Several European countries have adequate supplies of enemies within to keep their armed forces busy without any need to go looking for trouble in faraway lands. However, as these internal enemies begin with said countries' own ruling cliques and their backers, it is perhaps in their interests to keep increasingly angry and decreasingly naive soldiers at a distance. The ruling class of the European Union already did away with national service in order to prevent the populace from acquiring knowledge of military tactics, discipline and the use of arms. One of the advantages of superpower status is the ability to provide "bread and circuses" for the people on the proceeds of the revenue from all the countries one is quietly pillaging. In the case of the USA, it was shopping malls, fast food, big cars and enough money to feed the habit. In the USSR, it was state-subsidised vodka. Mind you, the USA adopted a variant of the Soviet booze strategy in feeding Class S drugs into African-American communities to keep them more or less occupied in manageable ways.
The Germans, on the other hand, believe in more robust approaches to awkward people-management problems but while the idea of killing people one does not really like
en masse might be amusing enough over a beer with some friends, the Germans proved that getting rid of people terminally is not as easy as it sounds. However, history indicates that this might not stop them from trying again if they ever became sufficiently powerful. What we need, in Europe at any rate, is leadership with a pro-European bias and social services with a Scandanavian attitude to birth control. Eugenics worked very well in Scandanavian countries, as anyone who remembers Swedish aupairs can confirm, until The Ugly Mob managed to get these policies stopped, leading to a demonstrable degradation of the race.
We need government that incentivises indigenous people to make babies, even if it means installing a
Lebensborn-style system. Cynics might say that we have one already, in the form of legions of single mothers pumping out babies in order to qualify for more social security and larger flats on the state but the majority of such women - and the feckless, itinerant types who impregnate them - are precisely not the kind of people who should be making babies. We need a comprehensive social re-education programme, turning our upwardly aspiring, superior quality people from obedient consumers, dancing to the moneybags' exotic tunes, into investors in their societies' future.
This means giving them a stable future in the form of domestic industries and jobs to go with them. This means getting men back to work. This means teaching women that maintaining homes and raising children is not a cop-out. It means teaching our men what being a man entails and teaching ourwomen what it means to be a women. It means government that ensures sufficient real, tangible prosperity so that families no longer need two salaries just to keep ahead of the moneybags' bailiffs.
The Germans had a fairly good blueprint for the foundations of such a society...but they completely and utterly messed it up by, amongst other things, engaging in an insane racial war against "the Jews", which led to the mass-murder of millions of people who had never posed any threat at all to Western values instead of focusing on the relatively small but very powerful clique of hereditary moneybags of various nationalities and religious persuasions who are consistently found at the root of all misery and mayhem in the world. No need for death camps and gas chambers to deal with these people. Juán Perón attempted to implement a similar social model in Argentina and found himself blockaded at the behest of the moneybags and moneymen of Wall Street and The City.
Times have moved on, of course, and the World is a more complicated place than it was in the 1930s and 1940s. But if we are to have a European superpower, it must be a coalition or confederation of North-Western European states, the people gulled into two fratricidal wars in the last century, and it must be run by a single political entity that has no fear of standing up to the Chinese, the Indians, the Russians and, yes, the Americans. If we must have religion, let it be a single, state-approved religion like Catholicism, which works much better in cohesion with robust leadership than Protestantism, as Mussolini and, more so, Franco showed. All other religions would be banned and their practitioners invited to convert or emigrate. That was very effective in Spain in 1492. This could even have the advantageous effect of ridding our society of the pernicious virus of anti-semitism.
You see, that is the fundamental difference between "us" and the Huns. The Huns decide to address a a socio-religious issue and we get one of the nastiest genocidal enterprises the world has seen. We would simply resolve it in a bureaucratic way. No, we can't have the Huns running things. But that is not to suggest that they didn't have some jolly good ideas back in the 1920s and 1930s, before the people they elected sold out the revolution to the very moneybags - Thyssen, Krupp etc etc - who should have dangling from lampposts and trees across the land in any self-respecting revolution...
Who started this thread anyway?
PK
