Counter-Currents
1,849 words
Mohammed Merah: scarier than the PLO?
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.[1] (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.[2] 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.
Notes
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.
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 150
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 164
33 comments
“But in the end, while no Cultural Marxist in Sweden who qualifies for the Right of Return is looking for the exits”
Malmo disagree: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdakVjqt4O0
“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.”
Discerning? Maybe not ‘Heroic’ in a Euro way but in a mid-east style method, this guy knew exactly what he was doing. The orthodox/Rabbis run the tribe. Always have, always will, not secular Jews (which don’t really exist).
Orthodox Jews no more control Jewry than fundamentalist Christians control America. Yes, both groups have some power, and get their way in some arguments. Yes, they have more children. But the overall direction of Jewry and America are controlled by their liberal and secular cousins, who regard them as creepy and embarrassing.
So how many more Muslims in Europe is it going to take for the Jews to leave completely? Twenty million? Fifty million? A hundred? And even if every single Jew leaves European lands (doubtful, no matter how many Muslims there are), what then are you going to do with all the millions of Muslims you’ve allowed in? Assuming that they haven’t already totally wrecked Europe by that point, do you actually think the people of Europe will have the strength to repatriate all of them?
This is a really dangerous game of demographic chicken the author is proposing. Allowing millions of nation-wreckers into Europe to drive out the millions of nation-wreckers of a different breed. Shouldn’t the goal be to drive ALL nation-wreckers out? And if Europeans don’t have the strength to do it now, when they’re still something like 90% of the racial majority in Europe then what makes the author think they’ll have the strength when there are even fewer of them years down the road?
“Allowing”? It is being done whether we want it or not, and we don’t have the power to stop it. But if things play out as the author envisions, whites will be in a position to do something about it.
Agreed. The truth is when whites break Jewish power, we won’t need to “drive them out.” They will simply whither away and die when Europeans impose policies that do not artificially prop them up. All you need is strong criminal justice, eugenic tax and welfare policies, freedom of association in housing, meritocracy in employment, and a resurgence of patriarchal values. All of these are possibilities if not probabilities when the Jewish problem is finally sorted out.
Its all so sad. I always considered Jews to be fellow whites before I read Kmac. I would be willing to do so again if they would just give up their genocidal campaign of sabotage and subversion against white Europeans.
So the Muslims move in and the Jews move out…and then what? The majority of Europeans are still going to cling to leftist, totalitarian views, the univeristies are still going to function, and the media are still going to pump out anti-White drivel. Without the Jews it won’t be as powerful but it’ll still be there. Look at the Nordic countries: did the Jews force them to import Nigerians? Do Jews run their immigration policies and media?
Not to mention the fact that even if the Jews physically leave Europe they can still fund their puppets right from Tel Aviv. Look at our political system: how much money has Israel given Mitt Romney without setting foot out of the Unholy Land?
And finally, this is all based on the assumption that Jews are going to leave Europe eventually. That may not happen at all. What happens if they decide to stay? What are Europeans going to do when the tribe starts building gulags to throw Whites in while using the third worlders as the muscle? If you think that’s far-fetched, talk to people in Ukraine and Russia about what their families went through.
Sorry, but I think unless there’s some kind of European revolution in the coming few years, it’ll be too late to do anything.
What about the multitudes of half-breeds that don’t identify as Jewish but nevertheless poison our nations?
Well, if they don’t identify themselves as enemies, how exactly do they poison our nations? I would prefer that all individuals who have the right to “return” to Israel, go to Israel, including partial Jews and non-Jewish spouses of Jews and partial Jews. But in the end, consciousness is more important than genetics when dealing with Mischlinge: if they don’t think of themselves as Jews, then genetically they are just Caucasians with mixed European and non-European Caucasian ancestry, which is true of many people from the Mediterranean shore. You might not want to breed with them, but that should be decided on a case by case basis by individuals and on public eugenic grounds. If Jews all looked like Swedes and did not have high genetic propensity toward insanity, it would be hard to object to them on genetic grounds at all. It is their consciousness, their hostility to the rest of the human race, that is really objectionable.
” if they don’t identify themselves as enemies, how exactly do they poison our nations?”
By pursuing the same hard-left, nation-wrecking politics under the guise of being white liberals. Snake’s concern is that there are going to be a significant number of Trotsky types who don’t feel enough connection to the Jewish community to move to Israel, even under greater pressure, but won’t change their politics, or their subversion.
As much as I would love it if all Jews departed of their own volition, realistically there will be many who will need to be forced to leave. Beyond that, white liberals who really are white will no longer have the option of pursuing nation-wreacking and race-replacement policies. Under a white nationalist hegemony, their idealism and zeal will be confined to channels that are safe for our race.
I thought this was an interesting analysis. Thanks for writing it.
With regard to the Breivik reference, there is a new development.
A brief Sky News report tells what little is known at present. It includes a 1-min. video interview with a Norwegian member of parliament who speaks very good English.
The MP seems a little uncertain what to make of the note.
On the one hand he finds it hard to believe that it actually is what it purports to be.
On the other hand, Norwegians, like Americans, have been taught that there really are thousands of dangerous, evil white racists lurking under every bed. So, subconsciously, he cannot help but wonder . . .
Also, governments and NGOs actually are committing genocide, a sin as well as a (literal) crime against humanity prohibited by international law. And they know it. So that is lurking at the back of his mind as well, though he says nothing about it.
http://news.sky.com/story/972584/breiviks-deputy-issues-terror-warning
Breivik’s ‘Deputy’ Issues Terror Warning
Norwegian police launch a probe into a threatening letter sent by someone purporting to be Anders Breivik’s second in command.
A person claiming to be Norwegian mass-killer Anders Breivik’s second in command has issued a warning of more terror, sparking a police investigation.
An email sent to several politicians and newspapers in the country demands Breivik’s release and reportedly threatens to destroy the higher echelons of Norwegian society.
The letter’s author purports to be deputy commander of the Knights Templar – of which Breivik previously said he was leader, but which experts told his trial probably did not exist.
It says: “I hereby present myself as cell two and deputy commander of the Norwegian resistance movement.
“I, with my soldiers, give all due respect to our people, our culture and our ethnicity (and) warn all advocates of multiculturalism against this war we are now so deeply in.
Well this is some good news indeed. But our own Elite are so Judaized I’m not sure it will make too much difference at this point. Hope I’m wrong.
deniken wrote:
Without the Jews it won’t be as powerful but it’ll still be there. Look at the Nordic countries: did the Jews force them to import Nigerians? Do Jews run their immigration policies and media?
Well, yes! All you have to do is to refer to Barbara Spectre:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Vq_e2Z1ug
Non-violent formula for controlling the Jews
Mullins’ NEW HISTORY of the JEWS
By Eustace Mullins
（日本語訳：ユダヤ問題解決の 三つの方法 ）
In all of recorded history, there was only one civilization which the Jews could not destroy. Because of this, they have given it the silent treatment. Few American college graduates with a Ph.D. degree could tell you what the Byzantine Empire was.
It was the Empire of East Rome, set up by Roman leaders after the Jews had destroyed Rome. This empire functioned in Constantinople for twelve hundred years, the longest duration of any empire in the history of the world.
Throughout the history of Byzantium, as it was known, by imperial edict, no Jew was allowed to hold any post in the Empire, nor was he allowed to educate the young. The Byzantine Empire finally fell to the Turks after twelve centuries of prosperity, and the Jews have attempted to wipe out all traces of its history.
Yet its edicts against the Jews were not cruel; in fact, the Jews lived unmolested and prosperously in the empire throughout its history, but here alone the vicious cycle of host and parasite did not take place.
It was a Christian civilization, and the Jews were not able to exercise any influence. Nor did the Orthodox priests bewilder their congregations with any vicious lies about Christ being a Jew.
No wonder the Jews want to eradicate the memory of such a culture.
It was Ezra Pound who launched upon a study of Byzantine civilization, and who reminded the world of this happily non-Jewish land.
From the Byzantines, Pound derived his no-violent formula for controlling the Jews.
“The answer to the Jewish problem is simple,” he said.
“Keep them out of banking, out of education, out of government.”
And this is how simple it is.
There is no need to kill the Jews. In fact, every pogrom in history has played into their hands, and has in many instances been cleverly instigated by them.
Get the Jews out of banking and they cannot control the economic life of the community.
Get the Jews out of education and they can not pervert the minds of the young to their subversive doctrines.
Get the Jews out of government and they cannot betray the nation.
Today we should add media to the prohibitions of Jews.
But even then I’m nervous. I wouldn’t feel safe until all Jews are living in at most three places.
Israel may not be big enough or safe enough for them.
I feel if they are made to live among themselves, and thus are doing business only with each other over time their destructive culture will evolve to something like normal humanity.
We might set some of them up in a Southern California JSSR and maybe in Southwest Australia.
Two further proscriptions would be they not engage in international banking from their sanctuaries nor export media to the world, or be allowed to own media anywhere in the world other than their own homelands.
We need to deprive them of their WMD. I don’t care how many nukes Israel has, it’s their Weapons of Media Destruction that are dangerous.
Media IS under the ‘education’ category, Phil White.
Violence can work when there’s a credible threat of more violence. That’s why violence on the part of thugs like Mohammed Merah or the hirelings of the Judaized state can be effective, while violence on the part of spree killers is ineffective and counterproductive.
I think that resisting the regime of “anarcho-tyranny” will definitely require violence, but it will be first necessary to create what our opponents might dub an “uncivil society,” a society which is latently violent in that its opposition to the system can rise to political intensity. We need to create bases of power and influence before we can exercise violence effectively. Metapolitics has an important role in this work. The title of a book by Robert Darnton on the literary underground of the ancien régime comes to mind here: Édition et sédition (Publishing and Sedition).
As the system is irredeemably vicious and corrupt, and we’re already subject to violence and the threat of violence on the part of the system, there will only be more violence in our future. We had better recognize and adapt to these things. A policy of strict legality or non-violence is unrealistic. In any case, why should we not restore the warrior function to its rightful place in our culture and our polity?
White Republican is addressing issues that have needed intelligent addressing, and, frankly, I am a Disciple of Harold Covington on this. Excellent points deserve thoughtful responses.
White Republican in blockquote:
Right out of “The Art of War.” The wisest, most politically effective men I know, never make threats. They do make promises, they make them softly, and they only make them once.
Metapolitics offers us a way of the false dualities that have been presented to us, and have been designed to reduce us to impotence, or encourage us to strike out with the inappropriate use of force. Anger is a response to (learned) feelings of helplessness. Those feelings were implanted by our Enemy, and can be replaced by a Mindset that moves toward defining effectiveness on our terms, allowing us the freedom to define the Goals we bind our actions to.
This is why a metapolitical perspective and focus is so important. If we face the threat or use of violent force, do we respond intelligently? Most of us don’t. Quite the contrary, they keep trying to kick Lucy’s Football. The focus on the use of force as a legitimate tool for legitimate self-defense is something we have denied ourselves, perhaps, in good part, because the examples placed before us were designed to do just that, and further demoralize us. Capping parking mudsharks? To what end? What did you hope to accomplish? To what end, to achieve what metapolitical purpose? Or do you really think the Army will come to our aid (in Southern California!) with atomic weapons? Again, a Choice is placed before you that reduces you to helplessness, and further ineffectiveness.
A couple of years ago two RAND researches wrote a quick Note on assassination as a political tool. Their analysis was pretty superficial, and missed the key issues. Look at Booth. Lincoln wanted to return the States to the Union, “wit malice towards none.” Booth’s Choice allowed the Radical Republicans to keep the Southern States as Military Districts, their men gelded, their economies looted. King was no different. A failed politician, thoroughly neutralized by the Daley machine in Chicago, went to Memphis to lick his wounds. His assassination made a martyr out of him, and guaranteed the passage of Civil Rights legislation.
That beings us to Covington, and his focus on legitimate self-defense, a topic we may well be returning to.
Yet, all too often, we have been baited into using inappropriate force, even in what we might have seen as self-defense. “Street walking” demonstrates how easily we allow ourselves to be made into victims. We do have choices, however, and even the Church had its Orders Militant.
Mr. Kevin Alfred Strom has copy-edited a book called “Jack’s War,” and this might be useful as a Twenty-First Century version of “The Turner Diaries” for Adults. I await his review. Hopefully, Mr. Cochran, the author, allowed Mr. Strom a pretty loose hand with the editing, so this should be very readable, and very educational, in an “apple pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
Thoughts on Mr. Covington’s use of the now successful Irish Republican Army as a model might be in order. I shall try to develop a worthy comment on this, as well as a few ideas on the functionally proper and legally appropriate use of force continuum.
The need for legitimate self-defense is before us, and the critically important element of developing an effective Warrior Caste is a topic I will return to soon. In the meanwhile, “wise as serpents, peaceful as doves.”
This topic might be worthy of a thread in its own right, starting with White Republican’s post.
When I referred to the threat of violence above, I was referring to the implicit or perceived threat of violence rather than the explicit threat of violence. A group doesn’t need to issue direct threats of violence for others to perceive it as willing and able to use violence. It’s often enough for such groups to make examples of particular targets or to engage in low level violence to demonstrate their capacity for violence and to paralyse opposition according the logic of “kill one, scare a thousand.”
Is the paper you referred to titled “Selective Assassination as an Instrument of National Policy” or is it another paper? Of course, the contemporary U.S. government’s use of “targeted killings” of “unlawful combatants” — note the hypocrisy! — may generate what the CIA calls “blowback.”
When writing my previous comment, I had thought of mentioning Dominique Venner’s latest book, L’imprévu dans l’histoire: treize meurtres exemplaires. I haven’t read it myself, but its title and the reviews it has received indicate that Venner emphasizes the highly unpredictable consequences of assassinations, consequences often opposite to what the assassins desired. It may be possible to predict that an assassination will have far-reaching consequences, but it is impossible to predict what those consequences will be.
Our priority should be to develop influence and power rather than engage in violence. Perhaps it might be said that we should first follow Antonio Gramsci (counter-hegemony) then Carl Schmitt (the concept of the political and the partisan). We need to create a solid cultural and social basis for White nationalist politics.
White Republican in blockquote:
I am aware of that, but wanted to be abundantly clear as to the implementation and focus of such efforts. On all but precious few occasions, the issue of violence on WN boards has usually been an opening for agents provocateur to come in and make intemperate comments of unwise advocacy.
I just wanted to be very sure that we are all moving in the same direction, and this thread focuses on metapolitical issues, in an “apple pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
Of course, we also know that Mr. Cochran’s works are also totally works of fiction, and the advocacy of illegal activities is not only absent, but specifically discouraged.
Yes, and yes. Of concern is those who will pose as disaffected parties acting to form “blowback,” and thus further discredit their enemies.
The Kennedy Administration’s assassination of Diem comes to mind. The alternative history community, specifically the counterfactual historical analysts, deal with this issue from time to time. “For want of a nail,” and all that. Assassinating someone is one thing; changing their Mind, a la Derren Brown in “The Heist,” something much more effective, particularly in the age of color television.
A stronger foundation might arise from developing basic assertiveness, today, and, in time, enough of a dynamic physical presence so as to dissuade those who might see fit to use force, unlawfully, upon us.
The foundation of the Warrior Caste suggests itself.
I’m very happy that my article encouraged such a deep conversation. I have not read Covington’s books, but I did listen to an interview. You and he are right to focus on the IRA for strategic insight since it is the only white national liberation group that has met any success. (I think most Counter Currents readers are sharp enough to see the Good Friday Agreement as victory on the installment plan for the IRA, and a face saving device for Westminster.) However, the IRA’s goal is a peripheral interest of the UK.
The problem is that for the New Right and White Nationalism to triumph we must take out central myths and power structures of the current sytem. That makes our relationship to the current regime in any country is more like that of the RAF to West Germany, for example, than the IRA to the UK. There is no incentive for the other side to comprimise if our success means their destruction (metaphorically).
Direct Action should only be taken if the strategic retreat of an adversary is a strongly predicted outcome or if the adversary is forced to reassess interests and explore win-win situations (while saving face).
I hope to explore this in a future essay. Thanks for the encouragement.
“In the future I hope to explore how French New Rightists and Traditional Catholics have built counter culture and developed culture jamming cadres.” That definitely sounds interesting. I also think your objectives for future articles are good.
Something I should work on is writing something about François Duprat’s publishing model. It’s a pity that there’s nothing like Duprat’s Revue d’Histoire du Fascisme in English. It’s hard to get good quality information and analysis of contemporary and historical nationalist groups. Duprat’s approach to the study of such groups was closer to that of an intelligence officer than that of an academic historian or a journalist. I think this approach is eminently practical and profound, but few are up to either applying or appreciating it.
I’m thinking of getting Raphaëlle de Neuville’s book, Jean Ousset et la cité catholique (Dominique Martin Morin, 1998), in part to put the ideas of Ousset’s L’action into context. Some of Ousset’s ideas on activism are interesting, and I’d like to know more about their development and influence. I’m also interested in the relation of the Cité Catholique to the French military theorists of “revolutionary warfare.” (It’s likely that Jehan Morel’s Guérilla et contre-guérilla: théorie et pratique, which is being published by the traditionalist Catholic publisher Editions de Chire, addresses or expresses the theories of “revolutionary warfare” in detail.)
I really appreciate Mr Le Brun analysis and agree with most of his points but I think that the jewish political and economic elite will stay in Europe, with only the middle-class and orthodox leaving., this is what happened in Russia
The wild card are the European ghettos, the black africans and middle-easterners are becoming more dysfunctional and violent… The next 10 years are going to be interesting.
“I really appreciate Mr Le Brun analysis and agree with most of his points but I think that the jewish political and economic elite will stay in Europe, with only the middle-class and orthodox leaving., this is what happened in Russia”
Exactly, and it’s precisely the jewish elites who need to leave Europe if Europe is going to survive.
This series of articles, while informative, amounts to nothing more than the usual “do nothing and hope for the best” message. The jews win because they’re always attacking, never defending, never waiting, never doing nothing. We’re always losing because we do the opposite.
Basileus: “the jewish political and economic elite will stay in Europe, with only the middle-class and orthodox leaving., this is what happened in Russia”
I think you are right that these will be the last to go. Finding way to make sure they go with the rest should be a focus of ours. Though, I have to say that my hunch is that for every big Jew like Strauss-Kahn or Soros there are scores of smaller Jews facilitating them. Our adversary is not omnipotent and their demographics constraints will force them to make tough choices down the road about how to allocate their resources and time. In the articles Razvan posted in the Part 1 comments section about reverse migration out of Israel, the common theme is money drives the choice of where to do business, but their children are educated in Israel and fulfill their military service (thus feeling more invested in the Zionist project than their parents). Israelis (particularly those from the Former Soviet Union) will probably become like the Swiss in some ways in a couple generations: participation in a defense-obsessed conscription military, avoidance of power projection for practical reasons, corporate and banking sectors have an international focus because of the domestic market’s small size, and the country will be saturated with infrastructure projects.
denikin: “usual “do nothing and hope for the best” message”
After over 50 years without victories or even good news its easy not to recognize it when it comes. Here are action items from this good news.
Things to do:
1) draw attention to secular Cultural Marxist Jews in the pro-Palestinian/Islamist milieu
2)black propaganda to demoralize the adversary regarding their place in Europe
3)convince comrades to strategize intelligently and recognize win-win situations when they arise
Things not to do:
1)terrorism
2)encourage Jews to stay
In the future I hope to explore how French New Rightists and Traditional Catholics have built counter culture and developed cuture jamming cadres. I also would like to provide strategic insight on the situation in Europe. The common theme to my writing will be progress made by pro-White activists and suggestions on how this may be applied to the US.
It seems to me that right wing politics and nationalism are the natural tactics of a majority population. Left wing “universalism” grows among a minority population.
As you have pointed out the vast majority of Jews outside Israel live in the U.S., and these are mostly and most dangerously “universalistic.”
America will continue to be one of the two or three most powerful nations in the world and Hollywood will still be pouring out ant-national propaganda aimed at the West. We need to do something about that and our solution may be different from Europe’s.
I believe that we should continue to attack the power of our 3% Jewish population and eventually coral them in one geographic area so their social norms can evolve from that of a conniving minority to the normal human habits of a population that is a heavy majority in the region it occupies. And meanwhile they should be stripped of their Weapon of Media Destruction.
“Orthodox Jews no more control Jewry than fundamentalist Christians control America.”
Perhaps this should be explored a little more. For one, the fund-Christians are basically fools and easily manipulated. If you think the Rabbi-class are at the same level of intelligence as them, then I don’t know what to say. A closer analogy for the balance of power might be the Vatican (of the middle ages) and monarchs/Emperors. Two, calling any Jew ‘secular’ implies Jewry as a religion when they are an Ideological tribe. They’re also a ‘Hive mind’ and considering there is no belief in the afterlife, the rabbi-class is essentially GOD or at least the charioteer of what they undertake.
OK it’s probably hard to be definitive. Rothchild and co have their billions/trillions so how can a bunch of funny looking dudes in hats be their masters? Well who are these Rothchilds and Soros and co? Just a few old men walking around in plain sight… You think a 3000 yo Sanhedrin doesn’t pull the strings here?
I don’t claim that I know how the Jews ultimately work, but if they truly have a hive mind, then they don’t need a Sanhedrin to pull the strings.
Good article(s) and I hope your prediction plays out but what’s to prevent Jews from simply coming to the United States? God knows no one here will stop them.
We’ve come full circle back to the Protocols, the Elders, the Kahal, and the Council of 300. Does Rothschild rule, take orders, – or just gladly obey suggestions? Whatever, it works. They have our number. Can we escape them without the aid of something as all embracing as Islam? For some White Nationalism fufills that function. But for the masses?
KMac suggests the hive mind btw. They all know what to do essentially. There is planning and even intense debate at the higher levels as to policy. But on the essentials there is complete agreement.
You just have to go on Steve Sailer blog and search ‘Jews’ ‘China’ to see that they already planning what to do with the rise of China and America’s decline.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment