaths have been purged.) I am talking about the ordinary cop and grunt. They are the ones that will decide who wins, the Europeans or the invaders. They are the ones that the resistance groups need to reach out to and make as many friends in as possible. The resistance having friends in both groups can be the difference between defeat and victory.

  2. One of the claims made by pro-invasion mouthpieces is that western countries need immigrants (Muslims in this case) because they aren’t having enough children, but has anyone studied rigorously the effect that the taxation necessary to support a large parasitic Muslim population has on the fertility levels of the host population? The richer natives will disproportionately face the burden of taxation, while the poorer ones will see their wages depressed as they compete with the Muslims(the more industrious ones anyway) for scarcer jobs. Everyone has to compete with the Muslims for housing, especially in the already valuable urban areas that Western Muslims tend to infest. Also, native families may have to pay more than they can really afford for housing so that they can avoid Muslim neighbourhoods and all the dangers they present.

    There are other costs that Muslims incur on the host population that aren’t typically thought of as welfare, but still present a tax burden. According to the super-left wing United Church of Canada Observer, only 75% of Somalis in Toronto graduate from high school. But it costs the Ontario taxpayer just as much (perhaps more) to try and fail to educate a Somali as it does to educate them successfully. When Osman flunks out, the Ministry of Education doesn’t get a refund.

    Unless you have a profound mental disability, failing to get a high school diploma in this day and age pretty much signals that you have every intention of spending long spells of your adult life unemployed. Or that you intend to support yourself through illegal means. Which brings us to jail. Jail is expensive. Though I’m sure most of us would rather lock Muslim criminals up for much longer than we currently do, that has a cost that comes out the taxpayers’ pockets, one that wouldn’t be incurred if that Muslim wasn’t in the west. Oh, and remember that Toronto Somalia graduation stat? That was for the Somali population as a whole. If you look at just males, the group who’s way more like to commit crimes, violent or otherwise, 1 in 3 fail to graduate high school.

    I’m not saying that all western countries would be at replacement-level fertility if only we could snap our fingers and make the Muslims leave, but you have to wonder how many native European descended families are choosing to have say, two instead of three children and how much of that can be attributed to the Muslim burden. At the same time, Muslims keep having kids when being supported by others. The other side of the coin is: What would the Muslim population of western countries be if the Muslims actually had to support themselves? These are serious questions that need answering, but somehow I can’t see any economists getting grant money to study it.

    • The problem with the argument that we aren’t having enough kids is to look at the way robots are taking over the manual labor jobs, and in most cases the robots are moving in because organized labor has priced the western workers out of a job. When the companies can’t make a profit the either find a way to make a profit or go out of business.

      Also the left who is screaming that we need the immigration are also screaming about over population of the world, and working to restrict the number of children born in all western nations.

    • The left soiled this a long time ago when they destroyed the idea that immigrants should assimilate into the base culture of their new home.

  3. …the time for each and every one of us to recalculate the cost benefit of examining reality and speaking plainly…

    And if they won’t listen? If they listen but do not hear?

    And if we aren’t allowed to speak? If they criminalize us for what we say? If those who listen are deemed criminals as well?

Leave a Reply to philip zhao Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *