Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
The purpose of this essay is to examine the Islam Question and its perception among nationalists, how it’s been rhetorically deployed, the implications of this, and approaches to dealing with the problem, which has a bearing on our future of world-historical proportions.
The Anti-Islam Narrative
Many nationalists, in the wake of serial terrorist attacks in Europe and America presumably carried out by Muslims or “ISIS” supporters, have generally adopted a position on Islam that is not altogether different from that found among prominent neocons, Israel’s Likud party, and other political affiliations that represent fanatical Zionist settlers. Some may echo the likes of fifth-columnist Zionist propagandists like Pam Geller. The narrative, put simply, goes like this: Islam is fundamentally warlike and its promise of eager virgins in the afterlife provides potent justification for young Muslims to put their beliefs into practice, or wage jihad, by means of shedding the blood of infidels and encroachers on Dar al-Islam. To be sure, this framing has enjoyed a popular hearing since the September 11, 2001 attacks and even before this to some extent.
Most significantly, several large-scale terrorist attacks have helped to fuel this narrative among Whites: San Bernardino, the recent multiple coordinated attacks in Paris, Charlie Hebdo, the Boston Marathon bombing, the London and Madrid bombings, and numerous others – all held up as obvious examples of “Islamic terrorism”. Little consideration seems to have been given to the contradictions, inconsistencies, anomalies, and outright deceptions that inhere in the official narratives of these events, and they are rarely questioned openly by anyone currently serving with an imprimatur of institutional authority, civic or otherwise.
However, a sober awareness of the modern state’s military and intelligence capacities, not to mention some elites’ thoroughgoing contempt of the citizenry, combined with the convergence of evidence, points toward the likelihood that groomed patsies have played an integral part in most of the operations in Europe and America. These “conspiracy theories”, however, remain largely on the fringes of the internet. A strong taboo prevents these from being discussed in polite society, and doing so would probably lead to detrimental social and economic repercussions. I will not discuss any theories or evidence that calls into question or refutes the official narratives in any of these events – that is not the purpose of this piece – but I encourage the open-minded to conduct research of their own. Even those hardened nationalist skeptics of false-flag terrorism claims can take comfort in the fact that we have the same objectives – only our rhetoric and argumentation differ – both approaches being susceptible to uses that may either improve or harm nationalism’s appeal.
On the other hand, numerous less dramatic, “everyday” events occur, as well, which have tended to provoke indictments of a monolithic Islam: gang violence and intimidation, particularly in Europe; random “honor killings”; Muslim connivance with Jews and the minority coalition in squeezing resources, privilege, and power from Whites; an explosion in the number of rapes in European cities, and grotesque scandals such as Rotherham. Accompanying this anti-Islam discourse is a reasonable excoriation reserved for Political Correctness. To be sure, one aspect of the Counter-Jihad mindset that makes it so much more attractive is that it is the one ideological position in which one is allowed to manifest “politically incorrectness” in public discourse and still suffer few if any negative social consequences. In other words, Whites are drawn to Islam-bashing by default, because they aren’t allowed to disparage “diversity” in any other form.
Finally, the historic threat posed by Muslims to Europe is frequently invoked by nationalists. Many academics employed by Jewish-controlled think-tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute also assert this argument and are frequently invited to make appearances on radio or television stations (owned by Jewish media conglomerates) where they deploy the narrative. The threat of Islam is always depicted by them as cultural and political, never ethnic or racial; ergo, the threat is conveniently global and nebulous. Since the demographic threat to Europe posed by mass immigration is virtually synonymous with Islam – the majority of the immigrants are Muslim – the invasion is seen as the latest attempt at Islamic conquest, this time confronting little native resistance to the coming caliphate. The rise of the Counter-Jihad movement, represented by groups such as the English Defence League and led by dubious politicians such as Holland’s Geert Wilders, has coincided with this alarm. Anders Breivik was a product of this milieu and is seen as a hero among some Counter-Jihadists. Counter-Jihad groups are generally supported by Jewish funding, are pro-Israel, and most importantly, eschew open racial politics (Breivik was both pro-Israel and discouraged talk of race, as declared in his manifesto-compendium).
Broaching the subject of “false flags” around segments of nationalists, primarily the Alt Right and some “mainstreamers” who seek respectability, will inevitably elicit groans, laughter, and, in some cases, outright hostility. Their concern is that any discussion of these matters will simply discredit and marginalize the growth of a movement in dire need of broad-based support if it hopes to save Western civilization and forestall a future White extinction. Some are not familiar with alternative theories or have only been exposed to sloppy accounts available on numerous conspiracy websites trafficking in Illuminati, extraterrestrial, or reptilian tales. Some of this online refuse may in fact be examples of Cass Sunstein’s “cognitive infiltration” in practice.
Michael Enoch (The Right Stuff), a skeptic of false flags, has argued that it’s inconceivable why nationalists would not want to blame “Islamists” and rather blame corrupt White governments for terrorist attacks – after all, Muslims are a significant demographic threat to Europe and therefore it makes sense to target Islam in the hopes of awakening European consciousness to their vulnerability and the eventual Islamization of their civilization. Western governments – so this line of reasoning goes – are, however, to be excoriated for allowing “refugees” to immigrate in the first place. From this viewpoint, Islam is vilified, but then so are Western governments – a win-win message and rhetorical position of undeniable internal coherency. Enoch, like Jared Taylor of American Renaissance and Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents, is representative of much of the Alt Right/New Right outlook and discourse on Islam in embracing this strategy.
Truth be told, I don’t hold out much hope that the actual nature of terrorist attacks in the West will be exposed to the broader public – at least not anytime soon. After all, if many intelligent nationalists won’t even consider it, it’s pretty far-flung that the general public will. In addition, if the orthodox narratives around events as far back as JFK’s assassination and 9/11 still remain firmly intact, why would these change all of a sudden? Consequently, a strategic analysis would seem to indicate that it’s perhaps better to ignore any Western or Zionist complicity in terrorism to achieve nationalist objectives and not risk being lumped in with Alex Jones and assorted loons.
Notwithstanding this assessment, I believe it is important to discuss these matters even if it is a seemingly thankless, fruitless task for two reasons: 1) the truth should be pursued always, no matter the consequences; and 2) the future is uncertain. When the reality of the threat that international Zionism poses to the West and its position in world affairs begins to take root in the popular consciousness – and it will – these events finally might receive a conscientious scrutiny from the population at large, so that a potentially legitimate justice could be pursued for the victims and their families. Also, and perhaps more importantly, a revised understanding of world history would encourage awakening to the deadly threat of organized Jewry and their corrupt allies and possibly prevent world war and nuclear devastation. A broad understanding that “Islamic terrorism” and radicalism has been fostered would mitigate against the insane drive for total war being pushed by zealous Jews and their Shabbos goyim.
Nevertheless, an acknowledgement that Muslims make up the raw material of terrorist attacks, inasmuch as they are patsies coordinated by clandestine intelligence and military networks, still argues against the notion that they ought to be allowed to emigrate into Western countries. Why invite into White homelands a population even a small number of whom may be motivated to commit terrorist attacks? Are the lives of Westerners really worth risking by bringing them in? Of course, the possibility of organic terrorism committed by Muslims on their own accord remains a strong possibility, particularly considering historic and contemporary Western actions in their countries of origin. It must be noted that these Muslims would be far more likely to engage in such an event as retaliation for Western actions against their people (not simply religious brethren) or country – whether they be Somali, Pakistani, Iraqi, Afghani, Iranian, etc. Framing the narrative solely around a monolithic Islam clouds a clearer understanding of more parochial motivations and bolsters the anti-Muslim narrative that has been weaponized for Jewish strategic interests.
ISIS – Mercenaries for ZOG
The origins of ISIS lay with Western, Zionist, and U.S.-and-Israeli-manipulated Saudi direction and coordination. The game of organizing radical Islamic groups as proxy forces for geopolitical goals has a long history. The United States infamously supported the “mujahideen” (al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, and Israel played an instrumental role in the development of Hamas, now a legitimate anti-Zionist opposition force in Gaza. ISIS is an international mercenary army being used as a wrecking ball against Israel’s enemies in the Mideast while acting as a bogeyman domestically to increase support for the state surveillance apparatus and censor dissident views, particularly online. Further wars which ultimately serve to expand Israeli hegemony in the Middle East are argued under the specious rubric that groups like ISIS, and al-Qaeda before them, necessitate “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here,” concurrently and absurdly increasing immigration of fighting-age Muslims into Western lands in a suicidal display of the “freedom” and the American “values” for which they supposedly hate us.
With an omnipresent ISIS threat pumped into the homes of Westerners around the clock, there is no end in sight to the wars for those who hope to live to see their troops brought home – with the result that the prospect of a long-term-to-permanent occupation of the Near East becomes a political plausibility. The slick, stylized propaganda videos that mysteriously appear on the internet and are always attributed to ISIS feature outlandish tortures and murders that would be worthy of a James Bond villain, and, indeed, most seem as inauthentic as such cinematic blockbusters. Even if they are legitimate, these barbarous acts are hardly representative of the broader Islamic world but represent a fringe element artificially stoked for geopolitical purposes. As Michael Enoch has argued, a marginal element of Muslims can likely be induced to wage violent jihad. This is true – but he fails to point out these are not organic movements but synthetically formulated extremist movements. This is not to dismiss the innate potential for radicalization of Muslims in the West or to suggest that they are not capable of such savagery without the added catalyst of Western manipulation; but we must properly contextualize the problem so as not to feed the monster of Zionist war propaganda that pits the entirety of the Islamic world against the West – a clear recipe for a catastrophe that the West, at this pivotal point in its history, cannot afford to endure.
Islam vs. The West
Radix Journal’s Roman Bernard displayed the stubborn ignorance of much of the Alt Right in a podcast debate with Jay Dyer of Jay’s Analysis. Bernard argued that the malevolent influence of military and intelligence agencies, whose role he denied in relation to terrorist attacks, was irrelevant since we only had to look at the history of Islam. According to Bernard, Islam was simply following its genetic blueprint in gunning down concertgoers at the Bataclan theater in Paris and will not stop until the Caliphate sits astride Europe. This theory coincides with Jew Bernard Lewis’s popular thesis, borrowed by Samuel Huntington, known as the “clash of civilizations”, and has become a mainstay of Jewish neoconservative rhetoric.
There is some truth to the notion that Islam is a virulently monotheistic religion that by its nature seeks to exclude competing religions through repressive measures. Importing Islamic civilization into Europe, where someday it might achieve demographic hegemony, would be cataclysmic for the Western heritage and culture, which is already in poor shape. Could demoralized Europeans conceivably find solutions for their spiritual malaise in a robust theology such as Islam, particularly as they become minorities and as conversion to the newly hegemonic religion is incentivized? This may be a plausible scenario, but if so, things will have gone too far at that point; if any European country goes Islamic, it is because it has been numerically bested. This catastrophic scenario, rhetorically deployed by Counter-Jihadists so as to single out the undying scourge of Islam, confuses an accurate picture of what is actually taking place in Europe and could be prohibitive of a final solution to the West’s ongoing post-1945 nightmare.
Race War, Not Holy War
Most ethnic aliens born in Europe are only nominally Muslims. Most have adopted the decadent lifestyles of the Zionist-occupied West and have only a tangential relationship to their parents’ and grandparents’ faith. The animosity they harbor towards the West is primarily of the standard non-White variety: jealousy and resentment of Western achievement, their relegation to the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, and disgust at Western brutalization of their mother countries. In short, political and ethnic dimensions account for a greater degree of hostility and danger to Whites than religious motivation. Rotherham happened not because of Islam, but because there were two fundamentally different ethnic groups living in close proximity, the predator group descended from formerly subject peoples of the British Empire who have an outsized sense of grievance and little respect for a feeble, emasculated nation such as the British. A certain sense of religious solidarity certainly persists for these rootless barbarians – they are, for instance, more likely to support predominantly Muslim Palestinians than Israelis – but religious identification is not the cause of the “everyday” friction and violence that have beset European countries. Rather, ethnic and racial divisions mark the rumbling fault-lines that really matter. A future of simmering-to-boiling race war is what the West will likely face if present trends continue. Grim forecasts of Europeans being forced to live as subjects under a future Islamic theocracy miss the mark for the reason that these predictions fail to address what really matters – namely, non-White immigration.
Towards an Authentic Nationalism
Hitching pro-White activism to the same exclusively anti-Islamic calliope that blares its incessant Hebraic racket from Judaic airwaves is poorly considered for a number of reasons. First, it coopts and distorts the newly stirring nationalism of Europe by distracting from race-based identitarianism and redirecting these powerful motivating energies toward what are essentially abstractions. Geert Wilders, for example, contrasts liberal-democratic values, presumably including the “right” to peddle pornography and engage in usury, with Islamic abhorrence of women’s rights, homosexuality, and other assorted liberal values. This contention can always be rebutted by liberals who simply claim, as they are wont to do, that Muslims can always assimilate and internalize Western values, and their religiosity will inevitably wither by way of progress.
It’s worthwhile to point out that many self-described “Radical Traditionalists” ought to have more appreciation of the mainstream of Islamic civilization than for 21st Century Western values, at least those that enjoy cultural hegemony in the current year. E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars, a traditionalist Catholic, frankly admired much of what he saw in Iran on a visit there to take part in a seminar on Hollywood. Certainly, ethnicity and race are not all that matter for what nationalists would like to achieve, but an obsession with Islam only prolongs the absence of these crucial matters from the public discussion and offers a wasteful release valve for natural feelings of fear, alienation, and dispossession. For others, it offers a cop-out, a means of avoiding the more controversial and incendiary subject of race for those faux-nationalists who hope thereby to escape the full nuclear payload of the Jewish command that has maintained its ideological no-fly zone over Western countries for seventy years. This is the enemy that must be squarely dealt with if we are to save our people.
Donald Trump’s recent campaign pitch to halt Muslim immigration is, in a way, a victory for our side philosophically, because finally egalitarianism has been dealt a serious blow in the public sphere. However, the misdirection of nationalist sentiment toward what are essentially psychological Band-Aids is something we should be wary of, as exemplified by France’s Front National and other European “nationalist” parties.
Furthermore, focusing on Islam, bashing it and relentlessly provoking its believers around the world, helps to seed and fertilize the disingenuous narrative that has been engineered and exploited thus far for specifically Jewish objectives. We need not engage in any “clash of civilizations”. The only battle we have to fight is that against our own domestic enemy, not some war against an international chimera that furthers no purpose of ours. The waste of countless White lives in unending wars fought for the very forces that are actively coordinating the murder of these very soldiers’ nations is deranged. Provoking a nuclear war with Russia and/or China as a result of slavishly pursuing Zionist agendas in the Middle East is suicidal. Adding your own voice to the swelling anti-Islamic chorus is self-defeating “strategery” – you’re not going to convert anyone to an authentic nationalism by utilizing it since there are already “acceptable” political affiliations that exploit this cause and that entail no negative consequences for membership.
While the immigration transformation of Europe may be roughly synonymous with Islam, we must avoid being reckless in our rhetoric, definitions, and platform; we must be precise. The transformations of our homelands are inseparable from non-White immigration. Let us do nothing that mitigates or poisons the truth and the strength to be realized in authentic nationalist movements in all of the White homelands.