62:09 / 105 words
To listen in a player, click here.
To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
To subscribe to our podcasts, click here.
Greg Johnson is joined by Patrick Le Brun and Matt Parrott to discuss the Muslim massacre at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, the reaction by the establishment, and its meaning for the White Nationalist movement worldwide.
References:
- Roosh Valizadeh, “The Charlie Hebdo Terrorist Attack Fires Shots at the Liberal Narrative“
- Marine Le Pen’s statement on the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
- Michel Houellebecq, Soumission
- Roman Bernard, “Keep Calm and Ride the Tiger“
11 Comments
The focus being given to freedom-of-speech can be put to our advantage:
“Now that everyone agrees that even offensive speech should be protected we can talk critically about the Holocaust.
(crickets chirping)
Feminism?
(louder crickets chirping)
Third world immigration used as a political tool against indigenous European populations?
(almost deafening sound of crickets chirping)
I thought so.”
[http://hyperb0rean.tumblr.com/post/107610739750/son-of-blackpignotebook-now-that-everyone]
Of course, we want to move the point of reference of the discussion to the bigger picture — the failure of multiculturalism, the incompatibility of egalitarian dogma with the Islamic colonization that it is advancing, etc. — but we must take it from where it is to where we want it to go.
I never thought Greg was an atheist. I personally try and distance myself from these nihilistic perverts. Not Greg of course, but as an unbeliever, the bulk of atheists I meet are anti western, quasi Marxists. I don’t know any right sing atheists where I’m from, but then again I live In a far left sour. I found it interesting also that Greg said he agreed with some of the classical liberal ideas. Personally, I think criminalizing freedom of expression brings more trouble than its worth. Even Hitler said so himself in table talk.
Enjoyed the broadcast, gents. Keep it up.
Please encourage Le Brun to write more!
Also, as far as being prepared for events like this, I think every time this happens, we should be ready to pump out so much propaganda that we completely saturate the internet, leaving no area alone. This means pumping comments into every sub-niche, eg from the usual leftist sites to video game forums and so on. Just completely overwhelm them with the idea being that, hopefully, it would stir up enough controversy that people would discuss the identitarian comments (even negatively) face to face in real life making it something more ‘physical’ and real.
Here are my thoughts on this:
The Paris attacks are an attempt to get the French recognition of Palestine off the tracks (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/what-does-french-vote-really-m-2014123122646856708.html).
The operative has been the same as in Norway (Utoya island massacre by Anders Breivick, the Free Mason).
In that occasion too, the attack was made right before Norway recognized Palestine as a State (http://zalmi.blogspot.com.es/2011/07/utoya-not-so-innocent-youth-camp.html).
Mossad is behind this. Not as the very author hands on, but as a facilitator, just like they did with 9/11: they facilitate weapons, information, infrastructure, etc, and most important, keep evidences away from investigators, so that lone wolves can carry out the shocking massacres, destabilizing European societies.
And the tactic is clear: create a turmoil, so that the recognition of Palestine, and mostly the potential capacity of israely soliders to be brought to court in the International Court of Justice, is lost amidst a greater and griever new geopolitical context.
In both cases , oddly sophisticated weapons were put at hand for the attackers. I guess it only gets a pretended ‘guns smuggler’ (e.g. Mossad agent) close to these lone wolves, so they can carry on the attacks. It’s (almost) the perfect job: you get someone who goes under the radar, because they allow it so. Someone who at the same time ultimately serves your very aims (Qui prodest?).
PS: why has Netanyahu called Jews in France to settle in Israel now? Is he just adding drama to the situation to make it more credible, or is he for real, and he really knows how bad they plan things to get in Europe in the coming months?
PSS: Linking in with that, why is the Pegida movement getting so strong (e.g. media coverage) in Germany right now? Pegida is finally born after some failed attempts under the protection of the people in the very Kosher PI website (http://www.pi-news.org/). To me, it’s like another puzzle piece for the israeli-controlled conflict situation that we are going to witness in Europe in not so many months from now.
PSS: make no mistakes. I am not taking sides for the arabs. In any way does this mean I believe coexistence with muslims within our communities is possible. Neither Jews, nor Arabs: Europe!
I am completely unsympathetic with the kind of narrative you are spinning here, which tends to inflate the agency and responsibility and dangers of Jews and Zionism while softening the same with Muslims. Both groups are our enemies, and anything that frames the issue so that we are constrained to take one side or another has to be rejected.
Although “false flag” terrorism is part of the historical record (the Lavon Affair), not every act of terrorism is false flag, and people who constantly cry “false flag!” without any concrete evidence, but instead based on a tissue of analogies, apriori assumptions, and paranoid pattern recognition–as you are doing here–makes us all look like clowns and kooks. I wish you would not peddle this kind of swill at all, and I want none of it at Counter-Currents.
Greg,
You don’t have to go all the way back to the Lavon Affair to see Israel’s reliance on the false flag tactic, but if you go back just a bit farther you will recognize the false flag character of the “holocaust” and see how useful it has been to Jews.
The method by which a small nation gains supremacy over its much larger enemies is to pit its enemies against one another. Islam has not been an enemy of the West for half a milennium. Judaism has much more in common with Islam than the West has with either. Islam vs. The West is a contrivance that benefits only the Jews.
The U.S. has no national interest in the Middle East and an argument can be made that Israel itself has no interest in the land it has taken from the Palestinians. Since 1904 when Britain recognized Russian Talmudists as representing all Jewry the Zionists have pursued a program that allowed European Jews with no genetic or historical ties to Palestine to establish, in the guise of a “homeland”, a center for world dominion They have used and continue to use European nations to that end.
The Zionist program for world domination is a long-term, multi-faceted, relentless program of destruction that includes two World Wars, interminable smaller wars, massive immigration, and cultural Marxism. They use the same tactics over and over again so we should look closely at their history to tell us how to interpret current events and to tell us what to expect. The false flag is the Jews’ call of “Let’s you and him fight”.
Islam is always an enemy of the rest of the human race because Islamic law requires Muslims to conquer and convert or kill the rest of the planet. That is just as much a plan for world domination as the Jewish plan, and it springs from the same Semitic sources. Just because there have been lulls and reverses in Muslim aggression does not mean that the abiding religious source of aggression toward the rest of the planet has changed. And in any case, the lull is over, because the Muslim world is populous, rich, and powerful enough to conquer Europe, and that is exactly what is unfolding before our eyes.
I am glad your eyes are open to the Jewish problem. But that should not blind you to the Muslim problem. Both groups are enemies of whites.
Bottom line: Both Muslims and Jews are the enemies of whites so why not pit them against each other? That scheme has worked very well for Jews over the last hundred years.
Well that’s basically what we saw at the Charlie Hebdo massacre. There is surely more to come.
The weapons in this case and the other were in no way ‘oddly sophisticated’: the recent killers had two Kalashnikovs, a shotgun and an RPG, all easily enough obtained illegally in Europe, and both of Breivik’s guns were purchased legally and licensed.