This is Just the Beginning
Jihadist Carnage in Paris, Part 1
Translated by Greg Johnson
Spanish translation here
The carnage at Charlie Hebdo and the kosher food shop in Montrouge are just the beginning, a harbinger. In all, 17 people, including 10 journalists, four shoppers, and three police officers died, and 30 were wounded. This is the beginning of an ethnic civil war in France under the banner of Islam. Nothing can stop it except a victory for one side or the other, because war never ends without winners and losers.
Worse than September 11?
The killings follow the murderous attacks by “lone wolves,” shouting “Allah Akbar!” driving cars into crowds or slashing with knives (in Joue-les-Tours, Nantes, Dijon). This act of war is part of an all-out offensive (thought of as a counter-offensive and vengeance) of Islam against the West, and specifically against France, which it intends to conquer. This war, this terrorism is only the visible part of the iceberg; the submerged part is Islamization; the growing offensive throughout the country, including intimidation by terrorism is only one aspect. After the Merah and Nemmouche killings, the bloody saga continues. And the angels cry: “There is no clash of civilizations!” Mind you, from a certain point of view, they are right, because, in fact, it is the war of civilization against barbarism.
Paradoxically, in their symbolism, these attacks are more significant than those of September 11, 2001 in New York City, which were far more deadly (3,000 deaths). Then, there was no such mobilization, with giant demonstrations that drew 50 heads of state and government. Indeed, the attacks in Paris, from the interior, were military commando strikes against the mind. These raids, these rezzous, can be repeated indefinitely, while the September 11 attacks, like those in Madrid and London, required extensive logistics. This is the logic of the guerrilla, far more agonizing and unstoppable than regular terrorism.
Islam and Barbarism
Everywhere Islamic barbarism is growing: Boko Haram in Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Algeria, etc. with its procession of beheadings, massacres of civilians, rape, slavery, recruited killers of children, spoliation, persecution, hostage taking, looting, summary executions, etc. None of it is new. When will we decide to open our eyes? They do not even hide. Unlike the Nazis and communists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.), they do not even disguise their crimes. They are proud of them; they film and broadcast them in the name of Allah. If such abominations were committed in the name of Christianity, would we not raise questions about its nature? Why not do it when it comes to Islam, which has become untouchable in France? Untouchable (the sin of “Islamophobia”) quite simply because of fear.
You Said “Freedom of Expression”?
People demonstrated in the name of freedom of thought and expression to defend Charlie Hebdo. It’s pretty hypocritical of a state and a dominant ideology that also suppress freedom of expression when it comes from those who do not subscribe to this ideology. I was sentenced to a heavy fine by a French court in 2000 for my book The Colonization of Europe: True Discourse Against Immigration and Islam (L’Aencre) which, however, did not include any offensive caricatures but rather an argument against immigration and Islamization. Cause of the sentence: Islamophobia. Eric Zemmour, after further legal troubles, was axed by i>Télé for his book Le suicide français. Where is the “freedom of expression”? A double standard. Charlie Hebdo, being Leftist (and not at all subversive) enjoyed a sort of judicial immunity. In reality, the French state, Left- and Right-wing, prepared the way for Islamic intolerance by criminalizing “Islamophobia.” By pandering to an electorate to buy civil peace. It failed. In the name of tolerance, one is punished for criticizing Muslim intolerance! There’s no point in hypocritically claiming Voltaire! Don’t forget that his (otherwise mediocre) play Muhammad was banned in Geneva almost immediately.
The Strategy of Intimidation
The murders of the Charlie Hebdo journalists are part of a strategy of intimidation that plays on fear. This is to discourage criticism of totalitarian Islam. This deterrence can work. By some strange coincidence, the attack against Charlie Hebdo happened the same day as the release of the sadly prophetic novel by Michel Houellebecq, Submission, which described the takeover of Islam in France in 2022, due to the cowardice and collaboration of the elite, which is quite apparent. But the author decided, following recent events, to cancel promoting his novel, a sort of self-censorship.
It is understandable why Michel Houellebecq is afraid: in 2004, Theo Van Gogh, the filmmaker who directed the film Submission (exactly the same title as his novel, a translation for “Islam”) with the brave Somali Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the oppression of women in Islam and which featured Allah, was murdered by a Moroccan Muslim. Houellebecq does not dare go into the trenches and expose himself to promote his novel. It is one of the first examples of the intimidation process.
Immigration as Efficient Cause
In any process, fact, or event, Aristotle (in Metaphysics, Book I) distinguished four distinct kinds of causes that bring them about. The most important is the efficient cause, the “engine” without which nothing would have been possible.
Criticizing the “national unity” to which Hollande appealed, Jean-Marie Le Pen said something quite correct: “I do not want to support impotent and inconsistent government action regarding a problem [Muslim terrorism] which of course is very closely related to the massive immigration experienced by our country for forty years.” Because the heart of the problem is: France is overwhelmed with an immigration invasion, the vast majority of which is Muslim and highly fertile. And we do not tackle this real cause, due to the cosmopolitan and antiracist ideology.
Our rulers are both for uncontrolled Muslim immigration into Europe and against the dangers of jihadism. They imagine that the Muslim masses will become magically “Republican,” “secular,” “Democrats.” Such inconsistency shows just how stupid our elites have become. The denial of reality (in this as in economics) and stupidity reached a pathological paroxysm equaled only by fourth century Rome, whose rulers extended Roman citizenship to barbarians to protect them from . . . barbarian invasions. (Michel De Jaeghere, Les derniers jours, la fin de l’empire romain d’Occident [The Last Days: The End of the Western Roman Empire], Les Belles Lettres).
Our situation is the consequence of both the assimilationist ideology (everyone can assimilate to republican France) and the communitarian ideology of Terra Nova that inspires the Socialist Party (a peaceful France, a “New France,” a multiethnic France, even with Islam) which are the two sides of the same delirious utopia that always leads to Civil War. Which has, in fact, begun.
It’s a bit late to realize the effects of tolerance and permissiveness toward Islamism, a pure product of the immigrationist and Islamophile ideology. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. We are shocked to tears that three terrorists were able to commit these 17 murders, while the dominant ideology has shut its eyes to Islamism, or rather Islamization, and to uncontrolled immigration. The list is long: cellars stuffed with weapons in the banlieues, a failing education system, prisons without discipline, castrated police, lax justice, porous borders, all privileges to Islam in defiance of a supposed secularism, etc.
The National Front, Integration, Assimilation
The huge demonstrations of Sunday, January 11 (record-breaking in Paris and several cities), allowed Hollande to appear as unifier and commander in chief. A Godsend for him. Sarkozy rallied, but it is clear from the pictures that he has been eclipsed. This united front is cracked by the exclusion of the National Front (25% of the electorate). Marine Le Pen, declared undesirable in the Paris fashion show, went to Beaucaire where her supporters shouted “This is our home!” This national unity, the romanticism of a day, is a castle built of sand.
The National Front will appear as the force of resistance. On the condition that it does not sink, for purposes of electioneering, into the angelic discourse of integration and assimilation, which Marine Le Pen tries but which the people with common sense no longer believe, because it is simply too late. And because a very large proportion of interested parties, like the vast majority of immigrants—legal and illegal—do not wish to integrate or assimilate. We do not give water to donkey that is not thirsty, as the saying goes.
The Jews in the Crosshairs
The Jewish community was already traumatized after the crimes of Mohammed Merah in Toulouse, who is known and revered as “martyr,” as a saint and a model, in the banlieues and the rest of the Muslim world. Anxiety rose another notch after the massacre at the Jewish Museum in Brussels by Mehdi Nemmouche. With the four deaths and many injuries in the attack of the store kosher by Coulibaly, many have reached their limit. It is expected that Jewish emigration—10,000 people in 2013 including 7,000 to Israel (aliyah)—will increase. Expelling the Jews from France is also one of the objectives of the jihadists, applauded by some of their fellow believers. Now the police and the army protect all synagogues and all Jewish schools! Who would have thought that only ten years ago? In Muslim countries, with very few exceptions, Jews cannot live, and soon there will be no Christians in the Middle East; we do not react, we do not ask questions, while the Muslim community in France swells every day?
Coulibaly’s attack against the kosher store is much more serious and meaningful than the Kouachi brothers’ attack against Charlie Hebdo. Indeed, they paid for what they had done (“blasphemy” against Muhammad), but the Jews were massacred for what they were, i.e., Jews. This act, directly connected to the teaching of the Qur’an as much if not more than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been minimized (pushed into the background) in the huge mobilization against the jihadist killings. Killing blasphemous journalists and policemen, including a French Muslim “traitor” (“colla-beur”) seemed more important to the media than killing anonymous Jews.
The fundamental and aggressive anti-Semitism of Muslim immigrants is ignored by the government. TV channels highlighted (as if they were common) the rare event of harmonious coexistence between Muslims and Jews in the banlieues where some Jews still reside behind barricades. Grand hollow declarations against anti-Semitism that do not name the new causes are preferred. Moreover, the jihadist killer Coulibaly planned to one-up his co-religionist Merah in horror by strafing children in a Jewish school. As for Alain Jakubowicz, President of LICRA, which still considers the National Front (and the “far Right”) as the main threat to the Jewish community, what planet is he on?
A state funeral at Père Lachaise was proposed for Coulibaly’s victims. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu (present at the demonstrations of 11 January) replied: Israel is “their true home.” Very symbolic: it is a rejection of a France that has become dangerous for Jews because of Islamization. Former Israeli Minister Yair Lapid, head of the center-Right, calls upon European leaders: “Everyone now understands that terror must be fought not by more tolerance or multiculturalism, but by force of arms.” That’s clear enough.
Serious Ambiguities of Charlie Hebdo
Charlie Hebdo ran caricatures of Mohammed for several years. The weekly had long been under a fatwa. Its premises had been firebombed and its journalists were under protection. The first publication, following a Danish newspaper, had caused riots in Muslim countries. Sponsored by “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” an organization based in Yemen, the massacre of the journalists is a threatening message sent to all Westerners: ban blaspheming the prophet. And tomorrow the criticism of Islam? There is concern that this intimidation is bearing fruit (see above), especially as the French state, completely inconsistent, decries “Islamophobia”! Will fear or determination grow among the critics of Islam? The near future will tell.
Charlie Hebdo, with its atheist ideology, in fact insulted Christianity much more intensely than Islam. Christ has been repeatedly attacked in a scatological or sexual way. The contradiction of Charlie Hebdo is that it was pleased to ridicule Muhammad, but, because of the old anarcho-Leftist ’68er ideology, they never intelligently criticized Islam; they never opposed Islamisation and mass immigration from outside Europe. They defended the creed of anti-racist-righteousness. Their anti-Islamism was bogus. Besides, if a newspaper from the “extreme Right” published the same cartoons, I bet it would have been prosecuted. Charlie Hebdo was protected by its bobo leftist, socialist-libertarian status, which is the very heart of the dominant ideology. Libération, which hosted Charlie Hebdo, continues to publish lengthy columns attacking “Islamophobia,” especially the PEGIDA protest movement in Germany.
The slogan “I am Charlie,” which went around the world in solidarity with the massacred journalists, was not unanimous. To crack this beautiful communion of giant demonstrations staged by the government, two Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, absent the day of the massacre, made enlightening statements. Willem: “We vomit on those who suddenly claim to be our friends. . . . We have lots of new friends, like the Pope, Queen Elizabeth, or Putin, it makes me laugh. . . . Charlie Hebdo is a subversive newspaper. It should not be adopted by our political opponents. Sarkozy crying for our kind . . . crocodile tears” “Luz”: “People sang the Marseillaise. They talk about the memory of Charb, Tignous, Cabu, Honore, Wolinski: they would shit on that kind of attitude.” Charlie Hebdo was as anti-French and anti-European identity as those who massacred its cartoonists.
Charlie Hebdo was pseudo-subversive, but it really was sectarian, as were its attackers. When I was working (under a pseudonym, of course) at L’Écho des Savanes, I did a story on the National Front which was “objective,” giving voice to its leaders. Charlie Hebdo accused me of collaborating with the devil by practicing naive objectivity, journalistic neutrality, and suggested that my newspaper deprive itself of my services.
Millions (!) of copies of the new issue of Charlie Hebdo, whose “survivors” are housed on the premises of their friends Libération (as after the first arson attack), have been printed and distributed worldwide. The fanzine will also be subsidized by the state. A breath of fresh air for a magazine that was on the verge of bankruptcy.
But the new cover is very ambiguous: on a green background (the color of Islam) and under the title “all is forgiven” Mohammed, crying, holds a placard “I am Charlie.” Is this submission (we forgive the attackers and make peace with Mohammed) or otherworldliness (the true followers of Mohammed forgive the caricatures disapprove of the killers)? Anyway, this was taken as another first degree provocation by the Muslim authorities in France and those Muslim countries where protests have been organized. The cycle of revenge is on.
The Duplicity of Muslim Authorities
Amar Lasfar, president of the UOIF, which had filed a complaint (dismissed) against the Muhammad cartoons, said: “We must not fall into the trap of these killers. These terrorists want to drive a wedge between Muslims and the rest of society. But the wall between them and society are five to six million French Muslims! They are the best allies of France in the war against terrorism. These attacks are also declared a war on 6 million Muslims in France and 2,500 mosques.” Sophistry. A significant number of “French Muslims,” especially the younger generations, endorse jihad.
Incredible proof of the blindness and the inconsistency of the French state: a Qatari delegation was received at the Élysée by François Hollande before the “Republican March” of January 11th. Qatar finances Islamism and radical mosques everywhere in Europe. It is the pillar of Wahhabism and Salafism, practicing like the Turkish, Saudi, and Pakistani regimes, double talk and double dealing, for this hypocritical deception is consubstantial with Islam. In Pakistan, as in most Muslim countries, blasphemy (like apostasy) is punishable by death. There a young Christian—under a false accusation, moreover—rots on death row. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo follows the exact same Islamic logic.
TV programs invite “moderate” Muslim intellectuals to reassure the brave people with their soothing declarations. Following the carnage of the three jihadists, many soothing words of the Muslim authorities in France rehashed the theme of tolerance and the intrinsic goodness of Islam. Muhammad is basically a new Jesus, a bringer of peace and compassion. For example, this lyrical profession of Dalil Boubaker, rector of the Paris mosque: “These heinous acts have nothing to do with Islam, they are contrary to the values of Islam. . . . The Great Mosque of Paris tirelessly preaches peace, brotherhood, and respect for human life and the common law.” Very well. Imam Mohamed Aiouaz, theologian of the mosque, said: “The message of Islam is in essence a message of peace, brotherhood, and respect.” So will the venerable authorities of the Great Mosque of Paris either censor or interpret in a pacifist sense (nonsense?) suras of the Koran? For example: “Kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they will have fled. . . . Do not hesitate to kill them. This will be the just reward of the infidels” (2.191). There are dozens of others of the same ilk, many anti-Jewish, that adepts learn and recite by heart. Words of Peace?
Dounia Bouzar said, very moved, following the carnage of Charlie Hebdo, “We are at war to protect freedom.” Very well. She is the sympathetic president of the “Prevention Centre against Sectarianism Related to Islam.” This is an oxymoron. Because Islam in its Quranic and theological-political essence has been the epitome of sectarianism, intolerance, and totalitarianism since the seventh century, as was plainly seen by Voltaire. A tolerant and peaceful Islam is as absurd as an antiracist Nazism or liberal communism or atheist Catholicism. The solemn condemnations of Muslim authorities are tainted at best with utopianism, at worst with hypocrisy.
Charles de Gaulle a válka v Alžírsku
The Roald Dahl Controversy
A Fake & Ghey Murder
The Populist Moment, Chapter 12: Liberty — Equality — Fraternity: On the Meaning of a Republican Slogan
Ian Kershaw’s Personality & Power
Traditional French Songs from Le Poème Harmonique
The Populist Moment, Chapter 10, Part 2: The Ambiguity of “Communitarianism”
Před a po Táboru Svatých: k další tvorbě Jeana Raspaila
Why is this neo-conservative garbage published on a racialist site?
What makes it “neo-conservative”?
It does sound rather Fox news, this whole piece. No mention of Jews being supporters of immigration into the West in the first place, that I picked up on. Just that Jews got attacked by muslims.
This Charlie Hebdo sounds like a useless, stupid rag if there ever was one. I think these leftist guys had mothers who indulged them too much, now they think they can spout of to anyone and face no consequences. They will learn the hard way, it appears.
Faye is an anti-anti-Semite, but in this very piece he also makes it clear that French Jews are major promoters of Muslim immigration and political correctness about Islamophobia. I think that ultimately, Faye believes that we will not win if Jews are united against us, so he is hoping that the Jewish establishment can be divided on issues like Islam and non-white immigration.
Greg, for Whites to want to ally with the Jews in hopes that the Jews won’t be united against them anymore is sort of like the frog wanting to ally with the scorpion. The Jews want to destroy the White race through immigration, miscegenation, and low birth rates. That’s the only reason the Jews bring Muslims into Europe, it has nothing to do with Islam. They just want their brown genes to dilute our white genes. Muslim immigrants are brought in because of proximity to Europe. It’s true that the Muslim immigrants are posing problems for the Jews of Europe but that’s only because Islam hasn’t been watered down yet like Christianity. Within a couple of generations that’s bound to happen. We’ll start hearing Imams talk about their Judeo-Islamic values. Then the Whites and the secularized Muslims will happily mix together and all of Europe will eventually have dark olive skin. Do you really think the “right wing” Jews will still want to repatriate the Musilms when that starts to happen ?
For years I have made the point that Jewish Islamophobia is largely feigned as a way to subvert the nationalist opposition in Europe. The simple truth is that Jews fear and hate Europeans more, as attested by the fact that they put their ethnostate in a sea of angry Arabs. And yes, Jews might hate us so much that they cannot weigh their self-interest correctly anyway, in which case reasoning with them will only go so far. Spite sometimes trumps self-preservation. But I think Faye believes that enough Jews can be reasoned with that their bloc can be split on Islam and immigration.
Neo-conservatives in America all support open borders, including Muslim immigration, and focus all their efforts on instigating foreign wars for the protection of Israel.
Faye is a Frenchman trying to protect France from non-white immigrants, the bulk of which are Muslim. He wants to stop immigration and start repatriation. He is not arguing that France fight foreign wars for the benefit of Israel.
I believe in nation-states; I’m sure you do too.
It is not “neo-conservative” to argue against ongoing national suicide in France or anywhere else. Muslims are walking & talking (and often murdering) advertisements for sane immigration policies across the besieged West.
Faye is right in saying that the Charlie massacre was ultimately a consequence of a deranged anti-racialist ideology, which allowed Muslims to invade France, inhibited the French from complaining about the invasion, and often dragged the rare complainers into court for “racism” or “Islamophobia.”
It’s true enough that we have no reason to be saddened, as Faye apparently is, by the departure of many Jews from France, since Jews were the principal advocates and promoters of the anti-racism that enabled the Islamic invasion that now threatens much of Europe, as well as the Mexican invasion that threatens the United States. But in reading Faye you have to take the bad with the good, and the bulk of what he writes falls into the latter category.
He will likely never become more than a brave proponent of forcefully stating the obvious, but since in our era stating the obvious is controversial and sometimes even criminal, we should admire him.
On a different matter, I think Faye is making the cover seem unnecessarily ambiguous. Its structure is, I believe, clear. Weeping Mohammed is silently sharing the grief of the French people (hence “Je suis Charlie”), while the magazine itself, Christ-like, tells the murderers and their supporters that “all is forgiven.” That is, obviously, a poor tactic when France is confronting internal antagonists who don’t practice Christ-like forgiveness of enemies, but the survivors of the massacre are still not especially interested in the defense of their nation.
Yet even this timid response to mass-murder is brave. If the cartoonist who drew the cover showed up in Niger, where anti-Charlie riots are still raging, he would almost certainly be killed, and there are no doubt also many Muslims in France who think he should be killed for the blasphemy of drawing a cartoon of their prophet. He has at least some reason to fear for his safety, even though his cover was clearly sympathetic to Islam and its prophet.
“There are dozens of others of the same ilk, many anti-Jewish, that adepts learn and recite by heart. Words of Peace?”
What about the anti-gentile/heathen in the old and new textament?
What’s the relevance? If you believe that the Biblical religious tradition is a problem, then shouldn’t you support not adding the youngest, most militant offshoot of that tradition to our problems?
It was a rethorical question. And in my mind -in spanish- sounded more clear and better haha. It was an addition, not a derailment. What I’ve tried to point is that, in my opinion, sometimes Faye sounds too much like a philosemite and supporter. I’m not a hardcore dumb-down ‘anti-semite’. Understanding the jewish problem, is understanding one of the key issues of our current historical moment, that is a must for the survival of our race. I wonder if Faye ever read Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight Of Three Thousand Years by Israel Shahak or The Founding Myths of Modern Israel by Roger Garaudy. To name a few. And after more than 2000 years I think we should strive towards a “heathen imperialism”. And yes, there’s an etno-religious clash in Central Africa, Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Europe with islam always present. Islam is a problem, but christianism and judaism are not a solution.
P.S: I bought “the price of monotheism” yesterday for kindle, my beliefs and arguments are getting stronger by the hour against the ‘secondary religions’ that infect our world.
Faye rejects all the Biblical religions.
Oh. Well then that new data makes me take him differently and understand more his position. Thank you.
Coulibaly’s attack against the kosher store is much more serious and meaningful than the Kouachi brothers’ attack against Charlie Hebdo. Indeed, they paid for what they had done (“blasphemy” against Muhammad), but the Jews were massacred for what they were, i.e., Jews.
There is, it must be said, a touch of the necon here. Was it really _much_ more significant?
Muslim terrorists attack French cartoonists in order to enforce Muslim blasphemy laws within a Western nation that doesn’t adhere to Muslim blasphemy laws; a Muslim terrorist attacks Jews because he is angry, rightly or not, at Jewish mistreatment of Muslims in Palestine. And from that set of facts Faye somehow concludes that the latter attack was _much_ more serious and _much_ more meaningful than the former, which is almost tantamount to saying the lives of French cartoonists plying their trade are worth _much_ less than the lives of Jews shopping in kosher markets.
Modern France has a tradition of free-speech rights. Anyone who follows the career of Robert Faurisson, and even of Faye himself, knows that it doesn’t always abide by its formal commitment to political liberty, but the tradition is real. Muslims — an alien presence in France — use lethal violence in an attempt to destroy rights that all French citizens are (or should be) entitled to exercise. From that perspective the killing of the cartoonists was clearly the more significant event.
In a way it is more important, because some French Jews might believe that they can make a separate peace if they do not actually provoke Muslims like Charlie Hebdo did. And Faye is pointing out that this is not possible. I think, though, that he is pointing out something that every Jew already knows: that he is a target simply as a Jew, which is why the French military and police guard Jewish synagogues and schools, and why thousands of Jews every year are leaving France.
Rightly or wrongly, Faye thinks that we will not win unless we can split the Jewish opposition, and he is positioning himself as someone who is not opposed to Jews as Jews to try to do that. Marine Le Pen is doing the same thing, basically. The fact that Marine Le Pen had an editorial in this week’s New York Times might indicate that the strategy is working. French Jews are becoming divided on Islam and immigration. That softens their bloc opposition to the National Front.
Reality is complex – why do White Nationalists insist on mono-causality, as if the Jews were God? Or are you harboring the old “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Better, but remember, it isn’t always true. I’d say it’s not true in this case: both tribes of Semites are within our gates and intent on conquest, each using their own strategy. If you want to use one enemy against the other, well then you’re cooking with gas. I fear that’s a task beyond us, unorganized as we are, lacking in skill, a united stand, and anything to bring to the table to bargain with. But it’s certainly an ideal to work towards.
I fail to understand the outrage of people ostensibly on the right about this attack and even more about anti-semitism of Muslims in France and unwillingness of Muslims to assimilate. The principal victims of the attacks are white leftists and Jews, both engaged in ongoing destruction of France. The result of the attacks, in addition to several dead enemies of the French people is increased legitimacy of the Right, a huge bullet in the multiculti anti-racist ideology, clear panic among EU bureaucrats, more radicalisation of Muslims all over Europe which will fasten oncoming conflict and eventual oportunity for complete repatriation of all immigrants from European soil. The statement from jewish leader about Israel being the real home of european Jews will prove valuable in the future.
I think a lot of people on the Right are of two minds about these attacks. On the one hand, if we lived in a sensible society, they would not have happened, so of course we see them as terrible. On the other hand, yes, there is some karmic justice to them.
Faye’s own aim is clear enough: if white Leftists and Jews hold power and are responsible for immigration and political correctness, and now they are being killed by the people they brought in, doesn’t it make sense to point out the contradictions of their policies and hope that some of them change their position, thus weakening the opposition to sensible policies?
We can point out the obvious contradiction with these leftists wanting massive immigration that will no doubt lead to the destruction of nations that allow left wing movements in the first place. But do you think that will do any good? The left wing whites are too stupid. The Jews… well, you know. Nothing we say to them makes any difference. They will just seize on a truth-teller to complain about racism. Camp of the Saints.
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.
Edit your comment