Post: #1

.....


Richard Nixon in the early 1970s, on the rise of homosexuality, its encouragement by governments, and the effects it would have on society:

Post: #2

“In our new age of terrifying, lethal gadgets, which supplanted so swiftly the old one, the first great aggressive war, if it should come, will be launched by suicidal little madmen pressing an electronic button. Such a war will not last long and none will ever follow it. There will be no conquerors and no conquests, but only the charred bones of the dead on an uninhabited planet.”

William Shirer 1961

Post: #3

Samuel Huntington wrote about the globalist/nationalist divide back in 2004:

Quote:Samuel Huntington, the professor of government at Harvard University (and member of The American Interest editorial board from its founding until his death in 2008) was a titan of 20th-century social science. Several of his books, including Political Order in Changing Societies, The Third Wave, and The Clash of Civilizations, are classic works that will shape political thought for generations.

Huntington’s final book, however, has been denied a place in that pantheon. Who Are We?—a wide-ranging treatise that argued, among other things, that American elites were dangerously out of touch with the American public when it came to issues of patriotism, foreign policy, and national identity—was panned by most mainstream reviewers in 2004 as an ideological and careless screed that flirted with xenophobia. At 77, the eminent scholar was accused in respectable circles of losing his marbles.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/201...al-moment/

Post: #4

Aldous Huxley would have to win this. In 1931 he predicted a future of overmedicated, sexually and appearance obsessed, behavior modified, genetically engineered people(we get lesbians having artificial insemination now) and he even predicted virtual reality(the feelies). Also, he had the Alpha, Beta, epsilon hierarchy, with the alphas being most intelligent and the epsilons being near brain dead, and bred to do manual labor(a working class proletariat)

Huxley must be absolutely turning over in his grave with the whole of Europe being turned upside down with immigration.

Post: #5

(07-26-2016 10:47 AM)eradicator Wrote:  Aldous Huxley would have to win this. In 1931 he predicted a future of overmedicated, sexually and appearance obsessed, behavior modified, genetically engineered people(we get lesbians having artificial insemination now) and he even predicted virtual reality(the feelies). Also, he had the Alpha, Beta, epsilon hierarchy, with the alphas being most intelligent and the epsilons being near brain dead, and bred to do manual labor(a working class proletariat)

Huxley must be absolutely turning over in his grave with the whole of Europe being turned upside down with immigration.

Agree with the first paragraph, but he wouldn't be turning in his grave, he was part of the establishment.

He predicted a future that he has helped design and implement.

Post: #6

(07-26-2016 10:47 AM)eradicator Wrote:  Aldous Huxley would have to win this. In 1931 he predicted a future of overmedicated, sexually and appearance obsessed, behavior modified, genetically engineered people(we get lesbians having artificial insemination now) and he even predicted virtual reality(the feelies). Also, he had the Alpha, Beta, epsilon hierarchy, with the alphas being most intelligent and the epsilons being near brain dead, and bred to do manual labor(a working class proletariat)

Huxley must be absolutely turning over in his grave with the whole of Europe being turned upside down with immigration.

One thing which Huxley never mentioned was the absolutely endless volumes instant free pornography which we have access to today, and how constant masturbation and ejaculation from "fake" stimuli makes men lose all their testosterone...making them become lazy, weak, docile, introverted and (for some) make them have serious social anxiety.

But he may have omitted saying these things in such an obvious way intentionally to avoid censorship of his book.

In "Brave New World" he often talks about the ubiquitous use of "Soma" a drug that makes people relaxed without side effects....and "the feelies". I often wonder if he was writing about these sort of things in code.

For anyone who hasn't read it Brave New World was written in 1931 !

Post: #7

Enoch Powell. On mass immigration and the dismantling of national sovereignty, the man displayed rare foresight and perspicacity. As far back as the 1960's, he laid out the issues as they were and illustrated their consequences long before they became apparent to most observers. And for his principled love of country, he won political exile from the so-called Conservative Party, vilification from the left and acclaim from much of the British public whose will was, as now, ignored and despised by the elite.

Post: #8

(07-26-2016 12:53 PM)Saga Wrote:  Enoch Powell. On mass immigration and the dismantling of national sovereignty, the man displayed rare foresight and perspicacity. As far back as the 1960's, he laid out the issues as they were and illustrated their consequences long before they became apparent to most observers. And for his principled love of country, he won political exile from the so-called Conservative Party, vilification from the left and acclaim from much of the British public whose will was, as now, ignored and despised by the elite.

Wow, impressive.
Just looked up some of his stuff and his accuracy on predicting so many events is astounding.

Enoch Powell even predicted Brexit !
Here's what he said in April 1996 about the UK leaving the EU, at the age of 84 where he wrote an article for the Daily Express:

Quote:"Those who consented to the surrender made in 1972 will have to think again. Thinking again means that activity most unthinkable for politicians—unsaying what has been said. The surrender... we have made is not irrevocable. Parliament still has the power (thank God) to reclaim what has been surrendered by treaty. It is time we told the other European nations what we mean by being self-governed".

An agreement with the EEC is totally incompatible with normal parliamentary government.... The nation has returned to haunt us".

Post: #9

ROK has quite a few of these:


Soviet Defector Yuri Bezmenov Accurately Predicted How America Would Decline
/thread-56334.html?

How A German Historian Predicted The Decline Of Western Civilization 100 Years Ago
/thread-53754.html?

How The Homosexual Takeover Of The West Was Predicted Forty Years Ago
/thread-53077.html?

Ted Kaczynski’s Manifesto Predicted The Catastrophe From Technology And Liberalism
/thread-51062.html?

A Book From The 90s That Predicted Our Degenerate Future
/thread-50856.html?

Carl Jung Predicted The Catastrophe Of Modern Gender Relations
/thread-44159.html?

Post: #10

(07-26-2016 12:53 PM)Saga Wrote:  Enoch Powell. On mass immigration and the dismantling of national sovereignty, the man displayed rare foresight and perspicacity. As far back as the 1960's, he laid out the issues as they were and illustrated their consequences long before they became apparent to most observers. And for his principled love of country, he won political exile from the so-called Conservative Party, vilification from the left and acclaim from much of the British public whose will was, as now, ignored and despised by the elite.

Excellent choice for this thread.

Short interview, 9 years after his famous 'Rivers of Blood' speech.




45 minute documentary. Worth your time. He was a fascinating and highly intelligent person.

Post: #11

Samseau

Post: #12

The Dutch journalist Arthur van Amerongen is someone who deserves mention.

He was predicting home-grown Islamist terror attacks in the mid 2000s. Check out this interview he did here in 2007. He taught himself Arabic and infiltrated Belgium's Moroccan community.

What he found there horrified him:

https://qcurtius.com/2016/03/23/dutch-jo...from-2007/

Post: #13

Julius Evola (1898-1974). An Italian philosopher, aristocrat, and masculine traditionalist among other titles.

On Western Civilization:

"Western civilization needs a complete overhaul or it will fall apart one day or another. It has realized the most complete perversion of any rational order of things. Reign of matter, of gold, of machine, of number, it no longer possesses breath, or liberty, or light."

“What is really required to defend ‘the West’ against the sudden rise of these barbaric and elemental forces is the strengthening, to an extent perhaps still unknown to Western man, of a heroic vision of life. Apart from the military-technical apparatus, the world of the ‘Westerners’ has at its disposal only a limp and shapeless substance – and the cult of the skin, the myth of ‘safety’ and of ‘war on war’, and the ideal of the long, comfortable, guaranteed, ‘democratic’ existence, which is preferred to the ideal of the fulfilment which can be grasped only on the frontiers between life and death in the meeting of the essence of living with the extreme of danger.”

Some gems on women, particularly Western women:

"The entrance of the woman with equal rights into practical modern life, her new freedom, her finding herself side by side with men in the streets, offices, professions, factories, sports, and now even in political and military life, is one of those dissolutive phenomena in which, in most cases, it is difficult to perceive anything positive. In essence, all this is simply the renunciation of the woman's right to be a woman."

“American women are characteristically frigid and materialistic. The man who 'has his way' with an American girl is under a material obligation to her. The woman has granted a material favour. In cases of divorce American law overwhelmingly favours the woman. American women will divorce readily enough when they see a better bargain. It is frequently the case in America that a woman will be married to one man but already 'engaged' to a future husband, the man she plans to marry after a profitable divorce.”

"[T]he regime of diversions, surrogates, and tranquilizers that pass for today's 'distractions' and 'amusements' does not yet allow the modern woman to foresee the crisis that awaits her when she recognizes how meaningless are those male occupations for which she has fought, when the illusions and the euphoria of her conquests vanish, and when she realizes that, given the climate of dissolution, family and children can no longer give her a sense of satisfaction in life."

Post: #14

@Samseau:

One other thing you might find revealing about this Dutch journalist, Arthur Van Amerongen. After he taught himself Arabic, lived undercover in the Moroccan community in Brussels, he wrote a book in 2006 or 2007 called Brussels Eurabia.

It's available on Amazon, but get this: it's never been translated from Dutch to any other language. My question is: why not?

I can't help but wonder that this must have been a deliberate attempt to prevent uncomfortable truths from getting out there.

If any forum member speaks or reads Dutch, he might want to think about translating this book. I'll bet it's very good.

Post: #15

I would also add Christopher Hitchens to this list although from what i can see his were more the potential rise of ISIS or an Islamic Caliphate.

Post: #16

.....

Post: #17

I think this guy's name is David Stayt. He made a video about feminism in 1978. I created thread on it.

(12-08-2014 01:40 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  



Amongst other things, the show states that:

• Feminists are trying to eliminate gender differences and trying to create a unisex culture.
• Differences between genders should be encouraged
• Has a doctor mention that men are naturally much stronger than women, and that their cells are different because of chromosomes.
• The natural role of a woman, is to be a wife and a mother, where she is subordinate to a man.
• Men and women are physically, psychologically, and emotionally different.
• Women should not be front line police offers, because they can't handle men. It's mentioned that a police chief says that he's fine with male police officers patrolling alone for night duty but it's too risky to allow a woman to do it. A man has to go with her for protection.
• Women shouldn't be front line troops in the military.
• Men produced all of the technological advancements in the main arts and sciences.
• That gender names are being removed from job adverts e.g. Barman is Barperson.
• Shows how the media always praises women doing men's roles.
• Feminists are determined to push married women into work, so that natural sex roles are destroyed.
• Emphasising beauty in females is discouraged and ugliness and perversion is celebrated.
• Men should be paid more than women, because in the same role men usually end up doing more work than the women.
  

This is from way back in 1978! Could you imagine how better things would be if the people in the programme were listened to?!

Post: #18

The Moynihan Report

http://educationnext.org/moynihan-and-th...nt-family/

Quote:Moynihan, a man of his time, believed that fathers must ordinarily be the breadwinners in American families, and he had much to say about “illegitimacy” (the word generally used at the time to identify out-of-wedlock pregnancy). The percentage of white births in the U.S. that was illegitimate, he wrote, had inched upward from 2 percent in 1940 to 3 percent in 1963. The black percentage, however, had jumped during these years from 16.8 percent to 23.6 percent, thereby remaining roughly eight times higher than among whites. Black divorce rates, too, had increased: in 1940 these had been the same for blacks and whites, but by 1964 the nonwhite (here as elsewhere he meant Negro) percentage had become 40 percent higher than that among whites. The result, he wrote, was that “Almost One-Fourth of Negro Families are Headed by Females.”

Quote:Moynihan obviously empathized with the black poor. But it was his bad luck that parts of the report became public at such a tempestuous (post-Watts) time in the modern history of American race relations. It was also obvious that he should have thought twice before employing such high-octane phrases as “tangle of pathology.” Black writers like Kenneth Clark, who had detailed black “pathology” in his recently published book, Dark Ghetto, might be extolled for detailing black social problems. But a white man, who was highlighting the rise of black illegitimacy and of “pathologies,” would not be. Moynihan, a white messenger of unpleasant news, was vulnerable, a figure who could be disarmed and shot at.

Quote:In 2002, a year before Moynihan died, he was a keynote speaker at a conference of experts concerning international trends affecting family life. His message was pessimistic. Cohabitation, he pointed out, was “neither stable nor long-term.” The rise in fatherless families deeply disadvantaged children. It still remained risky for white writers to highlight black family problems. And social science seemed unable to develop a national family policy. “We are nowhere near a general theory of family change,” he asserted. “And there we shall leave it, the question still standing: who indeed can tell us what happened to the American family?”

Post: #19

Nietzsche.

He was erroneously labeled as a proponent of nihilism because of his criticism of Christianity. However, his main issue with Christianity was it's adoption of the victim mentality. He predicted that when Christianity would be discarded, no moral code would arrive to take its place, thus resulting in nihilism:

https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/759544183040446464

I admit, however, the English translations were difficult to read.

Post: #20

Karl Marx

Post: #21

H.P. Lovecraft

"It is easy to sentimentalise on the subject of “the American spirit”—what it is, may be, or should be. Exponents of various novel political and social theories are particularly given to this practice, nearly always concluding that “true Americanism” is nothing more or less than a national application of their respective individual doctrines.

Slightly less superficial observers hit upon the abstract principle of “Liberty” as the keynote of Americanism, interpreting this justly esteemed principle as anything from Bolshevism to the right to drink 2.75 per cent. beer. “Opportunity” is another favourite byword, and one which is certainly not without real significance. The synonymousness of “America” and “opportunity” has been inculcated into many a young head of the present generation by Emerson via Montgomery’s “Leading Facts of American History.” But it is worthy of note that nearly all would-be definers of “Americanism” fail through their prejudiced unwillingness to trace the quality to its European source. They cannot bring themselves to see that abiogenesis is as rare in the realm of ideas as it is in the kingdom of organic life; and consequently waste their efforts in trying to treat America as if it were an isolated phenomenon without ancestry.

“Americanism” is expanded Anglo-Saxonism. It is the spirit of England, transplanted to a soil of vast extent and diversity, and nourished for a time under pioneer conditions calculated to increase its democratic aspects without impairing its fundamental virtues. It is the spirit of truth, honour, justice, morality, moderation, individualism, conservative liberty, magnanimity, toleration, enterprise, industriousness, and progress—which is England—plus the element of equality and opportunity caused by pioneer settlement. It is the expression of the world’s highest race under the most favourable social, political, and geographical conditions. Those who endeavour to belittle the importance of our British ancestry, are invited to consider the other nations of this continent. All these are equally “American” in every particular, differing only in race-stock and heritage; yet of them all, none save British Canada will even bear comparison with us. We are great because we are a part of the great Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere; a section detached only after a century and a half of heavy colonisation and English rule, which gave to our land the ineradicable stamp of British civilisation.

Most dangerous and fallacious of the several misconceptions of Americanism is that of the so-called “melting-pot” of races and traditions. It is true that this country has received a vast influx of non-English immigrants who come hither to enjoy without hardship the liberties which our British ancestors carved out in toil and bloodshed. It is also true that such of them as belong to the Teutonic and Celtic races are capable of assimilation to our English type and of becoming valuable acquisitions to the population. But, from this it does not follow that a mixture of really alien blood or ideas has accomplished or can accomplish anything but harm. Observation of Europe shows us the relative status and capability of the several races, and we see that the melting together of English gold and alien brass is not very likely to produce any alloy superior or even equal to the original gold. Immigration cannot, perhaps, be cut off altogether, but it should be understood that aliens who choose America as their residence must accept the prevailing language and culture as their own; and neither try to modify our institutions, nor to keep alive their own in our midst. We must not, as the greatest man of our age declared, suffer this nation to become a “polyglot boarding house.”

The greatest foe to rational Americanism is that dislike for our parent nation which holds sway amongst the ignorant and bigoted, and which is kept alive largely by certain elements of the population who seem to consider the sentiments of Southern and Western Ireland more important than those of the United States. In spite of the plain fact that a separate Ireland would weaken civilisation and menace the world’s peace by introducing a hostile and undependable wedge betwixt the two major parts of Saxondom, these irresponsible elements continue to encourage rebellion in the Green Isle; and in so doing tend to place this nation in a distressingly anomalous position as an abettor of crime and sedition against the Mother Land. Disgusting beyond words are the public honours paid to political criminals like Edward, alias Eamonn, de Valera, whose very presence at large among us is an affront to our dignity and heritage. Never may we appreciate or even fully comprehend our own place and mission in the world, till we can banish those clouds of misunderstanding which float between us and the source of our culture.

But the features of Americanism peculiar to this continent must not be belittled. In the abolition of fixed and rigid class lines a distinct sociological advance is made, permitting a steady and progressive recruiting of the upper levels from the fresh and vigorous body of the people beneath. Thus opportunities of the choicest sort await every citizen alike, whilst the biological quality of the cultivated classes is improved by the cessation of that narrow inbreeding which characterises European aristocracy.

Total separation of civil and religious affairs, the greatest political and intellectual advance since the Renaissance, is also a local American—and more particularly a Rhode Island—triumph. Agencies are today subtly at work to undermine this principle, and to impose upon us through devious political influences the Papal chains which Henry VIII first struck from our limbs; chains unfelt since the bloody reign of Mary, and infinitely worse than the ecclesiastical machinery which Roger Williams rejected. But when the vital relation of intellectual freedom to genuine Americanism shall be fully impressed upon the people, it is likely that such sinister undercurrents will subside.

The main struggle which awaits Americanism is not with reaction, but with radicalism. Our age is one of restless and unintelligent iconoclasm, and abounds with shrewd sophists who use the name “Americanism” to cover attacks on that institution itself. Such familiar terms and phrases as “democracy,” “liberty,” or “freedom of speech” are being distorted to cover the wildest forms of anarchy, whilst our old representative institutions are being attacked as “un-American” by foreign immigrants who are incapable both of understanding them or of devising anything better.

This country would benefit from a wider practice of sound Americanism, with its accompanying recognition of an Anglo-Saxon source. Americanism implies freedom, progress, and independence; but it does not imply a rejection of the past, nor a renunciation of traditions and experience. Let us view the term in its real, practical, and unsentimental meaning."

-from the United Amateur, July 1919

Post: #22

(07-28-2016 10:48 AM)Lizard King Wrote:  45 minute documentary. Worth your time. He was a fascinating and highly intelligent person.

Thanks man ... I'm enjoying this, what an interesting character!

Post: #23

Aside from those mentioned already, I think the following authors had a lot of foresight in their writings on Western culture & civilisation:

Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America)
HL Mencken (anything)
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (anything)
Konstantin Pobedonostsev (Reflections of a Russian Statesman)
Thomas Carlyle (anything)
GK Chesterton (anything)

Post: #24

I'm watching the Powell documentary and I can highly recommend it, especially for those of you who are the Trump train. There are so many similarities between the two men. The one that is most striking to me was that despite both being from the upper levels of society with Powell being a Oxford graduate and a talented scholar in both Greek and Latin and Trump being both a real estate and media mogul they were both beloved by the blue collar people of society. The footage of the dockers marching and chanting "We want Powell" was reminding me of the enthusiasm seen at Trump rallies.

EDIT: Watching more of the documentary and the similarities with Trump's campaign is continuing to astound me. Powell's speeches were regularly protested with people holding picket signs calling for his arrest. He also ends up getting thrown under the bus by his own Conservative party with the leader saying that Powell's views are poison for any "decent conservative". Sounds familiar?

Post: #25

A worthy quote from the Enoch Powell documentary:


Powell: I had no social life as an under-graduate.

Interviewer: What about as far as women were concerned?

They didn't exist

You must have seen women at Cambridge?

Yes, I noticed them.

And what did you think of them?

I wondered what they were doing there.

But surely....

Because I didn't think they would approach advanced learning in the same mood or manner as a man would.

Why did you think that?

Because the analytical faculty is under-developed in women.