by Jayden Drury

[editors note:  Nationalist Alternative are presenting two articles from two of our regular contributors, who each have a unique analysis of the recent Muslim rioting  in Sydney and around the world.]

Fouad Ajami asks ‘Why is the Arab world so easily offended?’ (The Washington Post, 14/09/12). It’s a legitimate question to ask. But ‘Arabs’ should be replaced with ‘Muslim’. Ajami is trying to link up the riots and protests with Arab nationalism, and the Arab world’s grievances, and not with Islam itself. I disagree with him: I think that these riots are an expression of a certain religious world-view, which says that anyone who mocks, or disagrees, with that religion, must be punished in some way – often through coercion or violence. That is, people who believe in certain religions respond in a violent, coercive manner when they are offended; others, of different beliefs, don’t. The Australian comedian Tim Minchin regularly mocks Christianity in his theatrical stage shows, and while, certainly, he must offend Christians, he isn’t met with riots from Christians around the world, and calls, from aggrieved Christians, to censor his material.

It is certain of the most vocal and politically-vocal followers of Judaism and Islam who are the most easily offended, and it is the ‘activists’ and ‘community leaders’ for these two ethnic groups and religious faiths who are most likely to bully other non-believers into accepting their point of view. Demonstrators in the Muslim world will riot, and burn American flags, while Jewish-American groups like the ADL will use their political power to suppress the offending material and, if possible, have the malefactors fined or sent to prison. Obviously, there is a difference in the manner that this power manifests itself. The radical Muslim groups have power in the street, while the Jewish lobbies (like the American lobby, AIPAC) have pure political power (if Israel and the Jewish-American pro-Israel lobby decides that Iran must be bombed, the next US president will bomb Iran, no questions asked: that’s power).

We only have to look at the way Holocaust Revisionism is treated, for instance, by the self-appointed ‘leaders’ of the Jewish ‘community’, who will hound Revisionists through the courts, trying to fine them and imprison them and have their ‘offensive’ books banned. The Holocaust is (barely sublimated) Jewish religion. In the Talmud, a document which is over 1500 years old, it is written that six million Jews will perish, immolated in giant ovens by non-Jews. Yahweh will recognise this burnt offering, this sacrifice, this ‘Holocaust’ (as the Talmud calls it) and will reward the Jewish people by handing back to them the long-lost State of Israel. The immolated Jews, so says the Talmud, will miraculously return to life and reclaim Israel. Obviously, then, anyone who believes in the contemporary, 20th century, Holocaust story is a believer in the Jewish religion, whether they themselves are Jewish or not; obviously, Holocaust Revisionism, or Holocaust denial, is tantamount to a form of atheism – and blasphemy. Given their highly-reactive, intolerant bent, it is no surprise that the self-appointed ‘leaders’ of the Jewish people will use their considerable political power to have the ‘deniers’ arrested, fined and imprisoned.

(Westerners will object: ‘Not all Jews read the Talmud’, or, ‘Most Jews are not religious’. Well, you turn on the TV and look at an Israeli press conference, or some conference for such-and-such Jewish association – you will see Stars of Davids, and Menorah symbols, everywhere; you hear numerous references, from Jewish media commentators, to Israel as ‘The Holy Land’; you hear Bibi Netanyahu and other pro-Israel Jewish groups and commentators (and non-Jewish groups, e.g., the US Democrat Party) assert, repeatedly, that undivided Jerusalem must be the capital of Israel, and not Tel Aviv. All of this looks, smells, feels, religious to me – and the Jewish religion is based on what’s in the Talmud).

Liberalism, as most Westerners know it, doesn’t exist in (what Spengler called) the Arabic-Semitic, or Magian, Culture: the notion that speech (including the production of cultural works) should be free and untrammelled, and not be censored in advance (for fear that it will ‘offend’ someone) is, traditionally, completely foreign to it. Truth is something ordained by rabbis or mullahs. Shariah law tells us that the penalty for apostasy is beheading; Talmudic law tells us the penalty for disagreeing with a rabbi is to have concrete poured down one’s throat… (Admittedly, we Western whites did things like that a long time ago – see the excellent 2007-2010 series, The Tudors – but we’ve changed since then). Obviously, this is not very liberal. But then, both Islam and Judaism have existed in a bubble, completely isolated from Western concepts and ideas (such as liberalism) for a very long time, and were only exposed to them comparatively recently. Liberalism is not endogenous to (that is, a natural part of) the Magian Culture: no John Stuart Mill has ever appeared there… Last night, I saw a Muslim ‘community leader’ being interviewed on SBS television: he trotted out the old line, ‘Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to offend people’. That completely misses Mill’s point, and liberalism’s point. There is no picking and choosing when it comes to free speech: that defeats the purpose.

Coincidentally, that line – ‘Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to offend people’ – is now the dominant view in the West as well, or, to put it more accurately, the view of the dominant political force in the West. Since the 1960s (at least), a group, or class of individuals I call the ‘anti-white clique’ has ruled the West: it is their politics which dominates the parliaments, the press, the sports bodies, the churches, the trade unions, the universities, the police and armed forces personnel… The anti-white clique wants to reduce the white Western peoples – in Western cities such as Paris, London, Stockholm, Athens, Melbourne – to a minority; the goal is to fill the major population centres, to bursting point, with huge numbers of immigrants from China, India, Africa, the Middle East, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, etc. Oslo, Brussels, Amsterdam, Sydney, will have a marvellous mixture of Kurds, Afghans, Africans, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. – but no Norwegians, Belgians, Dutch or Australians. This program of mass ethnic cleansing of whites from their homelands is well under way, and has been for decades. White people, understandably, object to it: but the anti-white clique has managed to, de facto, criminalise these objections, using several anti-freedom of speech laws masquerading as ‘anti-racist’ laws. So we find the Muslim and Jewish ‘community leaders’, and the anti-white brigade, in complete agreement when it comes to this statement: ‘Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to offend people’.

This does lead to a problem for the anti-white brigade, however. One can’t say bad things about Islam or Judaism, because doing so would be ‘offensive’ to these groups. But supposing that one doesn’t agree with that religion, and what’s more, disagrees because one thinks there are some really, really bad ideas in it: is that ‘offensive’, does that render one liable for prosecution? If I say I don’t believe in the contents of the Koran or the Talmud, and believe that following the precepts of either would lead to serious harm (to oneself, and the people around one) – would I be liable for prosecution? Where, exactly, do we stand? Most Westerners still believe in liberalism, secularism and freedom of speech. These liberal beliefs clash with the main tenet of the anti-white clique, which is one of ‘repressive tolerance’ (viz., that Western whites who don’t like immigrants or their religion or culture should be locked up). Most Westerners don’t believe that material ‘offensive’ to either Muslims or Jewish people should be removed from the Internet or public libraries; and they believe that Holocaust Revisionists should be allowed to be free to say and write what they like – even if they don’t approve or agree with Holocaust Revisionism.

In addition, most Westerners disagree with the Islamists when it comes to the status of women. We are daily inundated, through the media, with stories of Muslim immigrants, in the West, forcing young women, or teenage girls even, into arranged marriages, or killing wives and daughters in the name of ‘honour’, and the rest. We are assured, by academics and experts on Islam, that such behaviour isn’t condoned by the Koran, or Shariah law: but why does it keep occurring, again and again, in the same Muslim immigrant communities? This parsing doesn’t work. It’s true that 99% of the Jewish population hasn’t read the Talmud, and yet the Holocaust story, which confirms the prophecies in the Talmud right to the letter, keeps on appearing, in our media, our films, on our TVs, day after day, year after year – and many of these Holocaust epics and documentaries are produced by (so far as I can tell) secular and non-observant Jewish people.

All these stories of honour killings, etc., in the Pakistani immigrant communities in Britain (and elsewhere in the West), really makes the Guardian-reading Westerner uncomfortable. He approves the anti-white brigade’s bringing in of millions of Muslims to Europe: the presence of 15 million or so Muslims in the EU has really livened things up – before, Europe was suffocating from lack of diversity. But, he asks, why won’t these Muslim immigrants conform to Western standards of behaviour?

The Guardian or New York Times reader is adept at self-censorship: if he finds a naughty thought straying into his head (‘Geert Wilders is right on those Muslims!’), he will quickly suppress it. But it is, in fact, liberals like him that Wilders (and Nick Griffin, and the British Freedom Party) is aiming to capture. One means of doing that is by pointing out, very clearly, the real differences between the Muslims and him.

What’s clear is that the anti-Muslim was produced by a constellation of individuals with ties to the Breivikist anti-Islamics, and possibly to Israel itself. The makers of this film were clearly aiming at inciting riots and disorder in the Islamic world, following a strategy summarised in the Nationalist Alternative article, ‘The Neofascist Method: the EDL, Breivik and “Double Legality”‘ by Donald Winters. They have been spectacularly successful, and as a nationalist activist, I am envious of the makers of this shoddily-produced film for getting the attention of the world: I would love for anything produced by me to be labelled, by Hilary Clinton, as being ‘disgusting’ – a sure sign that one has done something right. Winters’ article is correct in at least one thing: the Muslim immigrant population, in the West, is unusually reactive, unusually sensitive to slight, easily gets ‘offended’ – and thereby is more prone to engage in extra-parliamentary actions (demonstrations, riots). Supposing that Jared Taylor or David Duke were to make a film belittling Afro-Americans: would Afro-Americans go out and riot? What if British nationalists were to make a film attacking the Indian and African immigrant population? If Australian nationalists were to make a film on the Chinese and Indian immigrants? We know the answer. Some groups are passive, politically, others aren’t. (The Chinese and Japanese will demonstrate and riot, and so will the South Koreans and Japanese – see the recent disturbances regarding the territorial disputes in the South China Sea. But this is a purely internal, Asian matter, and none of these countries pay the slightest attention to any nationalist articles, or films, from the West).

Something that is puzzling, at first sight, is why Jewish people would get involved in things such as producing this film or funding the EDL. Politically-active Jewish people, after all, are invariably proponents of multiculturalism, and one of the chief tenets of multiculturalism is that various ethnic groups, white and non-white, can live in the same Western country in perfect harmony. When one of these non-white ethnic groups, however, starts rioting and making a ruckus over a silly 15-minute YouTube clip and even kills a US diplomat or two – well, they aren’t following the script. What we have is what Carl Schmitt would call a state of exception. And indeed, the anti-Islamist strategy – of provoking the Muslims – is based on creating this state of exception. Why, then, would Jewish people in the West want to contribute to this? Do they want a breach in multiculturalism? As we know, once the Westerner starts looking askance at the (very non-Western) Muslim communities in his midst – he will start looking to other, Semitic groups as well. That’s the reasoning of the politically-active Jewish person. He’s terrified of being identified as The Other, and of Jews being expelled from the West, in the same way that the Jewish people have been expelled from a European country, every century, for the past 1500 years. He lives, breathes, this paranoia; it’s his bread and butter.

Goebbels once characterised the Jews as an ‘unlucky’ people, and indeed, it’s a thesis of anti-Semitism that Jews eventually bring about their own ruin – and the ruin of the country their Diaspora finds itself in.

An example of this is the recently-announced policy, by the Jewish-American Bernanke, of a third round of ‘quantitative easing’. Bernanke will pump massive amounts of dollars into circulation, for the third time, with the aim of devaluing the US dollar and bringing about an inflation. (This dollar weakness will, of course, be reflected by the gold price: gold, in US dollars, will rise and rise, which is another way of saying that one will have to pay more US dollars to buy an ounce of gold). This devaluation started even before Bernanke’s official announcement this week: gold in US dollars has climbed over 10% in the past thirty days (which is another way of saying that the US dollar has been devalued by over 10%). Rest assured, rises in the gold price are first, rises in commodities like oil, copper, zinc, aluminium, wheat and land will follow.

One of the dreadful things about devaluation is that other countries have to follow, in tandem, when a big country like the US devalues. Suppose that Australia had maintained a rigid parity of $AUD1 = one ounce of gold. A $AUD500 television set would cost over $USD850,000. The Australian economy would be crushed. Which is why Australia has had to devalue its currency along with the US. The US dollar (in gold terms) has lost over 150% in the past five years, the Australian dollar (in gold) has lost over 99.5%. This is what economists call competitive devaluation.

Rising prices in US dollars, via competive devaluation, mean rising prices in the rest of the world. For the Third World – and that includes much of the Muslim world – basic staples like wheat and rice will go up and up. Which means more economic weakness, which means more discontent, more riots, and more Islamist radicalisation. The recent Arab Spring was, in part, brought about by rising commodity prices – and the subsequent economic discontent – in the Arab world.

To Bernanke, of course, he is doing good things with this quantitative easing. But this is the anti-Semite’s point. A Jewish person with great power and influence (like Bernanke, or the Jewish-American economist Milton Friedman) may believe that he’s doing good, but really, his actions are ultimately destructive – to the Western culture he lives in, and, in the end, to the Jewish diaspora itself. Bernanke is, in effect, making the US economy weaker – and, by extension, making the US geopolitically weaker; he is, through his actions, inciting anti-American sentiment, and Islamist radicalism, abroad.

I once remarked, to a conservative friend (over ten years ago), why Clinton, in his second term, had appointed 56 Jewish-Americans to his cabinet (the biggest number of Jewish-American appointees since the days of Roosevelt). My friend retorted, ‘Jews are smart’. Indeed, if Jewish-Americans are smart, why not use them, why not get them to help you run the country? But it’s my belief that the likes of Geithner, Bernanke, Summers, Emmanuel and the rest aren’t very smart. The Jewish people who may (or may not) have produced the anti-Muslim film are guilty of fouling their own nest, so to speak; the likes of Bernanke is guilty of weakening the US economy and US influence abroad. That isn’t very smart. It’s almost as though these Jewish individuals want to shoot Israel and the US in the foot.

Should we nationalists complain? Maybe not: after all, we want to see these disturbances in the sphere of multiculturalism: we want to show the world that Westerners, and Muslim immigrants, cannot live in the same countries in peace. We also want to see a weak US, and a stronger Germany and Turkey, and Arab Spring revolts which topple pro-Western Arab leaders. The prevailing state of affairs suits us just fine.

But the main thing is for nationalists to stick to their present course. Our present debate is not one of Western secularism and liberalism versus Islamism, or Zionism and Judaism versus Islamism: it’s between the Western nationalists and the anti-white brigade. It is the producers of newspapers like the Guardian, and The New York Times, who are the greatest threat Western civilisation has ever faced, because it is their values – their anti-white, nihilistic values – which dominate us in the West, politically, culturally, intellectually, emotionally.

One Response to Islamists Gone Wild: ‘The Innocence of Muslims’, the Jewish lobby and QE3

  1. Jay Of Melbourne says:

    Interesting point there on Jewish self sabotage, why did Spielberg make the Holocaust documentary “The Last Days” when it’s basic premise, the fabricated story of the Black camp liberators had been totally discredited years earlier? His Shoah foundation has probably done more damage to the longevity of the Holocaust narrative than any so called “Holocaust Denier” could ever do, he employs some of the most shocking liars and shills whose testimony is so crude and their deceit so childish that it’s almost funny to watch.
    Bob Whitaker observed that in his experience a lot of U.S politicians and public servants are really simple folk, not too bright but amiable and flexible enough in their attitudes that they can get along. There’s that image you described of the comrade who described Jews as “smart”, I have a friend who can’t be moved from the position that post Muslim Spain struggled because they expelled all the Jews who “knew how to run things”. Maybe they, like Ben Shalom Bernanke were just really incompetent managers who screwed everything up really badly, just as Spielberg’s laughable Shoah foundation is screwing up the Holocaust narrative.

Leave a Reply

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

Please enter CAPTCHA *