Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
Informed speculation concurs that January’s Charlie Hebdo episode was a stage-managed spectacle toward the manipulation of public opinion. Dave Gahary, writing in American Free Press, sums up the situation as follows:
The Paris event bears many of the hallmarks of an Israeli false-flag operation, including possible use of actors, a scripted shootout [. . .] detailed knowledge of the publication’s security and the timing of its staff meeting, the road being cordoned off to keep it traffic-free, an Israeli news editor ready to photograph the event from a nearby roof, a perfect escape by the alleged perpetrators whose true identity is still unknown with one of them [as on 9/11, conveniently] leaving his ID, jihadist flags and Molotov cocktails in the getaway car and the two suspects, under security watch for previous terrorist activities, shot dead, one of whom was a pizza delivery boy who nonetheless conducted an unobstructed, professional, military-style assault in broad daylight in one of the world’s most heavily policed cities.1
“Israel false flag watchers are speculating that the Paris attacks were precipitated by the Dec. 2 vote (339-151) by France’s lower house to recognize the state of Palestine, which would enable the occupied state to become part of the International Criminal Court and thus gain the power to hold the Zionist state responsible for genocide and redraw the boundaries of the occupier to pre-1967 lines,” Gahary writes, also pointing out that “In 2013, Malaysia’s Kuala Lumpur Tribunal found Israel guilty of genocide, and a few months later, Malaysian planes began to mysteriously fall from the sky.”2
The neoreactionary and racialist wings of the alternative media nevertheless selected to be almost utterly derelict in their various commentaries. Jared Taylor made an American Renaissance video proclaiming that “These attacks show us [. . .] what is marching straight into our communities as millions of Muslims immigrate to the West” and threw in a gratuitous barb about Muhammad being a “sex maniac” for good measure. “I will state again that I just don’t see the sense in this being a conspiracy as it makes Moslems look bad and FN [i.e., the National Front] look good,” interjected The Daily Stormer’s Andrew Anglin. AntiDem, while accepting the mainstream narrative of the attacks, at least had the comparative originality to tweet, “If Charlie Hebdo represents the ‘Western values’ that Muslims are opposed to, then I cheer for the Muslims.”
More typical of the generally tepid flavor of dissident neoreactionary writings on the event, however, was Colin Liddell, who also endorsed the “Islamic terrorists” story, warned that “The lights are going out”, and suggested that “Paris was essentially treated as if it were no more than a Middle Eastern hellhole overrun by ISIS” – which, to the extent that the city hosted a troupe of CIA-Mossad-style ninja movie extras, is perhaps inadvertently accurate. True to his respectably academic brand of conspiracy-free white nationalism, however, Liddell makes no mention of Israel, psyops, false flag attacks, or the checkered history of western intelligence agencies in this regard.
Guillaume Faye got even louder, thundering that Charlie Hebdo was “more significant” even than 9/11 – it did happen in France, after all! – and that “This act of war is part of an all-out offensive [. . .] of Islam against the West, and specifically against France, which it intends to conquer. This war, this terrorism,” Faye suggests, “is only the visible part of the iceberg; the submerged part is Islamization”. Faye is too polite, too ignorant, or too cowardly to concede that this secret, “submerged part” of the iceberg is more Judeo-American than anything.
The real shock and debacle of Charlie Hebdo is the extent to which even those who purport to represent an intellectually rigorous alternative to mainstream conservatism and to the laughable shibboleths passing for twenty-first century western values either retain their trust in the fundamental honesty of Zionist-occupied regimes and Jewish-owned mass media or – and this would seem to be the only other explanation – stubbornly choose to perpetuate its lies for political gain.
While some commentators, Kerry Bolton among them, took the opportunity to excoriate the Charlie Hebdo staff as “perhaps the most representative collection of culture-distorters and culture-retards ever assembled at one place”, most neoreactionaries and racialists contented themselves with boring Muslim-bashing posts and tweets regurgitating neoconservative propaganda. The Manosphere’s Matt Forney, in an article bearing the Hannity-worthy title “Why Does the Left Support Radical Muslims?”, offered that Muslims are “not manly” because they “are willing to kill anyone who slights them” and in another piece, “Muhammad Getting Fisted by a Gay Elf”, Forney brilliantly told “the Muslims” among his readers to “go to hell”.
All of this is, of course, unserious and counterproductive to the degree that it bolsters Zionist aims for American intervention “against” ISIS in the Middle East – and yet it must also be admitted with a relished irony that not all of this is bad, and that in some regards the Charlie Hebdo episode has been a positive development. The weekly marches of the pro-European organization PEGIDA (“Patriotic Europeans Against Islamization of the West”) saw a turnout of “more than 17,500” protesters in Dresden on December 223 swell to an unprecedented 25,000 on January 124. “PEGIDA continues to expand its international scope, as the patriotic group has announced it is planning its first rally on North American soil later this month,” notes Heresy, adding that “PEGIDA’s expansion into French-Canadian territory is confirmation that the terror attacks in Paris this January have deeply resonated with French people worldwide.”
Augustus York, writing at The Times of Pol, explains how the Charlie Hebdo affair plays to the sharp advantage of the ethnonationalist Right in France and Europe at large:
The current government of France, currently under the leadership of François Hollande and the Socialist Party of France, has come under fire since their coming to power, specifically for their relatively lenient policies when it came to immigration and treatment of Muslims in daily French society. They were often criticized by right-wing political leaders and French nationalists alike, saying that the current administration “degraded French culture” and was “too open to foreigners”. With the attack on Charlie Hebdo headquarters, the Socialist Party has come under fire for the consequences of these policies, and has lead [sic] to a decline in support for the policies of the majority party. In fact, such an incident, if played right by media and opposition parties, could destabilize the base of the Socialist Party, and eventually lead to it’s [sic] defeat in the next elections, thus ending their liberal policies and ushering in a new era of extreme Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiment.
“Thus,” The Times of Pol reasons, “this attack is perfectly timed to play the angles of the election,” and such a godsend, in fact, does the Charlie Hebdo massacre appear to have been for the European Right that York even goes so far as to insinuate (rather stupidly) that European nationalist elements were responsible for the attacks. “White Supremacists” are the beneficiaries of Charlie Hebdo, he avers:
This goes without saying, the wave of right-wing fascism that has been sweeping the European continent will directly benefit from this incursion. Not only will they gain a foothold in the historically-socialist France, but their agenda will be greatly advanced in other countries as well. Especially in Greece, where tensions between Orthodox Europeans and historically Muslim Turks reach an all-time high, the Golden Dawn party grows stronger and stronger, with their ideals spreading to neighboring countries such as Albania and Serbia. A new era is rising in the West, with current conditions in Europe mimicking those that gave way to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany. This attack also comes at a crucial time in the history of the neo-fascist movement, perhaps exploiting the anti-Eastern sentiment so popularized by right-wing media outlets. It would also explain why the attackers seemed so professional in their execution of the terror attack, and why they made such a fatal mistake in divulging their identities to the French authorities.
York therefore concludes that it “may have some connection with French nationalists vying for power in parliament.”
That identitarian sentiment is rising among the Europeans and European-derived peoples is, of course, fine – even necessary – but the fact that the demographics crisis continues to be framed by these “Jihad Watch” types as a crusade against Islam and Islam alone, as opposed to a race-based ethnonationalist movement, demonstrates how easily such a project can be corralled and gelded by Zionist interests. The Jewish Daily Forward notes, for instance, that PEGIDA uses “pro-Jewish terminology” and quotes supporter Rabbi Walter Rothschild as saying that the group “is raising important questions that mainstream politics has avoided” (the Muslim Question!) and explaining his own support by claiming that “Jews in Europe are mostly on the side of modern Western values.” Rothschild means, of course, to say that “modern Western values” are Jewish.
The fact is that Islam is a threat to the West, to Europe particularly, and that Muslims do not belong here – but what is crucial is that this is strictly a problem of immigration – not of confronting Al Qaeda, ISIS, Iran, or whatever future Islamic bogeyman the Zionists conjure up for their golem to go and destroy. Jared Taylor, in the aforementioned video, offers plenty of authentic reasons to oppose non-western and specifically Muslim immigration into Europe. Why should he feel compelled to prop his argumentation on a hoax and so further pollute the air with the brain-befogging lies of ZOG?
Tempting as a convenient fraud might be for political purposes of the moment, the danger lies in eventual recognition of the ruse. Early in the twentieth century, a Russian religious writer named Sergei Nilus published a book containing what purported to be the minutes from a meeting of a top-secret cabal, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The tract’s effectiveness in alerting its readers to the hostile and alien motives of the Jews in their midst is testified by the fact that the Bolsheviks persecuted those discovered in possession of it. Henry Ford infamously championed the Protocols, and many within the white nationalist movement continue to vouch for its authenticity.
Today the Protocols are widely recognized as an invention of propaganda, the result being that whatever truths it contains – whatever insights it offers into the character of Jewish group behavior – can be dismissed by progressives, neocons, and conspiracy-deniers as long-discredited fabrication. Let the immigrant invasion of Europe be criticized and fought; but do not allow the arguments for the rightness and the necessity of this campaign to hinge on the dubious Muslim credentials of the burnt offerings of 9/11, ISIS, or Charlie Hebdo. Name the Muslims where they have earned the blame, but do not scapegoat these pitiful proxies – pawns and patsies at their worst – for the blood-ravening crimes of the reddest and most deeply embedded national parasitism.