Observations on a Massacre

On February 2, 2015, in Uncategorized, by natalt

Owen Dittmer

The Hebdo massacre holds shock value becausemost of the victims were DWLs (Deluded White Liberals) and members of the establishment; the attack took place in a nice, modern, clean Continental and Scandinavian-style office (so much more pleasant-looking, and family friendly, than Melbourne or Sydney’s offices) of the type so many DWLs either work in or aspire to work in. The fact that the Charlie Hebdo staff were members of the bourgeois elite, and held all the right, politically-correct views (anti-racist, anti-nationalist, secular, irreligious) didn’t protect them; neither did the fact they were on home ground, that is, in an environment in which they believed they would be safe.

We are at war, and have been for some time – perhaps for at least fifteen years. The shock and revulsion toward the Paris massacre was a belated recognition of this fact. This is not a conventional war, waged with tanks, jets, navy ships and soldiers in uniform: it’s a guerrilla war waged on European soil. The French are the Americans in Vietnam, the Islamist ‘soldiers of Allah’ are the Viet Cong, the Muslim immigration population are the South Vietnamese and their banilieues little Vietnamese villages and rice paddies. The question is – and even the liberal establishment is beginning to ask this – what is the political affiliation of the Muslims in Europe and the West? Do they support the guerrillas or don’t they? It’s hard to tell a ‘good’ Muslim from a ‘ bad’ one; it was hard to distinguish a ‘good’ South Vietnamese from a Viet Cong sympathiser. Language and cultural barriers stand in the way of distinguishing, and guerrillas use subterfuge to make it even more difficult – camouflaging themselves in the population.

My own impression is that the Muslim population in France gives in principled support to the actions of the Paris Islamists. The French Muslim community leaders are feigning sympathy for the victims and are crying crocodile tears. As for the fact that one or two Muslims got killed in the process, so what… Algerians who fought for the French during the war in Algeria – the ‘harkis’ – were massacred in the tens of thousands after the French pulled out in 1962. Islamists and their Muslim sympathisers see fellow Muslims like the ‘hero’ Arab policeman, who was murdered begging for his life, as harkis.

It should be noted, too, that the primary victims of Islamists outside the West – e.g., in Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan – are Muslim. Islamism is all about control, and now and then Islamists have to perform a prophylactic massacre of their fellow Muslims (as in the recent school massacre in Pakistan) to keep the population in line. After all, Muhammad and his followers didn’t attain power over the entire Arab world through peaceful means. No, they waged war against their fellow Arabs and were in many ways more barbaric than ISIS or Al Qaeda Yemen.

The new Muhammads rely on guerrilla tactics, and this is one the sources of their strength. Islamist guerrilla warfare is much more different than conventional warfare. For one thing, it’s cheap. It costs next to nothing to equip and train an Islamist cell, and to carry out an attack. There’s no shortage of conscripts, either. The number of potential recruits in Europe alone must number in the hundreds of thousands, at least. When we consider these facts, the assertion – made by some since the Hebdo massacre – that the Islamists could take over France within five to ten years doesn’t seem unreasonable. The question is, how to resist?

Because the guerrilla swims in the population as a fish swims in the sea (to paraphrase Mao Tse Tung), standard counter-insurgency doctrine stresses the importance of separating the population from the guerrilla. Residents of a village are to be rounded up and moved to guarded camps. In the urban areas, everyone is forced to carry an ID card, and spies – usually ‘trusties’ from the occupied population – are inserted inevery block (the German ‘block warden’ system used in occupied Europe during the war). India uses similar methods to combat the Maoist insurgency, and it’s only these doctrines which stand the chance of success. Conventional warfare methods, like those used by the Americans in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, won’t work.

But France, of course, doesn’t have the political will to undertake such a campaign. Neither does it have the will to try the alternative – the expulsion of the Muslim population from French soil (and, of course, a ban on any Muslim, any Middle Easterner, from entering the country ever again). That option would be efficient, more cost-effective, than any counter-insurgency campaign, but is, as I said, politically impossible.

The reason for this is French historical experience. The French, as we know, were kicked out of North Vietnam by the communists – their campaign failed mainly because of their reliance on conventional tactics. By the time of the next colonial war – in Algeria – the French had learned from their experience and had developed a body of counter-insurgency doctrine. They applied these methods with great success. They ‘won’ the war against the Algerian national-liberationist guerrillas, but were forced to retreat – and uproot the hundreds of thousands of French settlers (the pieds noir). Why? The answer is politics. We see, in the classic movie the Battle of Algiers (1966), how the French soldiers were accused – by the French Left and many other bleeding-heart liberals and do-gooders – of being ‘ fascists’ and ‘Nazis’. One soldier indignantly responds to these accusations by saying, ‘We’re not Nazis – many of us were in Dachau’. The Algerian guerrillas carried out atrocities, just like the French occupiers, but it was the French who were held to the high moral standard. Anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-Nazism were, by that time, on their way to becoming a religion – the religion of the entire Western world. It’s why the French were forced to give up Algeria.

Related to this are ‘French values’. We hear, in the media, plenty of talk about ‘French values’ and how the Islamists contradict these. But what are the ‘French values’? The modern French ideology stems from 1944, when the Allies and the Free French invaded France and ‘liberated’ it. The French Resistance, and the communists, massacred tens of thousands – perhaps 90,000-100,000 – of right-leaning French or any French person suspected of being a ‘collaborator’. This brought about a return to the values that held sway before the German occupation.These values – modern ‘French values’ – were: philo-Semitism; ‘pink’ sympathies for communism; republicanism; masonry; liberal democracy; secularism; a poisonous brand of French nationalism which is not based on any love of France and the French volk, but on hatred of Germans.

After the Nuremberg trials, and the massacres of the ‘collaborators’, an additional set of values – of ultra-humanism, internationalism, open borders, multiracialism, anti-patriotism, anti-militarism – became compulsory, not only for France but the entire West. Any intellectual who pointed this out found himself in hot water – see, for instance, the French writer Maurice Bardechè, author of Nuremberg or the Promised Land (1948), who was imprisoned.

Because of ‘French values’ and Nurembergism, France was unable to prevent the expansion of Islamism. The surest way to prevent Islamism from taking root upon French soil would have been to prevent the millions of Muslim immigrants from entering France in the first place. But, had a law been passed in 1970 or 1980 to restrict immigration from North Africa and the Middle East, the French Jewish community would have cried ‘racism’, even ‘Nazism’. So would all the bleeding-heart liberals, the communists, the priests, the journalists and the trade unionists. Even now, after the recent massacre, we can foresee a massive outcry were the French government to deport one – but one – Muslim family. The French are damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

It’s only nationalism which can provide a way out. But nationalism itself presents us with a few problems. For one, quite a few people on the Far Right – or people affiliated with it – refuse to criticise Muslims. Some, such as David Duke, won’t even mention the recent massacre; others, such as Brother Nathaneal, Gilad Atzmon, Veterans Today, opine that the terrorist attacks were a ‘false flag’, probably the work of Mossad and Israel, designed to make Muslims look bad. The conspiracy theorists will pick up on any inconsistencies – or what they imagine to be inconsistencies – and make a problem of something which is no problem at all (for instance, the fact that one of the Kouachi brothers left behind photo ID in a getaway car). They raise a few questions (which, they imagine, are damaging to the ‘corporate media’ version of events) and then conclude that Mossad was to blame. Muslims themselves will use the same pattern of reasoning: Kouachi left his ID in a car, therefore, the massacre was a false flag performed by Mossad.

The pro-Islamists live in a uni-polar world, that is a world with one actor. That actor is international Jewry. The truth is, however, that the world is multi-polar, with multiple actors: there is Jewry, there is Islam, there is Russia, there is China. And contrary to what some may believe, neither Israel, Russia nor China are prepared to help the West deal with its Islamist problem. Indeed, it’s not clear what any of them could do. The only sure means of winning a counter-insurgency war against the Islamists in Europe – and the West – is to deport, en masse, the West’s Muslim immigrants. That’s a decision we Westerners need to make ourselves.

II.

So, geopolitically, the world is divided up into three main camps: the Western, which is dominated by the US and UK, in alliance with Israel; the Chinese; the Russian. What of the internal political divisions within the West? We find three different political groups, each of them competing against one another and vying for dominance: these are the liberal and Jewish alliance; Islam; and the Far Right.

The first group – the liberal and Jewish alliance – is the one that wields power in the West and has ruled all of the West (Europe and colonies such as Australia) since at least 1944-1945. It is represented by three individuals who formed an unholy alliance in the 1930s and 1940s: Roosevelt, Churchill, and Chaim Waizmann (first president of Israel and a close friend of Churchill’s). Nowadays, it’s Obama, Cameron and Netanyahu. The Western (that is, non-Jewish) half of the alliance tends towards liberalism and holds ‘pink’ sympathies for communism. Indeed, it’s communism that informs much of their rhetoric: Merkel, for example, with her thundering denunciations of ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘prejudice’, and her calls for ‘unity’ and ‘understanding’, is taking the same line as the communist newspapers. Hollande, Cameron, Merkel and other Western political leaders stand today on (what would have been in 1950 or 1960) the Left of the political spectrum, as do all our trade union heads, priests, intellectuals, journalists…

But divisions are emerging. The Left’s break with Israel started in the 1970s, and the establishment today – mainly composed of liberal-minded baby boomers – have received the impress of that time. Many of them now in 2015 have to pay lip service to Zionism and make declarations of their love for the Jewish State, but Israel can see through this – it knows it is disliked. So that’s one source of contention. Another is the fact that the Western liberals, unlike the Jews in the West, have a racial death wish. Sometime around the 1970s, it was decided, by the establishment, that the French people needed to be replaced by Africans and Middle Easterners. France then admitted millions and millions of non-white immigrants, while all the other countries of the West – including Australia – did the same. The Jewish Diaspora in the West applauded the open-borders policy and at the same time made sure that the State of Israel would remain a Jewish state and be ethnically pure. But the problem is – especially in Europe – many of the immigrants were Muslim, and this causes problems for European Jews. We know that, had France adopted a restrictionist immigration policy, the staff of Charlie Hebdo would still be alive, as would those Jewish shoppers in that Paris kosher deli. But the priority for the liberal establishment, since 1970, has been: destroy ourselves. The liberals want the white man to go under, to die out. European Jewry, on the other hand, doesn’t want to die. Hence the division between Jewry and the liberals. It’s a split which will turn into a chasm.

Jewry finds itself in a difficult position. On the one hand, it wants to mobilise the (considerable) military and police resources of the West to destroy the Islamists; it wants to do to them what the US and UK did to Germany and its allies in WWII – wipe them out and maybe put a few leaders on ‘trial’ for ‘war crimes’. On the other hand, it recognises that the Muslims are kindred – that Jews and Muslims are members of what Spengler calls the ‘Magian’ or Arabic-Semitic Culture. For that reason, it can’t bring itself to hate the Muslims to the same extent that it hated the Germans from 1933 onwards. This is despite the massacres of Jews perpetrated by Muslims since the earliest days of Islam.

Yet another problem Jewry has with a ‘War on Islam’ is that such a war would increase ethnic self-awareness among Europeans and white Westerners. When it comes down to brass tacks, Jewish intellectuals don’t have any qualms against restrictions of Muslim immigration, or even the deportation of Muslims from Europe – after all, they support Israel unconditionally when it undertakes similar measures. But – and this is their reasoning -won’t these practices (if taken up by Europeans) be ‘discriminatory’ towards a people of Semitic origin? And Europe, after ‘discriminating’ against one group of Semites in Europe (the Muslims), may turn its attention to the other (the Jews). Some sections of the liberal establishment are now, after the Paris massacre (and consequent spread of ‘Islamophobia’), putting up the cry that ‘Muslims are the new Jews’. That slogan is an appeal to Jewish intellectuals and community leaders: it’s a warning – ‘Muslims now, Jews next’.

As to why the fate of the Jewish and liberal alliance is so important, the answer is that one can’t get by in politics without coalitions and alliances. Churchill and Roosevelt would never gotten to power, or stayed there, without the covert support of British and American Jewry respectively, and the US and UK could only defeat Germany and Japan with the help of the USSR and China. Germany began to lose the war only after the invasion and defection of Italy, its ideological brother-in-arms. The choice of a partner in a coalition, and the maintenance of that coalition, is paramount in politics and war. The question is – now since the Paris massacre more pertinent than ever – who should we nationalists align ourselves with?

The people who make up the liberal establishment are of a wide variety of ideological persuasions: conservatives, social-democrats, social liberals, neoliberals and libertarians, even communists and anarchists (both of whom see themselves as standing outside the liberal establishment but are in fact very much part of it). Similarly, a number of tendencies can be lumped in together and categorised as Far Right. Not all of them are nationalists as such: Jared Taylor, David Duke, Bob Whitaker can’t be called ‘nationalist’, and it’s doubtful that Geert Wilders is a Dutch nationalist – he’s a philo-Semitic liberal who happens to dislike Islam. But they all hold things in common; to an apolitical observer, who doesn’t understand the fine nuances of Far Rightism, nationalism, racialism, they may all ‘look the same’ and be cut from the same cloth. But of course distinctions exist, and I argue that it’s the choice of strategic alliances which distinguish one Far Right leader from one another.

One such strategic alliance is that between the Far Right and the Arabs. Many on the Far Right, even after 9/11, have chosen to ‘team up’ with the Arabs and Muslims. It’s the Jewish half of the liberal-Jewish alliance which is most offensive to these people, and they work on the principle that my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran were to be allies in the European and Western Far Right’s struggle against Jewry because the biggest enemy of Israel and Jewry – and the ‘neocon’ intellectuals of the Bush era – was Islamism. The alliance caused consternation amongst Jews at the time and shocked the liberal establishment – ‘Holocaust Revisionists have held a conference in Tehran!’. It made the Rush Limbaughs and Tony Abbotts sit up – a good outcome. But, as a strategy, it has led to some severe compromises. Take, for instance, the case of David Duke, who appears to have ditched the white nationalism of his early career and now focuses solely on Israel and Jewish scandals. For weeks, his website made no mention of the Paris massacre, preferring to concentrate instead on last year’s killings of Palestinians in Gaza. Finally, he broke his silence and ran an article at Netanyahu’s ‘pushy’ and ‘obnoxious’, typically Israeli, behaviour at the Hebdo commemoration march in Paris. A real crime, to be sure.

One wants to ask Duke: given that the massacres of Palestinians in Gaza are so important, and that Muslim and Arab life is so precious, why no mention of the recent massacres by Boko Haram, Al Qaeda Yemen, the Pakistani Taliban and ISIS? We know the answer. The crimes of these Islamist groups can’t be pinned on Jewry, and the Paris massacre wasn’t worthy of a mention because Jews weren’t the perpetrators. (Similarly, the American anti-police race riots of 2014 weren’t Jewish and Israeli, so were largely omitted).

Certain on the Far Right movement – and this includes those who are on the fringes of it, e.g., Henry Makow, Alain Soral, Gilad Atzmon – are so desperate to exonerate Arabs and Muslims, and make Jewry solely responsible for the West’s ills, that they allege that the Boston bombings, the Lee Rigby murder, and now the Paris massacre are all ‘false flags’, carried out by Jews and NWO types, with the intention of framing poor innocent Muslims. A few of the ‘false flaggers’ seem to have quietened down in the past week, perhaps because they are being made aware that their stories are ridiculous. There is no way that Mossad could have impersonated the African Muslim Coulibaly (perhaps the Mossad agent went in blackface) and held supermarket shoppers hostage. Perhaps, in a scenario reminiscent of the 1989 comedy film, Weekend at Bernie’s, the real Coulibaly was killed by Mossad and his corpse carried around France in the boot of a car; the Mossad agent in blackface managed to sneak out of the Jewish supermarket before the police burst in and the police opened fire on Coulibaly’s corpse, which was propped up with a stick. This is ludicrous, of course, but it’s what the Makows and innumerable posters on Far Right sites want you to believe.

As stated before, there are three political groupings in the West today: the Far Right, Islam, and the liberal and Jewish establishment. (Some may object to my characterisation of Islam as a political grouping ‘in the West’ – but Muslims, because of the sheer weight of their numbers, do form a political unit now). It’s reasonable to think that, if the Far Right could form an alliance with one of the other two groups, the pair could unite and overcome the third. That’s the rationale behind the pro-Islam and pro-Arab strategy.

Putting aside for a moment the question of the worth of the pro-Islam strategy, what of the alternative – an alliance with the liberals and Jews against the Muslims? This is the course undertaken by Front National, Wilders’ Party of Freedom, the Danish People’s Party, the Swedish Democrats and other ‘Zio-populist’ groups, and by many of the professional anti-Islamist intellectuals (some of them Jewish, some not) who support ‘Western liberal democracy’ and ‘Western values’ against Islam and Islamic immigration. Some in the American white nationalist movement – e.g., Jared Taylor – lean this way as well.

It’s understandable that one would want to align one’s forces with those of the liberal establishment. After all, the latter is powerful and has great resources. The state of Saxony and the city of Dresden managed to organise a large counter-march against PEGIDA in Dresden (outside the Frauenkirche) a few weeks ago. From what I’ve read, the government put on a free open-air pop concert, which managed to lure large numbers of Germans there (Germans love outdoor events). Likewise, for the Charlie Hebdo commemoration march – attended by 3.7 million people – the government made public transport free and offered tickets (discounted to 29 euros) for those travelling from Holland, Belgium and Germany. The nationalist movement can’t compete with that.

The liberal establishment is rather good at faking and stage-managing. It’s only come to light now, seventy-five years later, how the Allies used Hollywood directors and big-shots to make propaganda movies on the ‘liberation’ of the German concentration camps at the end of the war. Nowadays, the establishment can organise a Nicholae Ceaușescu-style rally, with a huge turnout and favourable media coverage, in a short amount of time. In Germany, the government has been for years deploying, with great success, ‘anti-fascist’ anarchist and communist counter-demonstrators against German nationalists.

But the liberal and Jewish political establishment only appears strong on the surface. It possesses much in the way of power, money, resources, it may control the entire media and the entire political discourse (conventional political discourse, that is), but it is politically weak. In some countries, such as Greece and France, it is extremely weak. There is a big difference between accepting policy which has been forced upon you and actually wanting it, and how many in the West want more and more non-white immigration? How many Australians want Chinese immigration to increase up to the point where Australians become a minority? How many Americans want Mexican and Central American immigration? The answer is: very few. It’s only the political establishment which wants immigration; it’s only the European political establishment which wants compulsory Islam for Europe. The masses don’t want immigration and they don’t want to live in Muslim ‘communities’. Yet the Merkels continue to force Islam and immigration down their throats. Hers is an unpopular message, and Merkel (please pardon my vulgarity) is selling what we Australians call a shit sandwich.

When such a wide divergence appears between the masses and their leaders, that’s when revolutions begin. Lenin observed that, for a revolution to take place, it’s the leaders, not just the masses, who want change: the leadership needs to come to a realisation that the old way of doing things can’t continue. If we apply that dictum to our present situation, we see that yes, there are signs of splits emerging within the liberal establishment. The Jewish side takes issue with the liberals on the question of Islam: it doesn’t oppose non-white immigration as such, and in fact, believes that the more non-whites who emigrate to Europe and the West, the better; but it does have a problem with Muslim immigrants and Muslim ‘communities’. That’s one big crack in the liberal and Jewish alliance.

Moreover, the liberal side itself is showing divisions. The main problem the liberal side of the alliance has with Islamism is Islamism’s martial character. Allegedly, on a recent trip to Germany, the Turkish president Erdogan told an audience of Turkish immigrants that Islam would conquer Europe through demographic expansion – that is, through reproduction and immigration. The implication was that Muslims in Europe only had to keep a low profile, not draw attention to themselves, and breed and breed – and then Europe would be conquered without a shot. It’s a conquest by stealth, a strategy similar to the one Mexicans have adopted in the American South and Chinese here in Australia. Now, had the Muslims of Europe followed Erdogan’s advice, there wouldn’t have been any problems and many of the liberals would have kept their mouths shut. They may object to immigration and the problems it brings – e.g., the strain placed on public services – but they will keep their objections to themselves. The liberals form a self-policing community, and they are terrified that – if they bring up in political discourse the subject of race and immigration – they will be ostracised by their peers. They will be called ‘racist’ and even ‘Nazi’ – they may even be accused of voting for the British National Party (BNP) or the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD). It’s a system, and one which works well. But Islamism is problematic in that it threatens to burst that system asunder. Even though Muslims are winning the demographic war in Europe, Islamists aren’t satisfied with this – they want an actual war: hence terrorism. Such violent actions mark Muslim immigrants (and their descendants) as being different from Indian, Chinese and Christian African immigrants, and herein lies the problem. At least some of the liberals have a sense of self-preservation and know that, when images of the blood-stained offices of the Charlie Hebdo flash up on the TV screen, it’s their values which are under attack. They begin to acknowledge the differences between themselves and the Muslims and to question the value of Islam itself. When they see Islamists carry out atrocities in and outside the West, when they see protests around the Muslim condemning the Hebdo cartoons (but not the Hebdo murders), when they hear Muslims, in Western countries, offering only grudging sympathy for the victims (and implying that they had it coming), and blaming the attacks on the Jews and Mossad (and never Muslims) – they have to ask themselves, ‘What the devil is up with these people?’.

That’s one side of the liberal faction. The other side – the pro-Islamist side – is trying desperately to keep the narrative on track. ‘Islamism isn’t true Islam’ – suddenly Western atheist liberals are Koranic scholars who can tell you what is ‘true’ Islam and what isn’t: they know more about Islam than the Kouachis and Coulibalys. ‘Islam isn’t the problem, it’s xenophobia’ – it’s the Swedish Democrats, the Front National, the NPD, PEGIDA and UKIP who are committing massacres in Pakistani schools and blowing themselves up in Yemen. All of this is laughable. If you want to hear the vox populi, you should read the comments sections in the newspapers (at least, read them before the moderators shut them off). An op-ed appeared in the left-wing British Guardian newspaper by Timothy Garton Ash, ‘Germany’s anti-Islamic movement Pegida is a vampire we must slay’ (18/1/2015). The vast majority of comments – there were over 700 of them – were negative towards both Islamism and Garton Ash’s thesis that ‘Islamophobia is the problem, not Islam’. Many of them were your average liberals. It goes without saying that some of the commentators tried to exert control over the proceedings and cow the others with accusations of ‘Islamophobia’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘racism’ and ‘voting for UKIP’, but it didn’t wash. One commentator stated that the Left was losing credibility in Europe and that the thinking of the Garton Ashs was one of the reasons why.

All this is evidence that at least part of liberal faction is turning against Islamism – and Islam, and Muslim ‘communities’ – and that the Paris massacre represents a watershed moment. The liberals wrung their hands after the London bus bombing, the Boston marathon bombing, the Ottawa shooting, the Sydney siege, but weren’t prepared to take a stand – they went back to the same as usual politics . The Far Right attempted to use these terrorist attacks to prove their point: the BNP, for example, published a poster with a photo of the 2005 London bus bombing and the caption, ‘Maybe it’s time people started listening to the BNP’. The liberals – including many prominent ‘conservatives’ – denounced the BNP and accused them of ‘exploiting the tragedy’. The vast majority of Guardian readers at the time agreed. Now, though, things are different. These British liberals aren’t going to vote for UKIP, or the BNP, or the professional anti-Islamics (such as Liberty GB), but they have been made thoughtful by the Paris massacre.

A liberal is (by my definition) someone who agrees with the political establishment’s contention that the three greatest people of the 20th century were Anne Frank, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. That covers a wide number of ideologies, from libertarians to socialists to communists to US conservatives who believe that Martin Luther King was ‘one of us’, a ‘conservative Republican’. We can say that a large number of factions exist in liberalism, as I define it. Within that group, it’s the communists who seem to exert the most influence in terms of shaping people’s thoughts and opinions. That is despite the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern bloc, and in fact, the communists in the West seem to have gotten stronger since then. They have achieved their influence and power by infiltrating several institutions such as the press (and, according to some, the Obama administration and the US Democrat Party). By anyone’s standards, they have been enormously successful, even though they are even more divided and splintered than the Far Right is.

The question is, will the communist faction of the liberal establishment (and the fellow-travellers – the anarchists, social-progressives, environmentalists, gay rights activists) divide over Islamism? After the Paris massacre, does the Left show signs of cracking?

The communists labour under the delusion that they can ‘use’ Islam and make the Muslim immigrants part of their rainbow coalition (which includes gays, transgender people, feminists, indigenous rights activists, environmentalists and the rest). Historically, of course, Islamist movements after taking over a country devour communists. There is no reason why the Islamists would not, after taking control (or even partial control) of France or Holland or England, destroy the ‘progressives’. Islamism is a greater threat to the Left than any fascist revival. Trotskyists, Maoists, libertarian communists and other factions of communism in the West are not renowned for their strategic nous, and if they really do want a ‘socialist revolution’, aiding and abetting Islamism is not the way to go about it.

But that’s assuming that the Far Left really does want what it says it wants. Does it really want ‘socialism’? Or does it want the destruction of the white European peoples… A hostility towards the West and Western colonialism supplied much of the impetus for Russian communism – likewise for Chinese communism. Afro-American communists are motivated more by a (often openly expressed) racial hatred for American whites than by ‘socialism’. Perhaps the white and Western Marxists of today want Europe, the USA, Australia, to go under, to die: that would be ‘social justice’. The fact that the world would be poorer without whites, and that, for instance, their beloved indigenous people in Australia wouldn’t fare well under new Chinese and Indian masters – that doesn’t bother the Left. Even the prospect of their own imprisonment, torture and death at the hands of Islamists doesn’t move them. The Left are fundamentally self-destructive.

That’s the impression one gets from reading the Left’s publications. So far, in the weeks since the Paris massacre, they are keeping up a united front against ‘Islamophobia’ and are making the same tired arguments that somehow George W. Bush is to blame for Islamism. That’s their line and they’re sticking to it. But cracks are beginning to appear. What’s apparent, even to the Left, is that things are going to get worse and worse – there will be an endless series of terror attacks in the West, more Islamism, more jihadism, more demonstrations against ‘blasphemy’, more headlines (after each terror outrage) such as ‘Muslim community fears backlash’ and ‘Jews feel nervous’. At some point (and we’re reaching that point) the Left will be forced to choose between its ‘rainbow coalition’ with the Muslims and its deepest principles – principles which are not Islamic.

III.

The Left, of course, really despises Far Rightism and does everything in its power to thwart it . We know that the Hebdo staff campaigned for a petition to ban the Front National back in the late 1990s (the petition got over 170,000 signatures). The staff also took Vincent Reynouard, the French Holocaust Revisionist, to court over his use of some of their cartoons. The Hebdo staff’s lawyer informed Reynouard (off the record) that normally such a case would merit a symbolic fine of one euro, but Reynouard was saddled with fines and court costs of over 70,000 euros – which he’ll never be able to pay. But, as he reflects in a recent YouTube video, at least he’s alive: the Charlie Hebdo staff aren’t.

Reynouard expressed pity for the Hebdo staff, which shows, to me, that he’s the better man: had it been Reynouard (or Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen) who had been slain by the Kouachi brothers, without a doubt the Hebdo staff would have crowed with delight – as would have the rest of the Left. But, whereas the Left distinguishes between the ‘fascist’ and ‘reactionary’ French and the ‘progressive’ and ‘socialist’ French, the Islamists make no such distinction: they see only infidels. Up until 2015, the Left didn’t understand this.

Just as lions and tigers will fight when put together in the same cage, so it is with civilisations, (what Spengler calls) Cultures. The Western ‘Faustian’ Culture and the Islamic-Arabic ‘Magian’ Culture have been at war, off and on, for 1400 years. The source of the antagonism lies in the ‘Magian’ Culture itself – simply put, it wants to fight – when in contact with another Culture.

After 1945, the Arab and Muslim world took up the cause of national liberation – a revolt against the white colonial powers – and sought an alliance with the USSR. In retrospect, this ‘anti-colonialism’ didn’t cause any harm to Westerners. But now millions of Muslims are living on European, American and Australian soil, and the ideology of Nassar and the other ‘Arab nationalists’ is old hat – it’s the Islamism of ISIS, Al Qaeda Yemen, the Afghani and Pakistani Taliban, the Syrian jihadists which is (to Muslims) fresh, new and exciting. The Muslim immigrants and their descendants aren’t buying what the liberals are selling – secularism, liberalism, Marxism, feminism, homosexualism. They resent these ‘isms’ as an imposition by a barbarian race on their splendid Islamic-Arabic Culture. ‘Radical’, ‘young’ Muslims regard the feats of the Kouachi brothers and Coulibaly as being worthy of emulation.

The liberals are beginning to awake to this and are discovering the truth of Samuel P. Huntington’s thesis of the ‘Clash of Civilisations’ (really a derivative of the ideas of Spengler and Yockey). That is, they are being forced to discover it.

The liberals are in the position of someone who buys a dog from a pet shop, takes it home and discovers that the dog has rabies. The dog goes around biting people, and at first the liberal is in denial – anyone who points out that the dog is a menace, and has rabies, is guilty of ‘rabies-phobia’ and ‘discrimination’. But eventually the liberal must come to his senses. Perhaps, at that point, he will learn that we in the nationalist movement aren’t as black as we’re painted.

Tagged with:
 

Leave a Reply

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

Please enter CAPTCHA *