1,276 words
One of the advantages of being a White nationalist is that the world becomes fairly easy to understand. Facts are your friends if you don’t have to ignore or contort them, and daily news is often a script illustrating your political beliefs.
I have no difficulty, for example, understanding why both Detroit and Haiti are bankrupt and violent, whereas for a non-racialist this fact presents a perplexing mystery requiring refined explications of structural inequities and subterranean “legacies of racism.”
White nationalists also have no difficulty understanding Muslim violence in Europe and elsewhere in the West. If a Western nation imports from the Third World an alien population with a religious tradition of hostility to non-Muslims, it can expect violence. Some us may be surprised at the scale and success of Muslim terror in Europe, but the violence itself is hardly mysterious. It has been regularly documented and its increase regularly predicted by Far Right politicians and writers. Some of them have found themselves in court for the crime of stating their evidence and announcing their predictions.
It is a venerable tradition of anti-racist jurisprudence that facts and evidence are immaterial and even criminal if they are arrayed against the program of non-White immigration, which is regarded by its advocates as a moral imperative, not as a policy that a democratic electorate is free to reject if, upon deliberation, it considers the policy inadvisable. A decade ago a political party in Belgium was forced out of existence for the crime of opposing non-European immigration and reporting Muslim crime statistics. Facts were Vlaams Blok’s friends, because Vlaams Blok opposed Muslim immigration, but facts were the Belgian government’s enemies, and since the government could not wish the facts out of existence, it decided, with the assistance of an anti-racist organization, to eliminate the political party that insisted on publicizing them.
At least half of the rapes in Denmark are perpetrated by Muslim men. The percentage may be higher. The preferred targets of Muslim rapists in Denmark are Danish women. Across Scandinavia the figures are even worse. Sweden now rivals South Africa in its rape statistics. It has achieved that distinction through immigration. “This is a story,” Bruce Bawer concludes, “about failed immigration policies and about Islam, which teaches contempt for infidels — especially unveiled women. As Scandinavia’s Muslim population has risen, so have the rape statistics.” Feminists argue that rape is not about sex, but about power. It would be hard to deny their thesis in this case. Muslim rapists are telling Scandinavians what they think of them.
The recent terror attack in Copenhagen is not a strange aberration, but part of an existing pattern. A hostile group has been imported into Denmark, and it has already expressed its hostility through run-of-the-mill crime. A member of this hostile group decided, after a career in ordinary crime, to express his hostility more memorably. But even though Muslim violence and terror should not be a mystery, they are apparently mysterious to the prime minister of Denmark: “We don’t know the motive for the attacks but we know that there are forces that want to harm Denmark, that want to crush our freedom of expression, our belief in liberty.”
Before we mock Helle Thorning-Schmidt, and before we accuse her of plagiarizing the Collected Works of George Bush, we should note the formal and informal constraints that effectively prohibit any sensible statement from her.
We now live, throughout the West, in a cultural and political environment governed by the improbable doctrines of anti-racism. Under a regime of anti-racism stating the obvious is impermissible and sometimes criminal if the obvious undermines the anti-racist consensus on race and nationality. Even if in secret Helle recognizes the obvious explanation of the recent terror attack on her country, she could not state the truth without instantly transforming herself, as though by magic, from a mainstream social-democrat into a Far Right extremist — that is, a Dane endowed with basic common sense and willing to apply his or her basic common sense to matters of political significance, even if those matters involve race and culture. Thorning-Schmidt would also be tacitly acknowledging that a substantial portion of Denmark’s population really shouldn’t be there and that Denmark would be a better place if they had never arrived. Facts, in her world, are dangerous enemies, so she resorts to ascribing a Muslim terror attack to amorphous “forces” opposed to Danish liberty and mysteriously hostile to Jews.
Islam’s hostility to Jews is especially troubling for the political mainstream. Anti-racism privileges minorities. It knows what side to attack and what side to defend in a conflict between White and non-White. Muslim rapes of non-Muslim women may be an embarrassment, owing to our traditional opinions about rape, but they present no serious difficulty for a convinced anti-racist, who knows that the cultural and racial diversity Muslims bring is well worth any suffering individual Muslims may cause. A member of a racial minority is a valuable part of the post-national state simply by virtue of his presence. His difference itself is his principal value, regardless of either his accomplishments or his crimes. The real enemy of anti-racism is not the alien criminal plying his trade and committing his preferred offenses, but anyone who would unethically, with racial malice aforethought, exploit the fact of his crimes for the purpose of defending historic nations and discrediting the globalist plan to end them.
But when the Muslim minority attacks the Jewish minority, the system faces a crisis. The inflexible rule that the minority should be privileged makes it difficult to respond, since there are now two minorities in conflict, one visibly brown and the other visibly white. Hence again the advantage, from the perspective of practical politics, of Thorning-Schmidt’s hastily concocted and implausible account of amorphous forces, inspired by no discernible motives other than a dislike of liberty, mysteriously descending on Copenhagen.
For Jews and their admirers the default narrative’s intentional imprecision is disturbing. Jews and Jewish organizations are overrepresented among the forces working to criminalize peaceful opposition to the Muslim invasion of Europe. Brigitte Bardot, for example, faced Jewish anti-racist organizations in court when, in 2008, she spoke out about Islam; it was the fifth time she had faced legal punishment for “inciting racial hatred” by expressing her opposition to Muslim immigration and her disapproval of Islam, which she believes is destroying France and “[trying] to impose its own laws on us.” That is the normal pattern. A European publicly speaks critically of Islam, committing the thought-crime of “racism,” and anti-racist organizations, many of them financed or staffed by Jews, descend upon him. A hate-speech conviction often follows, as it did in Bardot’s case. But now Jews find themselves in a Europe where the anti-racist rule of willed or coerced silence about Islam inhibits the open expression of a truth they want to have publicized. Muslims really don’t like them. Some Muslims want to kill them. They also want to kill Europeans, but if a jihadist has a choice between killing a Jew and killing a European, he would prefer to kill a Jew.
Jews in Europe face an unpleasant dilemma. Right-wing Europeans, not even a thought-criminal like Brigitte Bardot, do not shoot up their synagogues and kosher markets, but members of a group they have often defended, as part of their ambition to turn European nation-states into collections of squabbling minorities with no cohesive race-cultural character, do shoot Jews and will likely kill more in the future. Yet the system Jews have done so much to create is reflexively reluctant, for reasons both of anti-racist principle and political expedience, to name their enemies and describe their motives.
10 Comments
“Political correctness” can be summed up as criminalizing the noticing of reality. As you state:
I have no difficulty, for example, understanding why both Detroit and Haiti are bankrupt and violent, whereas for a non-racialist this fact presents a perplexing mystery requiring refined explications of structural inequities and subterranean “legacies of racism.”
Since stating the obvious is proscribed — i.e., that the reason for the destruction of Detroit and Haiti is due to the racial composition of their denizens — the system must invent increasingly labyrinthine rationalizations. Thus, the invention of concepts such as “institutional racism,” an Orwellian term if there ever was one, since most US institutions discriminate in favor of non-whites via affirmative action and other programs. Since the real cause — inherent differences between the races — can not be placed on the table it becomes impossible to develop policies which might rebuild a Detroit, or make Haiti prosper. The result is a downward spiral of cities, countries and entire continents.
Now you have to ask, how long can this system endure? You’d think the evidence of the havoc wrought by third worlders in Europe and North America might shock people out of their delusions. But the delusions pile up all the more. This is one reason for the increasing shrillness of the hysteria over anyone who dares let reality intrude against the shadows on the cave wall. Look at the treatment of a British housewife mouthing off to blacks on a public conveyance, or a pro-basketball magnate instructing his girlfriend about her choice in party companions.
If the rank and file woke up, they’d have to face the barbarian hordes inside the gates and that might mean a real fight was on their hands. Better to put on the ideological blinders and pretend the all-clear has sounded, while throwing dissenters to the wolves in the hopes of keeping their jaws at bay for another week.
I’m not altogether certain that elites are this blinded. “PC” makes a good enough agitprop tool for the inner party to keep the masses in line, while mobilizing the outer party of civil rights bureaucrats, tenured radicals, mainstream media teleprompter readers, and international junketing NGOs, putting them on the payroll and letting them believe they are creating the multicultic utopia that’s replaced the Playmate of the Month ™ in their collectivist imaginations.
Still, we have seen this before. The leaders of the old Soviet Union mouthed the same old platitudes long after they ceased having any connection to reality. Eventually, the Berlin Wall did come crashing down. We need to work for the destruction of the ideological walls which now block Western man’s vision.
The impossible policies pursued in the name of anti-white racism are the logical outcome of the end of the Second war in Europe; the non-German Europe essentially committed suicide by first adopting the dictates handed out at Versailles; and secondly by inviting in foreign powers to pull it out of the mess it had jumped into so willingly .
Instead a Europe with Germany, one without it was chosen. In the post-war Germany a leadership was installed that can only be called insane. hence, there can be people who hail Bomber Harris at Dresden and get paid for their presence by public funds. This same leadership is also at the forefront of opening Europe to the world to dilute the evil german genes; and this is done with a Lemming drive, as the German lead pulls Europe along and down. Not unexpectedly, Jews lead Germany on its path, and Mr. Vinson’s connection between anti-racism, Jewdom and the installation of Jewish policies in the country most pro-EU is an obvious fact. The two wars have been led to prevent a German leadership in Europe, and they couldn’t prevent it. What is there now is the use of German power that is detrimental to Europe.
Stupidity has its price.
There can be possibly one good outcome froma ll of this:
If there is still some healthy human sentiment left in the average European, he and she will eventually fight back in a real, meaningful way and it will then not be possible to prevent it. The forces of destruction once let loose produce a counter reaction, and so there is hope in the chaos that will have to ensue as the healing crisis.
Let me add to Walter’s remarks. In Britain most people see no connection between the two world wars and the fact of the massive Third-world immigration that we are nowadays subjected to.
Consider: if the United States and the Soviet Union had not entered the war that the British and French governments declared against Germany in September 1939, and if the war had ended at the point that it reached in May 1940: that is, with France defeated and occupied by the Germans along with the rest of continental Europe [excluding the Soviet Union] and with Britain driven off the continent, and facing having to come to terms with Germany, then those British and French politicians responsible for the disaster would have been driven from public office and anathematized.
None of this happened of course. The United States of America ad the Soviet did enter the war, and at its conclusion in 1945, they, and they alone were the victors: Germany was smashed, France broken and Britain bankrupt and utterly dependent on loans from the USA.
The two extra-European powers ensured their victory over the defeated Europeans (British included) by appointing local politicians who rejoiced at the Allies’ great victory. Any European (Britons included) who deplored the war and its outcome and its consequences, was then castigated as a “Fascist” or “Nazi” sympathiser. The European (with the British always included) politicians, who owed their status and all their powers to their whole-hearted acceptance of the Allies’ version of the Second World War as the “Good and necessary War”, could be relied upon, up to the present day, to oppress any dissenting voices.
Essentially the outcome of the Second World War, that is the defeat of the European powers, Britain, France and Germany, and the crushing victory of the extra-European powers, the USA and the Soviet Union, had as a direct consequence the elevating into political power in western and central Europe, politicians who are essentially traitors to Europe and to their own countries.
@Richard Edmonds. No doubt about it, and as the leaders in science by far, those countries would be running the world. And probably not threatening and declaring war on a new country every month, as the USA (under Jewish control) does today.
It is particularly interesting (and covered up), that as David Irving reveals, FDR expressed his wish that the British Empire be destroyed in a cabinet meeting, while Hitler expressed his admiration for the British and their country.
There is no doubt that WW II was the best thing that ever happened to the US. FDR saw the opportunity such a war would provide, with little risk to the USA with two oceans separating them from the enemies. I wonder if some American leaders have similar thoughts in mind while trying to get a war going in Ukraine. It would certainly give the American economy a boost if Berlin was in flames again.
World War II was a political revolution as much as anything else. It ended nationalism as it had been understood, replacing it with supranational entities: international communism and transnational capitalism. The revolution was given a veneer of respectability via the United Nations Organization under slogans of global peace and international law. The ultimate impact was that it was no longer possible for nation-states to defend their own peoples because the political foundations were not there. The ideology which needs to be the foundation for a white racial defense was smashed to pieces at Salerno, Normandy, and Dresden. The first major symptom was in US-European elites taking the side of non-whites in the Algerian, Rhodesian and Angolan wars against white colonials. And this has continued through today with the opening of the European frontiers to mass third world migrations.
This is not to say that ideology can not be revived. It also indicates that a major crisis to the system, such as a war, could be an opportunity which WN can seize.
The “sons of Allah breed like rats,” she wrote, condemning the growing immigration of Muslims in Europe, including her homeland.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/books/16fallaci.html?_r=0
“One of the advantages of being a White nationalist is that the world becomes fairly easy to understand. Facts are your friends if you don’t have to ignore or contort them, and daily news is often a script illustrating your political beliefs.”
The world definitely became easy to understand for me after becoming WN.
“We don’t know the motive for the attacks but we know that there are forces that want to harm Denmark, that want to crush our freedom of expression, our belief in liberty.”
She just needs to look in the mirror ( but she wont see) for the ‘forces’
Great article and very easy to understand. The world observed through the WN lenses becomes less complex indeed.
As a WN I look at pretty much any event from the racialist perspective. And to be honest, I still cannot understand how Liberals manage to be so blind to the reality?
There are some White Liberals who were robbed, mugged or raped by non-whites and they still don’t make a link between crime and race. There are some whites who defend Israel and Jews with a foam at the corner of their mouths. Why? Don’t they see what’s going on?
You’re dead right about Marxist Elites going into stupor when two victim groups clash with each other. We can see it on the example of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many Liberals are confused on which group to support. When one of the sides are whites, the answer is easy – blame the whites, always blames the whites. But brown Muslims vs Jews? Its a hard one for a Leftie.
Anyways, all eyes on Europe now. Something big gonna happen there.
Excellent article.
Also I think people might enjoy ramzpaul’s similar take on the subject at his website. “Muslims killing atheists.”