by Jayden Drury
[editors note: Nationalist Alternative are
presenting two articles from two of our regular contributors, who each
have a unique analysis of the recent Muslim rioting in Sydney and
around the world.]
Fouad Ajami asks ‘Why is the Arab world so easily offended?’ (The Washington Post,
14/09/12). It’s a legitimate question to ask. But ‘Arabs’ should be
replaced with ‘Muslim’. Ajami is trying to link up the riots and
protests with Arab nationalism, and the Arab world’s grievances, and not
with Islam itself. I disagree with him: I think that these riots are an
expression of a certain religious world-view, which says that anyone
who mocks, or disagrees, with that religion, must be punished in some
way – often through coercion or violence. That is, people who believe in
certain religions respond in a violent, coercive manner when they are
offended; others, of different beliefs, don’t. The Australian comedian
Tim Minchin regularly mocks Christianity in his theatrical stage shows,
and while, certainly, he must offend Christians, he isn’t met with riots
from Christians around the world, and calls, from aggrieved Christians,
to censor his material.
It is certain of the most vocal and politically-vocal
followers of Judaism and Islam who are the most easily offended, and it
is the ‘activists’ and ‘community leaders’ for these two ethnic groups
and religious faiths who are most likely to bully other non-believers
into accepting their point of view. Demonstrators in the Muslim world
will riot, and burn American flags, while Jewish-American groups like
the ADL will use their political power to suppress the offending
material and, if possible, have the malefactors fined or sent to prison.
Obviously, there is a difference in the manner that this power
manifests itself. The radical Muslim groups have power in the street,
while the Jewish lobbies (like the American lobby, AIPAC) have pure
political power (if Israel and the Jewish-American pro-Israel lobby
decides that Iran must be bombed, the next US president will bomb Iran,
no questions asked: that’s power).
We only have to look at the way Holocaust Revisionism is
treated, for instance, by the self-appointed ‘leaders’ of the Jewish
‘community’, who will hound Revisionists through the courts, trying to
fine them and imprison them and have their ‘offensive’ books banned. The
Holocaust is (barely sublimated) Jewish religion. In the Talmud, a
document which is over 1500 years old, it is written that six million
Jews will perish, immolated in giant ovens by non-Jews. Yahweh will
recognise this burnt offering, this sacrifice, this ‘Holocaust’ (as the
Talmud calls it) and will reward the Jewish people by handing back to
them the long-lost State of Israel. The immolated Jews, so says the
Talmud, will miraculously return to life and reclaim Israel. Obviously,
then, anyone who believes in the contemporary, 20th century, Holocaust
story is a believer in the Jewish religion, whether they themselves are
Jewish or not; obviously, Holocaust Revisionism, or Holocaust denial, is
tantamount to a form of atheism – and blasphemy. Given their
highly-reactive, intolerant bent, it is no surprise that the
self-appointed ‘leaders’ of the Jewish people will use their
considerable political power to have the ‘deniers’ arrested, fined and
imprisoned.
(Westerners will object: ‘Not all Jews read the Talmud’,
or, ‘Most Jews are not religious’. Well, you turn on the TV and look at
an Israeli press conference, or some conference for such-and-such
Jewish association – you will see Stars of Davids, and Menorah symbols,
everywhere; you hear numerous references, from Jewish media
commentators, to Israel as ‘The Holy Land’; you hear Bibi Netanyahu and
other pro-Israel Jewish groups and commentators (and non-Jewish groups,
e.g., the US Democrat Party) assert, repeatedly, that undivided
Jerusalem must be the capital of Israel, and not Tel Aviv. All of this
looks, smells, feels, religious to me – and the Jewish religion is based
on what’s in the Talmud).
Liberalism, as most Westerners know it, doesn’t exist in
(what Spengler called) the Arabic-Semitic, or Magian, Culture: the
notion that speech (including the production of cultural works) should
be free and untrammelled, and not be censored in advance (for fear that
it will ‘offend’ someone) is, traditionally, completely foreign to it.
Truth is something ordained by rabbis or mullahs. Shariah law tells us
that the penalty for apostasy is beheading; Talmudic law tells us the
penalty for disagreeing with a rabbi is to have concrete poured down
one’s throat… (Admittedly, we Western whites did things like that a long
time ago – see the excellent 2007-2010 series, The Tudors
– but we’ve changed since then). Obviously, this is not very liberal.
But then, both Islam and Judaism have existed in a bubble, completely
isolated from Western concepts and ideas (such as liberalism) for a very
long time, and were only exposed to them comparatively recently.
Liberalism is not endogenous to (that is, a natural part of) the Magian
Culture: no John Stuart Mill has ever appeared there… Last night, I saw a
Muslim ‘community leader’ being interviewed on SBS television: he
trotted out the old line, ‘Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to
offend people’. That completely misses Mill’s point, and liberalism’s
point. There is no picking and choosing when it comes to free speech:
that defeats the purpose.
Coincidentally, that line – ‘Freedom of speech doesn’t
mean the freedom to offend people’ – is now the dominant view in the
West as well, or, to put it more accurately, the view of the dominant
political force in the West. Since the 1960s (at least), a group, or
class of individuals I call the ‘anti-white clique’ has ruled the West:
it is their politics which dominates the parliaments, the press, the
sports bodies, the churches, the trade unions, the universities, the
police and armed forces personnel… The anti-white clique wants to reduce
the white Western peoples – in Western cities such as Paris, London,
Stockholm, Athens, Melbourne – to a minority; the goal is to fill the
major population centres, to bursting point, with huge numbers of
immigrants from China, India, Africa, the Middle East, Kurdistan,
Afghanistan, etc. Oslo, Brussels, Amsterdam, Sydney, will have a
marvellous mixture of Kurds, Afghans, Africans, Chinese, Vietnamese,
etc. – but no Norwegians, Belgians, Dutch or Australians. This program
of mass ethnic cleansing of whites from their homelands is well under
way, and has been for decades. White people, understandably, object to
it: but the anti-white clique has managed to, de facto, criminalise
these objections, using several anti-freedom of speech laws masquerading
as ‘anti-racist’ laws. So we find the Muslim and Jewish ‘community
leaders’, and the anti-white brigade, in complete agreement when it
comes to this statement: ‘Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to
offend people’.
This does lead to a problem for the anti-white brigade,
however. One can’t say bad things about Islam or Judaism, because doing
so would be ‘offensive’ to these groups. But supposing that one doesn’t
agree with that religion, and what’s more, disagrees because one thinks
there are some really, really bad ideas in it: is that ‘offensive’, does
that render one liable for prosecution? If I say I don’t believe in the
contents of the Koran or the Talmud, and believe that following the
precepts of either would lead to serious harm (to oneself, and the
people around one) – would I be liable for prosecution? Where, exactly,
do we stand? Most Westerners still believe in liberalism, secularism and
freedom of speech. These liberal beliefs clash with the main tenet of
the anti-white clique, which is one of ‘repressive tolerance’ (viz.,
that Western whites who don’t like immigrants or their religion or
culture should be locked up). Most Westerners don’t believe that
material ‘offensive’ to either Muslims or Jewish people should be
removed from the Internet or public libraries; and they believe that
Holocaust Revisionists should be allowed to be free to say and write
what they like – even if they don’t approve or agree with Holocaust
Revisionism.
In addition, most Westerners disagree with the Islamists
when it comes to the status of women. We are daily inundated, through
the media, with stories of Muslim immigrants, in the West, forcing young
women, or teenage girls even, into arranged marriages, or killing wives
and daughters in the name of ‘honour’, and the rest. We are assured, by
academics and experts on Islam, that such behaviour isn’t condoned by
the Koran, or Shariah law: but why does it keep occurring, again and
again, in the same Muslim immigrant communities? This parsing doesn’t
work. It’s true that 99% of the Jewish population hasn’t read the
Talmud, and yet the Holocaust story, which confirms the prophecies in
the Talmud right to the letter, keeps on appearing, in our media, our
films, on our TVs, day after day, year after year – and many of these
Holocaust epics and documentaries are produced by (so far as I can tell)
secular and non-observant Jewish people.
All these stories of honour killings, etc., in the
Pakistani immigrant communities in Britain (and elsewhere in the West),
really makes the Guardian-reading Westerner uncomfortable. He approves
the anti-white brigade’s bringing in of millions of Muslims to Europe:
the presence of 15 million or so Muslims in the EU has really livened
things up – before, Europe was suffocating from lack of diversity. But,
he asks, why won’t these Muslim immigrants conform to Western standards
of behaviour?
The Guardian or New York Times
reader is adept at self-censorship: if he finds a naughty thought
straying into his head (‘Geert Wilders is right on those Muslims!’), he
will quickly suppress it. But it is, in fact, liberals like him that
Wilders (and Nick Griffin, and the British Freedom Party) is aiming to
capture. One means of doing that is by pointing out, very clearly, the
real differences between the Muslims and him.
What’s clear is that the anti-Muslim was produced by a
constellation of individuals with ties to the Breivikist anti-Islamics,
and possibly to Israel itself. The makers of this film were clearly
aiming at inciting riots and disorder in the Islamic world, following a
strategy summarised in the Nationalist Alternative article, ‘The
Neofascist Method: the EDL, Breivik and “Double Legality”‘ by Donald
Winters. They have been spectacularly successful, and as a nationalist
activist, I am envious of the makers of this shoddily-produced film for
getting the attention of the world: I would love for anything produced
by me to be labelled, by Hilary Clinton, as being ‘disgusting’ – a sure
sign that one has done something right. Winters’ article is correct in
at least one thing: the Muslim immigrant population, in the West, is
unusually reactive, unusually sensitive to slight, easily gets
‘offended’ – and thereby is more prone to engage in extra-parliamentary
actions (demonstrations, riots). Supposing that Jared Taylor or David
Duke were to make a film belittling Afro-Americans: would Afro-Americans
go out and riot? What if British nationalists were to make a film
attacking the Indian and African immigrant population? If Australian
nationalists were to make a film on the Chinese and Indian immigrants?
We know the answer. Some groups are passive, politically, others aren’t.
(The Chinese and Japanese will demonstrate and riot, and so will the
South Koreans and Japanese – see the recent disturbances regarding the
territorial disputes in the South China Sea. But this is a purely
internal, Asian matter, and none of these countries pay the slightest
attention to any nationalist articles, or films, from the West).
Something that is puzzling, at first sight, is why
Jewish people would get involved in things such as producing this film
or funding the EDL. Politically-active Jewish people, after all, are
invariably proponents of multiculturalism, and one of the chief tenets
of multiculturalism is that various ethnic groups, white and non-white,
can live in the same Western country in perfect harmony. When one of
these non-white ethnic groups, however, starts rioting and making a
ruckus over a silly 15-minute YouTube clip and even kills a US diplomat
or two – well, they aren’t following the script. What we have is what
Carl Schmitt would call a state of exception. And indeed, the
anti-Islamist strategy – of provoking the Muslims – is based on creating
this state of exception. Why, then, would Jewish people in the West
want to contribute to this? Do they want a breach in multiculturalism?
As we know, once the Westerner starts looking askance at the (very
non-Western) Muslim communities in his midst – he will start looking to
other, Semitic groups as well. That’s the reasoning of the
politically-active Jewish person. He’s terrified of being identified as
The Other, and of Jews being expelled from the West, in the same way
that the Jewish people have been expelled from a European country, every
century, for the past 1500 years. He lives, breathes, this paranoia;
it’s his bread and butter.
Goebbels once characterised the Jews as an ‘unlucky’
people, and indeed, it’s a thesis of anti-Semitism that Jews eventually
bring about their own ruin – and the ruin of the country their Diaspora
finds itself in.
An example of this is the recently-announced policy, by
the Jewish-American Bernanke, of a third round of ‘quantitative easing’.
Bernanke will pump massive amounts of dollars into circulation, for the
third time, with the aim of devaluing the US dollar and bringing about
an inflation. (This dollar weakness will, of course, be reflected by the
gold price: gold, in US dollars, will rise and rise, which is another
way of saying that one will have to pay more US dollars to buy an ounce
of gold). This devaluation started even before Bernanke’s official
announcement this week: gold in US dollars has climbed over 10% in the
past thirty days (which is another way of saying that the US dollar has
been devalued by over 10%). Rest assured, rises in the gold price are
first, rises in commodities like oil, copper, zinc, aluminium, wheat and
land will follow.
One of the dreadful things about devaluation is that
other countries have to follow, in tandem, when a big country like the
US devalues. Suppose that Australia had maintained a rigid parity of
$AUD1 = one ounce of gold. A $AUD500 television set would cost over
$USD850,000. The Australian economy would be crushed. Which is why
Australia has had to devalue its currency along with the US. The US
dollar (in gold terms) has lost over 150% in the past five years, the
Australian dollar (in gold) has lost over 99.5%. This is what economists
call competitive devaluation.
Rising prices in US dollars, via competive devaluation,
mean rising prices in the rest of the world. For the Third World – and
that includes much of the Muslim world – basic staples like wheat and
rice will go up and up. Which means more economic weakness, which means
more discontent, more riots, and more Islamist radicalisation. The
recent Arab Spring was, in part, brought about by rising commodity
prices – and the subsequent economic discontent – in the Arab world.
To Bernanke, of course, he is doing good things with
this quantitative easing. But this is the anti-Semite’s point. A Jewish
person with great power and influence (like Bernanke, or the
Jewish-American economist Milton Friedman) may believe that he’s doing
good, but really, his actions are ultimately destructive – to the
Western culture he lives in, and, in the end, to the Jewish diaspora
itself. Bernanke is, in effect, making the US economy weaker – and, by
extension, making the US geopolitically weaker; he is, through his
actions, inciting anti-American sentiment, and Islamist radicalism,
abroad.
I once remarked, to a conservative friend (over ten
years ago), why Clinton, in his second term, had appointed 56
Jewish-Americans to his cabinet (the biggest number of Jewish-American
appointees since the days of Roosevelt). My friend retorted, ‘Jews are
smart’. Indeed, if Jewish-Americans are smart, why not use them, why not
get them to help you run the country? But it’s my belief that the likes
of Geithner, Bernanke, Summers, Emmanuel and the rest aren’t very
smart. The Jewish people who may (or may not) have produced the
anti-Muslim film are guilty of fouling their own nest, so to speak; the
likes of Bernanke is guilty of weakening the US economy and US influence
abroad. That isn’t very smart. It’s almost as though these Jewish
individuals want to shoot Israel and the US in the foot.
Should we nationalists complain? Maybe not: after all,
we want to see these disturbances in the sphere of multiculturalism: we
want to show the world that Westerners, and Muslim immigrants, cannot
live in the same countries in peace. We also want to see a weak US, and a
stronger Germany and Turkey, and Arab Spring revolts which topple
pro-Western Arab leaders. The prevailing state of affairs suits us just
fine.
But the main thing is for nationalists to stick to their
present course. Our present debate is not one of Western secularism and
liberalism versus Islamism, or Zionism and Judaism versus Islamism:
it’s between the Western nationalists and the anti-white brigade. It is
the producers of newspapers like the Guardian, and The New York Times,
who are the greatest threat Western civilisation has ever faced,
because it is their values – their anti-white, nihilistic values – which
dominate us in the West, politically, culturally, intellectually,
emotionally.
