Part 3 of 3
The first part of this series demonstrated why Israel needs Aliyah (the In-Gathering) to maintain its Jewish and democratic nature. The second part explored the diminishing Jewish community in white nations.
The third and final installment of this article will explore in more detail the role of terror as a push factor for Jews considering Aliyah from Western Europe. The greater purpose of this series is to show that an unusual win-win situation has arisen. For White Nationalist goals to be realized, Jewish power and presence in our homelands must be diminished, and for Israel to survive it needs Jews to leave Europe for Israel. Finally, actions that White Nationalists may take (and must avoid) in pursuit of our strategic goal are covered in the conclusion.
Mohammed Merah: Soft Target Jihadist Terror as Push Factor
On March 11, 2012 an ethnically Arab soldier in France’s elite Paratrooper Division was gunned down without any obvious motive reported to the public. The press immediately assumed this was the work of a skinhead and began to accuse the Front National and the “fachosphere” (shorthand for the “fascist” blogoshere with content similar to Counter-Currents) of creating a negative, racially charged atmosphere in the country.
A week later, after killing two more soldiers, the mysterious gunman went to a Jewish school and shot to death a young teacher and a Rabbi with his two small children before the school day began.
It eventually became clear that the perpetrator was not a skinhead but a “French” man of Algerian origin who trained with al Qaeda in Pakistan. His operation was entirely simple and he was almost certainly over-trained for the attacks he carried out. This was indeed successful terrorism in that it did struck terror into the hearts of the populace. However contrary to the goals of al Qaeda, this will not result in France withdrawing from Afghanistan but in Jews withdrawing from France, mostly to Israel.
Contrasting this with Europe’s previous violent political event will put actions like this into a strategic perspective. The Brievik massacre was far greater in scale and planning. Besides, Brievik survived to further his propaganda. However, unlike Jihadists or the Red Terrorists of the 70s, there are no cells planning staggered attacks to create continued unease. There are not even cadres of fellow travelers dreaming of ways to break him out of prison. There is no piecemeal list of concessions; there is only rejection of the status quo without a compelling alternative offered.
Mohammed Merah, on the other hand, has not distinguished himself in the annals of bravery, nor has he shown that he is any more intelligent or cunning than the average Arab thug poseur from the banlieue. But in the end, while no Cultural Marxist in Sweden who qualifies for the Right of Return is looking for the exits, the Jewish Community of France is trembling with anxiety.
In May, an annual fair in Paris promoting Aliyah for French Jews drew 5,000 visitors. According to organizers, 2,000 visitors was typical in years past. (This may be compared with a previous jump of 30 to 40% after Jean-Marie Le Pen of the Front National passed to the second round of the Presidential Election in 2002.)
The murders in Toulouse are more powerful that the murders in Utoya because there are thousands of Arabs with French citizenship who hold a grudge against Jews and have nothing to lose. The day that a Jew is convinced that these attacks are going to be a regular occurrence is the day that he decides to make Aliyah out of France.
However, the Merah attack is an example of the tendency pointed in Part 1 of this article, in “Zionism or Bolshevism . . . or Orthodoxy,” because the Jews killed were all Orthodox. These are the people furthest from the policy-making authority in France. One may assume that most angry young Arabs lack the sophistication to make such distinctions.
A History of Mossad’s Black Terror for Aliyah
Israel has often been desperate for more Jews to join the Zionist project. After the creation of the State of Israel, the new state faced their Arab neighbors in a brief war. Knowing that this would be the first of many conflicts, the European Jews who won their state through terrorism looked about for new citizen-soldiers. They created the push/pull factors necessary to gain hundreds of thousands of citizen-soldiers, whose children filled the ranks alongside the Ashkenazi during the wars in 1967 and 1973. Between the first war and the Yom Kippur war in ’73 the Jewish population of Arab and Muslim countries dropped from about 800,000 to less than 10,000. Nearly all of these refugees went to Israel.
The most eye-opening example is that of Iraq. This was one of the oldest and largest Jewish communities in the world which dated to the Babylonian Captivity (after the destruction of the Temple of Solomon and before the construction of the Second Temple). Iraq had tried to prevent emigration of Jews following the creation of Israel. Nonetheless, 1,000 per month managed to escape. In 1950, Iraq allowed emigration if Iraqi citizenship was renounced and personal property was handed over to the government. This offer was scheduled to expire in March 1951. After this date remaining Jews were required to sign anti-Zionist Testaments. The Iraqi state clearly wanted to limit the arrival of manpower to defend and build Israel. This was designed to only allow the departure of the most hardcore Zionists who would pose a threat to the Iraqi state if they were forced to stay. Less than 10,000 of the 140,000 Jews registered.
Then, from April 1950 through June 1951, a series of 9 bomb and grenade attacks targeted the Jewish Community of Baghdad. Only one resulted in deaths, this because of a high voltage wire damaged in the bombing and not from the bomb itself, thus casting doubt on the Arab provenance of the attacks. However, this created such a heightened sense of tension that all but a few hundred of the 140,000 Jews had left by 1952. Israel still denies involvement in the bombings, just as they denied the Lavon Affair for 51 years after the events took place.
The Lavon Affair employed the same tactics as the Baghdad bombings but with a different goal. The purpose was to delay the departure of the British from Egypt by convincing NATO that Nasser’s young government would be an unstable in the face of rising Communist and Muslim Brotherhood terror. The first false flag took place in June 1954, but the cell was discovered in the same year. The trial was held in early 1955 and the public became aware of the Fifth Column living amongst them. The following year Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. The Suez Crisis, the curtailment of civil liberties generally, and the mass arrest of prominent Jews encouraged further departures. There were 75,000 Jews in Egypt at the creation of Israel, about 45,000 at the time of the Lavon Affair, 15,000 after the Suez Crisis, and 700 on the eve of the Yom Kippur War. Unlike the Baghdad bombings, Israel’s actions never aimed directly at Aliyah, but their single-minded pursuit of Zionist objectives endangered the local Jewish community and resulted in their near complete emigration to Israel. After a half century of denial, the President of Israel honored the operatives involved.
In most Arab countries, the anger stirred up by Israeli policies was enough on its own to create the violent push factors that made North Africa and the Middle East “Judenrein.” The two incidents explored above prove that Israel will not hesitate to indirectly endanger Jews in pursuit of their objectives. They have even resorted to Black Terror blamed on Arabs to create emigration when it is deemed necessary to Israel’s survival.
The Role of White Nationalists
Within the next 10 years, the organized, international Jewish Community must act to promote Aliyah or accept the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic State. There will be increasing violence from both Muslims and Jews, including Israeli false flag operations to encourage Aliyah. At that point, an extraordinary convergence of interests will emerge: the Jewish leadership will want Jews, particularly secular Jews, to come to Israel as much as we want them to leave Europe.
This raises the question of what White Nationalists should do. As a man of the “anti-parliamentarian Right,” my instincts are to do whatever is possible to hurry the process along. But my brain points in a different direction. As Gerry Kelly of the Irish Republican Army argued with his fellow “hard men” in the 1990s, while armed struggle is morally acceptable for a Nationalist, non-violent political action is more effective for the time being. As Kelly argued, “don’t confuse tactics for principles.”
When Jews have made up their minds to leave, it would be foolish to call them out, lest they stick around to fight the “Nazis” out of pure suicidal spite.
Even anti-parliamentarians like myself can see that the election of Marine Le Pen will strongly increase Aliyah among Ashkenazi, even if she uses philo-Semitic rhetoric between now and the next election. Such rhetoric will assuage the voting masses, but will never overcome the innate paranoia of the Ashkenazi.
The masses have a natural aversion to anarchy and, in our time, are much more sensitive to anarchy from the Right than from those who have infiltrated our country. Indeed, when suspicion for the Merah killings was directed toward the Right, the FN dropped in the polls; when it became clear this was Arab violence, the FN rose above its pre-Merah performance, all within week.
One may also reference the last minute see-sawing in the polls in Australia — when John Howard was reelected on an anti-asylum seeker platform as a boatload of rabble burned off the northern coast — to see how the masses are moved by events and not by convictions.
It would be desirable for our fellow travelers who are embedded in the human rights and pro-Palestinian milieu to shine the spotlight on the Trotskys this time, so that the Bronsteins aren’t the only ones left holding the bill. Young Arabs are not too discerning. They pick on orthodox schoolboys rather than the powerful, mostly secular Jews who are the biggest thorn in White Nationalists’ sides. But if I have thought of this, the Mossad have also already thought of it, and worse.
So, when one’s enemies are fighting one another, my advice is simply to get out of the way and wait. We are not strong enough to affect the process by intervening. Thus we should save our energy and prepare ourselves to act — and grow stronger — in the emerging political landscape which will be increasingly free of Jewish influence. Our consistent message should be that Jewish-Muslim violence (and Jewish-Jewish false flags) are the inevitable consequences of multiculturalism. That’s why we advocate the creation of racially and culturally homogeneous states for everyone.
1. “Thousands of French Jews check out aliyah” JTA.org, May 7, 2012, http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/05/07/3094841/thousands-of-french-jews-check-out-aliyah
2. The NATO-Fascist combine that carried out Operation Gladio is an excellent example of manipulating fear of anarchy and misallocating blame to stop an enemy’s momentum and move public opinion.
A Response to Nathan Cofnas
Toward A New Era of Nation-States, Part V: Liberal Democracy in the Service of Global Hegemony
The Political Theology of the New War on Terror
Quinnisms: A Compendium of Coinage by Yours Truly
A 1980s Look at the Israel Lobby
Remembering Louis-Ferdinand Céline (May 27, 1894–July 1, 1961)
Joe Rogan is Right About White Men Being Silenced
Toward A New Era of Nation-States, Part IV: The Ancient Greeks, Jews, & Universal Doctrines