1,679 words
Nothing quite kills like kindness — as we have learned once again with the recent atrocity in the French Riviera town of Nice, where a Muslim-piloted truck swept along two kilometres of the famous Promenade, like the scythe of the Grim Reaper, taking over 80 lives.
After Charlie Hebdo, the massacre at the Bataclan Theatre, and other attacks committed by Muslims against French people, one could well ask, what are these people still doing in France, let alone being allowed access to juggernauts of death to mow down men, women, and children?
Adding to the sense of the surreal, was the mysterious fire at the Eiffel Tower — I mean, it’s little hard to light that up in a show sympathy for Nice when it is choked with black smoke (a suitable metaphor for the way non-white immigration has clogged up France).
Once again, the main sensation one feels is a sense of wonder at the overwhelming kindness of Western people in allowing alien and hostile elements into their countries and then taking them off the leash, without bothering to ascertain the degree of their spiritual and cultural rabies.
As I write this, we are now between the “should I or shouldn’t I put a French flag filter on my Facebook picture” phase — I guess many won’t bother this time as it hasn’t done much good — and the lighting up off some prominent building in symbolic colours of hope.
As the red, white, and blue of the tricolour have been greatly overused, other colours will have to be found, perhaps derived from the events of the tragedy. Let’s see — maybe someone in a yellow mankini or purple beach thong lay down his life by pushing a fellow fireworks spectator out of the path of the wheels of death. How wonderful if that person could also happen to be Muslim!
But whether they find such a person or even a suitable colour or two to wash over some hapless building that isn’t on fire, we can certainly expect the Naxalters to be out in force as usual. But please try not to be too unkind to them. Remember, not all Naxalters are like this.
As our anticipation of apologists reveals, the real tragedy of Nice is not the 80 + lives and the hundreds injured, but our all-too-convenient ability to emotionally vent (thanks social media!) combined with our collective inability to learn a lesson from these kinds of events. Some of you have probably seen the meme of a cyclic chart that goes from terrorist atrocity to “Pray For . . .” hashtag, through Facebook flag filters, and back to terrorist atrocity again.
What good will come out of this latest attack? Will we do anything differently this time? Is the establishment starting to realize that they are going round in circles and losing increasing amounts of credibility, adding to the fragility in the system?
Right now, all the emotions are a-stir. Things are being said, articles written — including this one — but where does any of this go in practical terms? Only the Alt-Right and White Nationalists have any real solutions, but we are, as yet, too few to dictate events and implement the solutions we so clearly see — namely redefining France from a vacuous proposition nation to a positive identitarian White European state, antithetical to Islam and other foreign and hostile elements.
But, despite our marginalization, there is also the possibility that the great mass of the French people, and indeed its government and elites, may feel the need to do something different this time. After all, it’s clear that all that praying for former atrocity sites and the much-mocked shot of politicians walking arm-in-arm down some boulevard to show “solidarity” did not achieve anything, except perhaps reminding Brexit voters that leaving Europe was the least dangerous move.
Perhaps, finally, after being so long on the receiving end there is a hunger for action among the French. But, if so, what form is it likely to take? What are the options for “normie” politicians, constrained by the maxim that politics is the art of the possible and the realization that not much is possible in a kitchen where nobody dares to break an egg?
The easiest thing for them to do, is to do what they have already been doing – namely prosecuting a few more “hate” preachers, shutting down a token mosque or two — while green lighting the building of hundreds more.
Or maybe, if there’s a real swell of anguish and grim determination behind them, they might consider tackling the thorny question of the Zones Urbaines Sensibles, the “sensitive urban zones,” that winning euphemism for the hundreds of no-go areas dotted round France, where Whites can be beaten up at will and where the police have to get permission from Muslim “community leaders” in order to enter.
As necessary as it is to tackle this problem, I suspect the will to do so is not quite there yet, especially as any government attempting to do so would have to wade knee-deep through “blood and snotters” and months of riotous clashes before being able to show timid voters any achievements. With French presidential elections coming next year, now is not the time to unleash this kind of mid-level anarchy. Tackling the Zones will have to wait for a Front National government with a particularly strong mandate, and even then I wouldn’t expect too much from these civic nationalists.
If a gesture is needed, perhaps something could be done about Europe’s refugee influx. Maybe France can “do a Poland” and simply say that it will not take any of Angela Merkel’s little brown darlings. Or maybe the EU bigwigs can huddle and put together a raft of ideas to stop the raft of human debris washing up on Europe’s shores. But, things being what they are, we can’t expect much to happen here, especially if it involves getting a little nasty and accidentally damaging some poor migrant’s smart phone on the way over.
Given the difficulties, the establishment may just hang fast and hope that it all blows over, especially as the Olympics are just round the corner and there is a fairly good chance of something chaotic happening there as well. But the Olympics won’t last forever, and when that festival of sport and dopery has come and gone, we’ll soon find ourselves in a situation similar to today’s, with fresh carnage and feelings of rage and restlessness.
Perhaps the easiest option and even the most politically acceptable for the French government would be to take the battle to ISIS — i.e. externalize what is in fact an internal problem.
French military action — i.e., boots on the ground rather than fly-overs — could even pay dividends. ISIS is clearly inspiring these terrorist attacks in France, but it is also militarily weak — at least in the conventional sense. Its success is largely dependent upon the equal ineptitude of its opponents. Faced by a real military force, it would fall apart in days.
But although the French could easily defeat ISIS militarily, controlling the area that spawned ISIS would be a different proposition. Once again, the Western propensity to be nice hamstrings them.
To control the Sunni Crescent, which stretches from Baghdad to Damascus, you need to use the kind of brutality that only the likes of Saddam Hussein and Hafez al-Assad — or literally Hitler — were capable of. The army of a modern, social democratic state, like France, is morally ill equipped to do the dirty work necessary to restore order to that Allah-forsaken hell hole.
For French military intervention to mean something, you would have to have a suitable follow-up plan. The only one that makes any kind of sense would be to come to an arrangement with the various parties in the region who would benefit from ISIS’s demise.
There are three main ones, namely the Assad regime in Syria, the Shiite government in Iraq, and the Kurds. While all three could be helpful, the most useful would be the Assad regime, because the main power base and capital city of the ISIS caliphate is in Syria. Any attempt to effectively destroy ISIS and prevent something like it from rising again would have to involve Assad. But, more importantly, it would also have to be an effective endorsement of the kind of ideology still embodied in that regime, namely the secular nationalist and socialist mixture known as Baathism.
This force successfully controlled the region for several decades, while there is absolutely no evidence that Western-style democracy ever could. Baathism, despite its many flaws, is therefore the best bet to control the kind of Islamism that can inspire attacks on French soil.
For France to tacitly support such a solution, however, it would not only have to turn a blind eye to the occasionally heavy-handed techniques employed by the Assad regime, but it would also have to give up any naive democratic notions. In that part of the world, democracy invariably serves to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle, with disastrous effects.
Quite simply, to have a healthy ground game against ISIS, France would have to reverse the policy the West has followed since the 1950s, of opposing secular and fascistic Arab nationalism. Something like this would be deeply troubling to Israel, which obviously prefers chaos on its borders, as well as to France’s own powerful Jewish community. For this reason, if France finally decides to thump its chest by sending in its formidable military, it will probably choose not to cooperate with Assad.
Instead, it might try to set up a pseudo-democratic Syrian “Vichy government” in whichever part of Syria it chooses to occupy, before leaving soon afterwards in a cloud of dust. The effect of all this on the French Muslim population at home can only be imagined. So, all things considered, the do-nothing-besides-a-few-empty-gestures approach will remain the most appealing to France’s ruling elites. But one can’t do nothing forever. Eventually and ultimately the time will come to break eggs, crack heads, and get nasty. When that happens, events in far-off Syria will be an irrelevance.
21 Comments
Islam and Christianity are the religions of Middle Eastern immigrants, they are not of the European peoples. Islam is now making it’s way through France and up through Northern Europe, just as Christianity had over a thousand years ago.
My suggestion would be to undermine the credibility of Abrahamic universalism, and encourage all peoples to research their ancestors, gods and traditions. Throw off the poison of global Judaism run amok in the desert percolator of insane and culturally destructive ideas.
Other than that, I’d say prayers are also NOT of the European tradition. Prayers are pointless, powerless, displays of subservient weakness…where pre-Christian Europeans would have chosen action vs. these stupid and meaningless acts of false brotherhood.
Makes me think of Die Stunde des Kreatismus von Dietrich Schuler. The book is perhaps from the 80s. It is said there that Christianity in the hands of the nordics was transformed from a teaching of humility and meekness to that of a heroic fighting religion, with its gallery of heroes and re-cast Germanic gods as saints.
I think that that is what made it acceptable to the Germanic north and looking at Catholic traditions, Christianity used to be strongly represented by paganistic imagery and ideas. From the Catholic Church’s point of view it was a successful strategy to adapt in this manner. And now that Christianity doesn’t need Europe and its prowess anymore, it reverts to the pure teachings of the desert religion and casts off the compromises made in the service of success.
I do notice in the recent decades that the old testament is gaining prominence in Catholicism, and the renovated churches become empty and soulless in parallel. Catholicism is on the retreat. Should it be possible to defeat the assault of Islam and Judaism on the North, I don’t think that Christianity as Catholicism or in Protestant form will return. Perhaps Russian-Orthodox Christianity will gain a following in the West, and this would be a link to a tradition.
One only has to study a little history to realize that Christianity IS a European religion.
Yes, it started in the Levant, but grew for 2000 years in Europe, passing through, and contributing to, the crucible of European thought.
Christianity is not unique like that. Witness Buddhism’s inception in India, and final development in East and South East Asia. Hinduism regained control in India.
But Christianity’s fundament more than anything is the bible. A book written by middle easterns about middle easterns.
And it is basically full of myths to top it all.
And upon this you claim Christianity has built something truly European?
“Quite simply, to have a healthy ground game against ISIS, France would have to reverse the policy the West has followed since the 1950s, of opposing secular and fascistic Arab nationalism.”
If I’m not mistaken, from the 1960s onwards, France had cordial, indeed, even warm, ties with Arab nationalist states, notably Iraq. So it should not be too difficult for them to return to that policy.
Unfortunately, another Western country is rather fond of Sunni fundamentalism, and has had considerably greater impact on the region than France. As Serge Trifkovic put it:
‘Islam was exposed to a devastating collapse in credulity within the Arab world itself in the middle of the twentieth century. The forces of secularity were very strong indeed. But America opposed them at every turn because they were socialist or communist or simply not “in the national interest.” America gave whole-hearted support to the worst fascist nation on earth: Saudi Arabia. As the economies of real states faltered and halted, the Saudi petrodollars were poured into establishing violent fanaticism as the big alternative. Gradually, the people who could moderate Islam have been pushed aside by raving sheikhs congratulated by U.S. diplomats. The main reason for hailing Islam as a “religion of peace” is to cover this fact up.’ (S. Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet, page 300).
Presidents change, but policies remain: Carter’s policy of backing the Afghan mujahideen has its current counterpart in the Obama administration’s financing of all sorts of ‘moderate’ Muslim militants in West Asia. In those days, the ultimate target was the Soviet Union – and it was hoped that by inciting Muslims on its periphery, an Islamic blaze could be started that would spread into its Central Asian republics and beyond. In these days, the ultimate target….
Well, they’ve definitely started the blaze…
A lot of white christian clerics are running around France singing “Happy, happy; Joy, joy.”
Yes. Christianity has been subverted just like civil secular society, and for a much longer time.
The Schism with the East, then the Reformation were brought about by failures in the Church to see the big picture, and lax ethical standards.
But the enemy is always out there in one form or the other.
The logic of this article is pretty obscure:
A Tunisian moslem immigrant kills 80+ in France and the author advocates military action in Syria instead of arguing immigration stop in Europe.
Even if the killer were an ISIS militant (which is not sure), we have to realize that Western military intervention in the Middle east did not stop but trigger the current arab invasion of Europe – exactly what Israel wants.
Your perception of obscurity reveals an inability to see how complex and multifaceted the problem is. Stopping immigration will not solve the problem. France is already littered with Muslim enclaves. What is required is “exigration.” In order to do that we will need a place to send them and thus a Middle East that we have considerable influence over and where secular forces are a lot stronger than they now are. But we have a long way to go before either our governments or theirs will be ready to do what is required.
Click that link and be prepared to feel deep disgust. Would be pertinent to create a full article addressing and critiquing this horrifyingly depraved logic. This stuff is pretty exemplary of the disease internal to European society – its symptomatic of the kind of bullshit propaganda French people may have to endure for years to come. Its your responsibility as a far right critic to combat this kind of nonsense with lucid arguments that could make a difference. Bon apetit.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-france-is-being-targeted-by-terrorists-v2-2016-7
Nice v Nasty. One of the many divisions between white people. They cast themselves as the ‘nice’ people and we are the ‘nasty’ people.
But all this niceness is really childish self-indulgence, constantly patting themselves on the back ‘look how nice I am, look how caring I am, not like those horrid nasty people. It’s called ‘burning martyr syndrome’. They are insufferable sufferers who try to be more holy than Jesus himself although they may not even think of themselves as Christian.
If ever we deserved to be called the master race, they have turned us into the ‘martyr race’.
Regarding Christianity, I would consider myself a cultural Christian but not a believer and am not really that conversant with its teachings. However, as I understand, Jesus told us to ‘turn the other cheek’. Did he say what happens after you’ve turned the other cheek and been struck again? Surely if you have obeyed this advice you can now retaliate? The nicey martyrs love being struck – they just keep turning those cheeks.
He also told us not to cast our pearls before swine lest they trample upon them, did he not? We certainly do cast our pearls. The nicey martyrs love doing it.
I do not want to be a martyr. They say that makes me nasty, I say it makes me sane.
“However, as I understand, Jesus told us to ‘turn the other cheek’. Did he say what happens after you’ve turned the other cheek and been struck again?”
I have a more important point–what if you do not survive the first blow? What if you are not capable of turning the other cheek? I guess they will just have to be happy pummeling our dead bodies. Read Dr. Joseph Atwell’s, “Caesar’s Messiah,” and “Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah;” that saying, and others were designed to make the Jewish population of Jerusalem more tractable by their Roman conquerors.
What if it’s not you who is being struck, but your child, wife, or friend? Surely “turn the other cheek” doesn’t apply in those cases. We are obligated to defend the lives of our loved ones.
Indeed LBF. Jesus doesn’t turn the other cheek to His enemies so you are quite right. A clue to the proper usage of turn the other cheek is to look at to whom he was talking. After centuries of applied “turn the other cheek” its rather obvious. Cheers.
As we are discussing Jesus quotes I will remind everyone here that He ordered the Desciples to “take a sword, and if you do not own one, sell your cloak and buy one”, or words to that effect.
All the more reason to be on the defensive all the time, and when necessary on the offensive. Time to “deep six,” the old degenerate Christian philosophy, and focus on surviving, and dominating. Never forget; never forgive!
I don’t care about the dead people. The really pressing concern is the Islamophobic reaction from White bigots.
Huh, what? Is this satire?
See what happens if you follow Christian mythology? If you turn the other cheek, you do not survive the first blow. Point that out to a white christian cleric, and watch him stammer. The little child in the picture with the teddy bear turned the other cheek, and look where it got her.
Reminds me of when David Yeagley asked Richard Lynn why whites permit mass immigration and Lynn responded “WE’VE BECOME TOO NICE”
Here’s the video of it: https://youtu.be/YzrtUQHgXY8?t=47m19sRem