http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12757599/

Het is beter om de waarheid te verklaren en worden verworpen dan het in te houden om worden goedgekeurd.

MarcFrans: "Majority rule becomes only 'tyrannical' if it violates fundamental individual freedoms..."

Agreed. However, political analysis must remain contextual. Contemporary threats to Western* states involve mobilized and organized mass movements of individuals struggling to improve their political and socio-economic status vis-a-vis Western states, as well as individuals. If Western societies are to not only survive contemporary challenges** but also prosper, they require a much higher degree of both "unity and action" (I'll leave it to you to hunt down the source of that quote). While peace and prosperity are grounds for the retreat of communitarianism and the advance of individualism, both are currently threatened by the aforementioned challenges. 

MarcFrans: " 'Efficiency' is not a proper yardstick in matters of fundamental human rights of an individal. That was the great fallacy of the nazis and so many others."

Au contraire, efficiency is an excellent "yardstick," for it determines whether or not a society has balanced communitarian vs. individual 'good' to maximize the peace, prosperity and (I add) liberty of its members at any given time. Furthermore, neither the National Socialists nor "others" (Fascists, Communists, etc.) committed themselves either in word or deed to efficiency. For a greater understanding of this point, you may do well to read Joseph Heath's The Efficient Society.

MarcFrans: "Yours [liberty] can then be violated too for someone else's (contrived) 'effciency' reasons."

True. Also, the greater good can be violated to protect an individual's contrived concept of liberty (e.g. the right to public financing of breast implants because small breasts could cause depression, the right to wear an undershirt at a fine restaurant, etc.).

MarcFrans: "I do make an exception though for noncitizens, because we cannot make the presumption that they operate under the assumption of adhering to the same value system..."

Even liberal nationalists such as Yael Tamir advocate the universal application of liberal or civic society. If you are a liberal democrat first, why be constrained by contrived national boundaries? Why are you loyal to the current arrangement of states?

Overall, I detect a great deal of respect for the American political and legal system on your part. Unfortunately, I note that this respect over-emphasizes the structures of the American republic, rather than its culture. Other Western liberal democracies have remained liberal and democratic without the aid of constitutions or independent judiciaries, and while Scandinavians and Americans may bitterly argue back and forth as to who is more free or who maximizes positive liberty or who maximizes negative liberty, Western civilization remains based upon culture.

* For all intents and purposes, Western is synonymous with White or of European descent.

** Declining White birthrates, exploding non-White birthrates, increasing migration, tremendous global inequality, increasing competition.

MarcFrans: "It is true that individual freedom is not possible outside a political sytem of 'rule of law', as opposed to 'rule of (some) men'."

I disagree firstly that anarchy would inhibit an individual's liberty, and secondly that it would inevitably lead to an oligarchal social structure. Anarchy would impact the quality and quantity of an individual's existence, negatively or positively depending on their prior circumstances. Furthermore, due to substantial differences between individual human beings, specifically their ability to fulfill their basic and 'higher' (see A. Maslow), and thereby their access to and enjoyment of 'primary goods' (see J. Rawls), social, economic and political stratification is inevitable. Moreover, the "rule of some men" begins with the most basic of human social units - the family i.e. the power dynamics between parents and children, older children and younger children, males and females, etc. Your response indicates a Hobbesian aversion to anarchy, which I do not share, principally because Hobbes, Locke and others that reference the 'State of Nature' fail to take into account the family as the precursor to human social organization and that its relationships impact individual choice i.e. the 'State of Nature' imagines a world of adult, isolated individuals without family.

MarcFrans: "The best way to make judgements in this area is by reference to historical and geographical observations.  Where do individual freedom and democracy appear to have 'staying power' and where do they not?"

I would argue that individual liberties and democracy are luxuries affordable only by societies that have risen above survivalism e.g. the West, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. Centuries of pre-eminence have convinced Western cultures that their socio-political and economic systems are superior and are of greater import than the integrity of the communities that constructed them in the first place.

MarcFrans: "I doubt very much that 'happiness' has anything to do with wealth at all, again after assuming that 'basic' material needs can be met in a relatively free environment. There is of course room for argument about what 'basic' here should mean. Happiness...has nothing to do with money. In general, the more money you have, the more you will want and/or think that you need. It is a very marxist notion to equate 'happiness' with material goods."

Firstly, you are quite correct that there is room for argument as to what constitutes "basic material needs." Secondly, contemporary Western popular culture does seem to equate material possessions with success and happiness; indeed, non-Western societies regularly complain that Western values are oriented towards money and sex. Thirdly, I have never heard a wealthy person claim that their money either makes them unhappy or makes them greedy. Fourthly, no matter one's political leanings, those who are not wealthy regularly content themselves that being wealthy isn't all it's cracked up to be.

@ KA

1) We both agree that "libertarian anarchy" is not a proper choice. I also agree with you that "some variant of equity" can be a reasonable goal for any government to pursue.  However, this pursuit does not have to be in conflict with individual freedom.  Indeed, if equity is pursued in a way that does not respect individual freedom, then the result is usually both less equity and less freedom.   The presence of a few billionaires, of 'lucky' lottery winners, sports talents, or movie stars, etc....is not a genuine 'equity' problem.  By contrast, the absence of genuine social mobility over time (many possible reasons), and a 'break' between efforts and remuneration (usually resulting from non-market type allocation systems) do constitute much more serious 'equity' problems.   

2) We clearly disagree about the nexus of freedom and "socio-economic goods".   It is true that individual freedom is not possible outside a political sytem of 'rule of law', as opposed to 'rule of (some) men'.   Once you extend 'rule of law' beyond reasonable concepts of habeas corpus and of contract enforcement, additional "social goods" can very quickly become detrimental to individual freedom.  This cannot be settled in the abstract.  The best way to make judgements in this area is by reference to historical and geographical observations.  Where do individual freedom and democracy appear to have 'staying power' and where do they not? 

As to "economic (material) goods" (and services), they have no real link with a 'substantive' concept of individual freedom ONCE (or after) basic material needs are satisfied and access to basic education is assured.  

Individual freedom in the economic arena means essentially that individuals have access to free markets to sell their labor and goods, and to seek the rewards in line with the degrees of their willingness to dispense effort and to take risks, as well as...luck.  The fact that people are willing to throw money at silly celebrities (like Paris Hilton or Michael Moore etc...), rather than listen to you or me, in no way constrains your or my individual freedom.  Nor is that silly behavior of the public in any serious sense 'inequitable'.   Freedom means, among other things, that people can do silly things and take the consequences (including in terms of 'equity') of their actions. 

I doubt very much that "happiness" has anything to do with wealth at all, again after assuming that 'basic' material needs can be met in a relatively free environment.   There is of course room for argument about what "basic" here should mean.  Happiness has to do with (1) knowing who you are, and with (2) being (openly) free to be what you are.  It has nothing to do with money.  In general, the more money you have, the more you will want and/or think that you need.   It is a very marxist notion to equate "happiness" with material goods.  It is also a 'barbaric' notion (but let's not digress into 'virtues' and moral filosophy).   

3) Majority rule becomes only "tyrannical" if it violates fundamental individual freedoms, such as (1) habeas corpus and (2) freedom of political speech FOR CITIZENS OF THE POLITY.  The purpose of a 'good' Constitution' (and of a genuinely independent judiciary) is precisely to ensure that a parliamentary "majority" would not violate constitutional provisions regarding individual freedoms.  

"Efficiency" is not a proper yardstick in matters of fundamental human rights of an individal. That was the great fallacy of the nazis and so many others.   If you allow one individual's habeas corpus rights and freedom of political speech to be violated, then no one's individual rights are safe.   Yours can then be violated too for someone else's (contrived) "effciency" reasons.   I do make an exception though for noncitizens, because we cannot make the presumption that they operate under the assumption of adhering to the same value system (as embodied in the Constitution) with attendant duties.  A democratic government is sworn to uphold the law for its citizenry, not for the rest of the world.  With regard to noncitizens, I would agree with you that "efficiency" concerns would certainly be very relevant and appropriate. 

MarcFrans: "The concepts of 'social efficiency' and of 'equality' are very dangerous ones.  They can easily become excuses for undermining freedom of individuals in the service of some ideology.' "
 

What if the good of the community is undermined by concepts of "individual liberty" and individual "rights and freedoms"? Firstly, any 'concept' can be used to justify almost any action. Secondly, the community is not some "necessary evil" to prevent individuals from returning to some primeval free-for-all, communities are just as important as individuals; depending on the needs of individuals and depending on the needs of the community as a whole, there will be a tug-of-war at any given time e.g. war, peace, prosperity, poverty. 

MarcFrans: " 'Communal loyalty' would be a 'natural' position in a genuinely free society.  Indeed, it is disloyalty to one's community that would be 'unnatural', unless that community was manifestly behaving immorally.   The value of individal freedom does not create possible "contradictions" as you suggest, but it might create moral dilemmas.     A 'patriotic' German certainly faced such a dilemma as a gas chamber guard in the 1940's.   And any 'patriotic whatever' would be well advised to wish for the end of "a spate of authoritarian rule" in his country.  That would be the true 'patriotic' position."

 
Firstly, one cannot define a "genuinely free society," especially given the different qualitative and quantitative standards associated with freedom. Secondly, morality does not necessarily equate with individual freedom. Thirdly, unless you take a stance of fluid efficiency, which is compatible with maximizing the good of the individual, of the community and of operating within "moral" bounds, you again run the risk of serious dilemmas.

MarcFrans: "It [individual liberty] should be 'subtantive'. [sic]"

Unfortunately, for individual liberty to progress beyond the formal, some variant of equity must arise, if one is working within the framework of states. Otherwise, libertarian anarchy would be the proper choice...

MarcFrans: "Individual freedom is not linked to 'socio-economic status,' at least within a 'normal' range that one can find typically in developed western countries.   A person making 2 million euros a year is not more "free" than a person making 50 000 euros a year, at least not in a substantive sense, only in a superficial (and materialistic) sense."

Socio-economic goods are not "superficial," even when one excludes non-Western states and/or those with comparatively dismal HDI scores. The individual earning 2 million annually (and here we assume that this is derived from salary rather than investments, etc.) has over the individual earning 50,000 annually, include greater:

• Freedom of movement e.g. within their state and internationally
• Leisure time due to the ability to take more time off work, hire nannies and housekeepers, etc
• Amenities, both at home and abroad
• Health, all things being equal i.e. less stress
• Importance and recognition in one's community
• Access to education and other services for oneself and one's family e.g. private schools, higher education
• Choice of consumer goods and services

Certainly, the difference in overall "happiness" between an individual earning 5,000 annually and one earning 50,000 is far more significant than between the aforementioned comparison, however, this does not make socio-economic inequality "superficial."

MarcFrans: "Individual freedom does not preclude "social contracts".  On the contrary. I stated clearly that it can only be realised in a community, but not any community and certainly not in the (unregulated) 'jungle'. Society should set proper rewards for adhering to democratically-determined 'contracts', and also set penalties for nonadherence."

Then the individual must submit to tyranny of the majority? If individual freedom is derived from the "jungle" or more aptly put "State of Nature," then why are you supportive of it? If indeed, you support the maximum individual freedom possible without harming overall good, which is the purpose of social contracts (i.e. to maximize positive liberties and minimize negative ones), then your 'yardstick' should be efficiency rather than individual freedom, because anarchy will have you beat every time otherwise.

....for valuable and thoughtful comments.

@ Kapitein Andre

1) It should be "subtantive".  Legality and formality derive their value from potentially contributing to 'substance', not on their own.   For example, the legal (constitutional) freedom of political speech (e.g. in Belgium) is worthless if it is not respected by the three powers of government (executive, judiciary, and legislative) in their own respective ways. 

2)  Individual freedom is not linked to "socio-economic status", at least within a 'normal' range that one can find typically in developed western countries.   A person making 2 million euros a year is not more "free" than a person making 50 000 euros a year, at least not in a substantive sense, only in a superficial (and materialistic) sense.   However, a person who cannot genuinely find a job because of 'unfree' labor markets (typical for overly interventionist and/or nonmarket systems) certainly is constrained in his freedom.  

3) Individual freedom does not preclude "social contracts".  On the contrary.  I stated clearly that it can only be realised in a community, but not any community and certainly not in the (unregulated) 'jungle'.   Society should set proper rewards for adhering to democratically-determined 'contracts', and also set penalties for nonadherence.

4) The concepts of "social efficiency" and of "equality" are very dangerous ones.  They can easily become excuses for undermining freedom of individuals in the service of some ideology.  

5)  "Communal loyalty" would be a 'natural' position in a genuinely free society.  Indeed, it is disloyalty to one's community that would be 'unnatural', unless that community was manifestly behaving immorally.   The value of individal freedom does not create possible "contradictions" as you suggest, but it might create moral dilemmas.     A "patriotic" German certainly faced such a dilemma as a gas chamber guard in the 1940's.   And any "patriotic whatever" would be well advised to wish for the end of "a spate of authoritarian rule" in his country.  That would be the true "patriotic" position.    

MarcFrans: "...my "value system" is my supreme guide when making judgements about history (and about most other matters). I think that concepts like 'imperialism' and 'sovereignty' are pretty vague and subject to a wide range of interpretation.  Whatever interpretation one gives them, they should be measured against one's value system...For me, individual freedom is at the core of that value system, NOT any notion of 'race', or 'etnicity' [sic], or other group-concept. Although I fully realise that individual freedom can ONLY be realised in a specific 'community' or in a group-context.  But, not any group-context...The ultimate measuring stick must be individual freedom...Know any better one?"

For me, individual freedom is ambiguous and open to varied interpretation: should it be legal or formal, or substantive? One's individual freedom is in many respects linked to one's socio-economic status. Why should an individual have their freedoms curtailed by a disabling accident or cruel twist of fate (act of God, etc.), anymore than by a military junta? Furthermore, in order to promote "positive" liberty vs. "negative" liberty, there must be compromise on the part of the individual, this concept forming the basis of social contractarianism. Moreover, does individual freedom consist of formal/legal instruments such as rights, substantive ones such as socio-economic equality, transcendental ones such as religion or spirituality or some combination thereof?

When considering individual freedom from an objective amoral perspective, one finds that it cannot in fact be realised in the context of society, for individual freedom includes both positive and negative liberties. Any social contract, irrespective of its alleged benefits to the individual, is in fact an attempt at social efficiency, which acts with but is distinct from either liberty or equality. I will not discuss my own personal views on these matters in this posting, however, I do caution that anyone using "individual liberty" (in the post-Enlightenment sense?) as a "measuring stick" finds themselves always comparing one's own society to others to ensure that one is residing in the community that "measures up" the most. Any communal loyalty beyond that which the "measuring stick" allows for would enable contradictions to occur f.e. an American patriot might continue to be an American through a spate of authoritarian rule, however, an "individual" (for the purposes of this discussion) would have to go where the going's good, even to Belgium, heaven forbid.

@ Kapitein Andre

1) Yes, Huntington is one of my 'guides' in a number of matters.

2) And yes, my "value system" is my supreme guide when making judgements about history (and about most other matters).   I think that concepts like "imperialism" and "sovereignty" are pretty vague and subject to a wide range of interpretation.  Whatever interpretation one gives them, they should be measured against one's value system.  

3) For me, individual freedom is at the core of that value system, NOT any notion of 'race', or 'etnicity', or other group-concept.   Although I fully realise that individual freedom can ONLY be realised in a specific 'community' or in a group-context.  But, not any group-context.   

It follows that, for me, (any kind of national) "sovereignty" can only be valuable if it promotes individual freedom.  By that I mean broadly whether it can help to develop the individual's self-determination AND self-responsibility.   Obviously, one could spend a lot of time and effort on debating the application of this principle to specific policy measures and to specific political/cultural systems.   

I follow the same principle in making judgements about any kind of specific forms of "imperialism".  And, if you want to juxtapose "sovereignty" to any forms of "internationalism", I would apply the same principle to the latter as well.     The fundamental question I always ask is: does this promote individual self-determination and self-responsibility, or not?   Obviously, the answer is not always obvious in concrete situations, both for reasons of 'complexity' and of 'lack of information'.   But, the yardstick should be clear.  

4)  I think that this notion of individual freedom at the core of one's value sytem is a legacy of the 'judeo-christian tradition'.   And I also think that that tradition (western civilisation if you will) will have run its course when that realisation is no longer broadly recognised in its (geographical) 'home lands', although one can never exclude the possibility of it taking root elsewhere.   While one could wax philosophically ad infinitum about the concept of 'individual freedom', I think that access to information and to alternative viewpoints is essential.  That is why I consider preservation of freedom of political speech the core-test of genuine 'democracy'.

5) Regarding your other points:

-- The Romans did what they did, and so did the mongols, etc...  It is not a matter of "rights".    There is no a priori reason to think that local (very local) 'tyrannies' are any more rightful than distant ones.  On the contrary, anybody (at least any independent thinker)  who has spend a few years in any particular third world country should quickly be disabused of that idea.      

-- "Slavery, genocide, rape, murder, and overal subjugation" are certainly NOT specific to "colonialism".  Any net judgement about the balance of positives and negatives of any particular form of "colonialism" will depend on the circumstances.  But, as a general rule, the answer is no.  Colonialism would on its face not be a "good thing".  That does not necessarily mean that the alternatives are any better.   The ultimate measuring stick must be individual freedom.   Know any better one?  

In Reply to Armor: Although I agree with many of your posts, I frown upon such general civilization comparisons like comparing the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union. Prior to the 20th century, analysis of Europe's Great Powers revolved around Roman comparisons, and today, we are adrift in general and simplistic comparisons with National Socialist Germany or Soviet Russia (e.g. the "EUSSR"). Contemporary international and domestic relations are far more complex, nuanced and plainly different than such ad hoc comparisons would have us believe. I will not discuss whether or not the Roman Empire was "good" for the Germanic, Celtic, Gallic, or Geto-Dacian tribes or the Greek city-states, except to say that the Eastern Roman Empire was very Hellenic in character by virtue of its demographics, so arguably the Imperium Romanum was "good" for the Greeks once they made it their own.

In Reply to MarcFrans: I detect a degree of 'chaos vs. order' (from Huntington's Clash of Civilizations) to your historical analysis, which is also evident in your postings on 'the West.' Essentially, you give the impression that you prefer imperialism to sovereignty if the former is along the lines of your particular value system. I would counter that it wasn't the Romans' decision to make to convert pagan tribes or to establish commercial links where there was once warring tribes, anymore than the Mongols had the right to do the latter in Central Asia. Arguably, sub-Saharan African societies had a greater advantage when they became independent in the 1950s and 1960s, than when Whites and Blacks first encountered one another on a significant level. So does the rule of law, infrastructure, education, etc., that was as much a part of colonial legacies as slavery, genocide, rape, murder, and overall subjugation, make colonialism "a good thing"?

Amsterdamsky: "The decline is the entire west not just europe.  The post WWII multicultist utopia is here!  Never again will we be endangered by a white majority of the type that spawned Adolf Hilter."

Agreed. In order to prevent another episode of German expansionism, every European and European-descended community must voluntarily surrender its self-determination and sovereignty to the "noble savages," like sub-Saharan Africans and Arabo-Berber Muslims who are not tainted by the European predilection towards rape, murder, totalitarianism, conquest, slavery, etc. Naturally, all non-Europeans supportive of such a development are not acting in their own interests, which is again a European disease, but are doing what's best for mankind.

Mission Impossible: "But, I do feel we can have a lot of fun preventing 'this multicultural crap' from succeeding. Where there's life there's hope."

True...if you consider riding around in a 'technical' with your pals, looking to hunt "enemy" soldiers and civilians (usually the latter) fun. Or if you consider enrolling as a 'weekend warrior' in some paramilitary unit where you get to ride on the back of surplus armor burning villages and raping women before you return to the office on Monday, fun. Or if you consider hanging 'traitors' from lamp-posts fun...etc., etc. Thanks to certain aforementioned policies and programmes, this is what Westerners (well, let's be honest: Whites) have to look forward to if they want to retain any semblance of national homogeneity.

@ Armor

I would agree with you that "loony leftism" is usually a form of decadence, but it is certainly not the only one.  And, when reading you, one surely must recognise that perverse selfhatred for one's own history is definitely not limited to "loony leftists". 

Can you really only see the 'negatives', and no 'positives', associated with any particular historical set of facts (like the Roman empire)?  You seem to have a naive and narrow view of the 'Romans', and a rather romantic view of the 'Barbarians'.   It may well be true that the Romans killed many people, but I doubt that the barbarians killed any less.  On the contrary, the Romans brought some kind of 'rule of law' in many places, and your assertion about their (presumed negative) impact on the "economy" is laughable. They probably also largely ended the constant internecine warfare between the 'Belgian' tribes and among the 'Gauls' as well, among others. They even brought 'christianity' to your ancestors, which may well be the true reason why you seem today so focused on numbers "killed".

Be that as it may, history is not kinder to "independent societies" (as you put it) than to empires.  Although geography played an important role, more in the past than today.  Hence, Iceland may well be a special case, but I doubt it, based on what I know about past fates of other 'distant' or relatively secluded island societies.  Let's say that the vikings were perhaps more 'succesful' in Iceland than they were in your part of coastal France.  At the same time, there is little doubt that Iceland was threathened during the (recent) Cold War and only 'survived' (as Iceland) thanks to the Americans.  But, then, that applies to your present country, France, as well (even though, perhaps, contemporary young French people may no longer understand that).    

Marcfrans wrote: " Like all empires (and all societies) do, the Roman empire in the end collapsed. Not because they were "imperialists", but because of internal reasons of decadence. "

Empires collapse in a way that cannot happen in independent societies. The Roman Empire was kept together by the force of the Roman army. The same was true of the Soviet Union. You cannot imagine the United States collapsing like the Soviet Union did, because there isn't a central structure maintained by force. We knew that the Soviet Union would collapse at some point. And my ancestors knew that the Roman Empire would collapse at some point, and they probably had champagne on the day it happened.

In contrast to an empire, you cannot imagine a small homogeneous country like Iceland collapsing, the idea doesn't make sense.

" their empire left an indelible mark on much of Europe and on European civilisation."

They probably killed millions of people in the neighboring countries. Being conquered by the Romans meant rapid decadence of your own civilization, language, cultural life, and economy. After the end of the Roman empire, the language was the same in what later became Italy, Romania, Spain, and France: latin !

Maybe we should make a distinction between the decadence of Roman society in Italy (which may have been a bad thing), and the destruction of the Roman Empire in Europe and the Mediterranean world (which was a good thing).

"The latest European unification project ("empire" if you will) started also in Rome, with the post WW-II Treaty of Rome."

It isn't an empire at all.

"It will in the end collapse for similar reasons: internal (cultural) decadence that undermines resistance to external forces."

Loony leftism is the essence of decadence !

@ Armor

The Romans have always been part of Europe, and their empire left an indelible mark on much of Europe and on European civilisation.  So, in a sense they never really "went home".  Like all empires (and all societies) do, the Roman empire in the end collapsed.  Not because they were "imperialists", but because of internal reasons of decadence.  

The latest European unification project ("empire" if you will) started also in Rome, with the post WW-II Treaty of Rome .  It will in the end collapse for similar reasons: internal (cultural) decadence that undermines resistance to external forces.   

Walter Laqueur: "The decline of the Roman Empire has been discussed for centuries, and it could be that the discussion about the decline of Europe will last as long."

What is happening now has nothing to do with the fall of the Roman Empire. The Romans were imperialists. I'm glad their empire collapsed in the end. Europeans went on about their lives after the Romans went home.

From MI "If the former, kindly justify your association of Hitler and 'white majority;' preferably without making a fool of yourself."

I am not alone in believing this was the true intention of this multi-culturalism crap that will soon destroy the west.

from PeterV."Europe seems pretty much alive and kicking to me!"

Still a pleasant place to live but as I watch the majority muslim students leave the public school across the street I can see that things will be changing very soon.  France is already gone despite having elected Sarkozy.  Belgium or Sweden will probably be next.  Even if changes are made immediately I think it is too late.

Venice, for a time, was the wonder and talk of Europe, with far-flung outposts, the center of commerce, an unbeatable navy, centuries-ahead manufacturing.   And then it wasn't; a vassal of Austria, the people were prosperous but was a pawn rather than a player.   

So this is Europe; from cockpit of the world to pawn.   Great speeches that nobody reads, foreign aid that is gobbled up but not reciprocated, a posturing foreign policy unanchored by substance, a tourist spot.

France today is governed by a dynamic outsider, a Hungarian.   France tomorrow will be governed as well by dynamic outsiders, perhaps nonEuropean.   Here we cry about the end of France's historical part of Western Civilization, but really, for the good of France and its role in the world, they need a dynamic immigrant community, as close to the WC narrative as possible, but certainly an outsider.    

Europe seems pretty much alive and kicking to me!

The decline is the entire west not just europe.  The post WWII multicultist utopia is here!  Never again will we be endangered by a white majority of the type that spawned Adolf Hilter. 

The decline has begun and the Barbarians are conveniently located at the gates in advance.