The Paris Terror

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Anatoly Karlin writes: Some preliminary thoughts on the latest terrorist attacks that have claimed 128+ lives in Paris.

(1) The usual cucks have wasted no time in making political hay of this tragedy

So don’t be shamed by traditional social conventions about avoiding making political points out of respect for the dead. Like it or not but the information age and the 24 hour news cycle have made this genteel habit obsolete and indeed, maladaptive.

Spread the anti-“Invite the World” propaganda far and wide (Liveleak version in case YouTube shuts it down).

Note as Whyvert points out that Marine Le Pen, leading the opinion polls and the one politician who might have materially reduced the chances of this happening, is currently on trial for Islamophobia. The globalist elites don’t play fair and neither should you.

(2) It’s probably not even gonna cost you much, if anything.

For instance, here is what Wikileaks – an impressively redpilled organization – Tweeted soon after the attacks.

Contrary to their numerous detractors in the comments, this is an entirely brave and entirely appropriate Tweet. It’s the exact time and place because nobody would pay any attention otherwise.

Moreover, I took note of their follower count when they made this Tweet. It was at 2.81 million. A few hours later, it was still at 2.81 million.

Note that this in spite of the SJWs having attacked Wikileaks for politicizing these terrorist attacks but not the the likes of establishment journalists like Ezra Klein. But apart from confirming SJWs as the mercenary attack dogs of the neocons that they are, this didn’t even have any substantial effect on Wikileaks’ follower numbers, which goes once more to show that the SJWs are more bark than bite.

(3) The globalist elites are pure unadultered evil so do not take anything they say at face value.

assad-on-western-hypocrisy

And now we come to the “Invade Whe world” part.

The Syrian Civil War was a primarily US sponsored project to weaponize their Islamist lackeys to break up Syria for make benefit of Israel. And ever since Sarkozy it should be borne in mind that France has become even more “American” than the Americans, as seen in Libya, and in the ferocity of their demands to oust Assad.

COMMENTS:

* We got blown up in Boston by Muslims we support in this city the same way France got blown up by the Muslims they support in Paris. There is no yet, it’s already happened and they’re still here plotting the next B/S stunt. They are out there preparing. And there isn’t a thing we can do about it because not only aren’t we getting Muslims out, we’re bring more in. Already the liberals are warning the racists like me not to point out the religion of peace as a factor even though the religion of peace claims credit. See, to liberals, it’s just that bad-boy 1% of Muslims causing all the trouble. If only we could just be tolerant they would love us.

We have to get used to the idea that until we surrender the country to them, we have to get blown up once in awhile. These are simple things. Paris will surrender, the French will leave Paris to Muslims one day. Muslims are willing to wipe us out, we are not willing to wipe them out. Strongman wins, checkmate and they aren’t interested in the feminist multiculturalism of the West except for how easy it makes their “work”. How’s that feminist multi-cultural thing working, are we ready to abandon that? Until we do, they’re going to rack up the “wins”.

We’re surrendering our culture and country to them. It’s not a Democrat thing it’s white guilt. The French? They don’t have to stomach to fight back any more than we do. If they did, they would have flushed Muslims out of their country. No, instead, there will be a migration out of Paris the same way there has been a migration of whites out of Detroit, DC, Baltimore, Atlanta, etc. We abandon our cities, we don’t fight back. It’s a surrender. Pretty simple, actually. Different cultures take over the cities here from the culture that will take over Paris, London and the rest over there in Europe, but cultures aside, it’s the descendants of the same African continent. Simple Demographics and it has nothing to do with Democrats. It has to do with Culture vs. Culture. And ours is weaker than theirs. Until I see evidence to the contrary, this will not change. Perhaps Islam and Hispanics will wage war for supremacy, I don’t know. It won’t be whites and feminists, that’s certain

I see no hope, only a slightly different time line between the US and Europe, although if we import our enemy in greater numbers, we shorten the time line to surrender. But we aren’t going to wage war on our own soil. They are willing, we are not. Strong culture wins. Bye bye, lights out.

* This problem has been brewing for decades in the western cities as a result of mass immigration and the gradual creation of sharia compliant enclaves, takeover of schools, rape as a weapon of ethnic cleansing etc – all covered up by the media.

It’s true the neocons have stirred the pot and also true that Hollande, Cameron etc will try and use these attacks as an excuse for a war against Assad but the West was slowly breeding a civil war before that.

The neocon solution: invade the world, invite the world, is the worst of all.

The liberal solution: invite the world, ends the same way, just slower.

The solution is don’t invite the world.

* How the Middle East disaster has started:

The US neocons had intentionally removed all clear heads with the knowledge about the Arab world from the position of influence, in order to implement the grandiose Middle East plan of total butchery. A sampling: Mr. Feith in his power of under-secretary of defense for policy in the US government, had been assiduously weeding our Arabists that could be an obstacle to the neocons’ project for the Middle Eastern countries:
“…career U.S. intelligence officer Patrick Lang recounted a job interview he had with neocon war architect Douglas Feith. Lang, who had previously run the Pentagon’s world-wide spying operations, “was put forward as somebody who would be good at running the Pentagon’s office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, i.e., counterinsurgency.” So he was interviewed by Feith:
“He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me,” Lang recalled, “which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers — they always had briefing papers, you know — about me.
“He’s looking at this stuff, and he says, ‘I’ve heard of you. I heard of you.’
“He says, ‘Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?’
“And I said, ‘Yeah, that’s really true.’
“That’s too bad,” Feith said.
“That was the end of the interview,” Lang said.”

* John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in 2006:

If there were no Israel Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act and U.S. policy toward Damascus would have been more in line with the U.S. national interest.

Israeli leaders did not push the Bush Administration to put its crosshairs on Syria before March 2003, because they were too busy pushing for war against Iraq. But once Baghdad fell in mid‐April, Sharon and his lieutenants began urging Washington to target Damascus. On April 16, for example, Sharon and Shaul Mofaz, his defense minister, gave high profile interviews in different Israeli newspapers. Sharon, in Yedioth Ahronoth, called for the United States to put “very heavy” pressure on Syria. Mofaz told Ma’ariv that, “We have a long list of issues that we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians and it is appropriate that it should be done through the Americans.” Sharon’s national security advisor, Ephraim Halevy, told a WINEP audience that it was now important for the United States to get rough with Syria, and the Washington Post reported that Israel was “fueling the campaign” against Syria by feeding the United States intelligence reports about the actions of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Prominent members of the Lobby made the same arguments after Baghdad fell. Wolfowitz declared that “there has got to be regime change in Syria,” and Richard Perle told a journalist that “We could deliver a short message, a two‐ worded message [to other hostile regimes in the Middle East]: ‘You’re next’.” In early April, WINEP released a bipartisan report stating that Syria “should not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam’s reckless, irresponsible and defiant behavior could end up sharing his fate.” On April 15, Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled “Next, Turn the Screws on Syria,” while the next day Zev Chafets wrote an article for the New York Daily News entitled “Terror‐Friendly Syria Needs a Change, Too.” Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the New Republic on April 21 that Syrian leader Assad was a serious threat to America.
Back on Capitol Hill, Congressman Eliot Engel (D‐NY) had reintroduced the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act on April 12. It threatened sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, give up its WMD, and stop supporting terrorism, and it also called for Syria and Lebanon to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel. This legislation was strongly endorsed by the Lobby—especially AIPAC—and “framed,” according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, “by some of Israel’s best friends in Congress.” It had been on the back burner for some time, largely because the Bush Administration had little enthusiasm for it, but the anti‐Syrian act passed overwhelmingly (398‐4) in the House; 89‐4 in the Senate), and Bush signed it into law on December 12, 2003.
Yet the Bush Administration was still divided about the wisdom of targeting Syria at this time. Although the neoconservatives were eager to pick a fight with Damascus, the CIA and the State Department were opposed. And even after Bush signed the new law, he emphasized that he would go slowly in implementing it.
Bush’s ambivalence is understandable. First, the Syrian government had been providing the United States with important intelligence about al Qaeda since 9/11 and had also warned Washington about a planned terrorist attack in the Gulf. Syria had also given CIA interrogators access to Mohammed Zammar, the alleged recruiter of some of the 9/11 hijackers. Targeting the Assad regime would jeopardize these valuable connections, and thus undermine the larger war on terrorism.
Second, Syria was not on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq war (e.g., it had even voted for U.N. Resolution 1441), and it was no threat to the United States. Playing hardball with Syria would make the United States look like a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Finally, putting Syria on the American hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to pressure Syria, it made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first.
Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws to Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israel officials and pro‐Israel groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act and U.S. policy toward Damascus would have been more in line with the U.S. national interest.

* The “liveleak” video that was posted here was also up on Youtube on the 11th of November, it was already taken down by the 13th. I wish I had copied it to my hard drive as liveleak provides no way (that I can see) to download this video, which is a shame. Moral of the story; when you see something like this posted on Youtube, copy it to your hard drive immediately. That way, if you are so inclined, you can re-upload it to Youtube as soon as they take it down. BTW; this video got over 1 million views in the 3 days that it was up, which says a lot about why they took it down as fast as they noticed it.

* White men are completely demoralized. Look at the full Yuri Bezmenov interview (clip included in video above). This all began as a Soviet effort to demoralize the West. It worked. Our left is multicultural socialist and our right is cuckold fetishist. None will lift a finger to defend our most important asset, our women and children, from the invading Islamists and Africans. 65 years ago, in 1950, white western men would have burned the Islamist areas to the ground and expelled every last one of them. Today, they are beaten. Beaten by communist inspired feminism, queers, and negro lovers. They’ve been forbidden from speaking truth for at least forty years. Thus the “men” who should do the defending are all feminized twats who cry at a skinned knee or perceived microagression toward a thug illiterate negro. They have no idea what competition is, they’re all “winners,” and unable to defend themselves let alone their wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers. In fact, they look to these women to defend them!

The white MAN has been dead for two generations. Where isolated pockets of his race remain, in rural and exurban areas, he is shooting his guns at trees, crashing his motorcycles, and avoiding contact with the society which hates him. It is over for him. That’s the irony, that the USSR won even as it collapsed in ruin.

* It’s been said that the reason why the West made greater progress than the Muslim World is because the West went through the Renaissance whereas the Muslim World didn’t. It’s been said that Islamic culture held back freedom of thought and discourse.

But here’s one big problem. The Byzantine Civilization. The Greek-led Byzantine civilization was Christian. Also, unlike Western Europe that lost the culture of antiquity due to Germanic Barbarian Invasions, Byzantine civilization survived and preserved its memory of the classical past.

Then, why did the Byzantines fail to make the kind of progress that Western Europe did? Why did Western Europe that came under barbarian rule eventually grow richer and stronger whereas the Byzantines, which preserved the classical heritage, grow weaker and weaker, eventually being invaded by Venetians and then by the Ottomans?

One great result of the Germanic barbarian invasions was that it stopped the Roman agenda of diversity-propagating all over Europe. The classical dream of the original EU as spearheaded by the Ancient Romans was to racially muddy all of Europe. Romans brought slaves and merchants and workers from all over the world—Africa and Near East—and sought to spread them all over Europe. Romans conquered much of Northern Europe and built roads that would have connected Cairo and Damascus to Paris and London(whatever they may have been called back then). Had the Roman Empire not been brought down, European race might have been muddied into something like North Africans long long ago.

But the white Germanic Barbarians destroyed the imperialistic Romans, and thus they racially saved Europe.
And that kept Western Europe white. Of course, there were incursions into Southern Italy and Spain/Portugal by the Moors and other swarthy folks later on. And Russians fell under Mongol yoke and Greeks came under Ottoman Rule.
But the heart of Western Europe remained white.

Another great thing for the white race was the arrival of Muhammad and the spread of Islam. As a result, Christianity came under the challenge of non-white Muslims. Mongol Tatars turned Islamic. And all of Near East and North African came under Muslim rule.
If all such non-white peoples had been converted to Christianity(and had Islam never appeared on the scene), it’s possible that the Catholic Church back then(as it tries to do today) might have sought to create a world empire defined by faith than by race.

If indeed faith in Jesus should be the prime allegiance for a people, then white Europeans should feel as brothers with yellow Christians, brown Christians, and black Christians. But thankfully, Muhammad came along and created a new faith that won the hearts and minds of non-whites all over.
So, Christianity became the defacto the white religion and Islam became defacto the swarthy/black religion. Of course, there were white Muslims and non-white Christians, but Europe became predominantly Christian whereas the Near East, Central Asia(ruled by Mongols and Turkmens), and North Africa became predominantly Muslim. The Islamization of the world outside Europe made white Europeans more race-conscious as Christianity became synonymous with defending(and later spreading) white civilization. But this would not have been the case if there had been no Islam and if all of North Africa and Near East had become Christian. It’s possible that the Catholic Church might have sided with non-white Catholics against European Protestants. After all, there were times when Europeans even allied with Muslims against fellow Christians. This would have been even more likely if the Middle East and North Africa had turned Christian.

Perhaps, one of the problems of the Byzantines was racial. Since they ruled over much of the Near East, they often rubbed shoulders with less intelligent non-whites. So, there may have been less intellectual firepower regardless of whether the people there were Christian or Muslim. After all, even secular Arab nations haven’t been able to achieve much in the 20th century. Arab IQ is simply lower, and the Byzantine empire ruled over too many not-too-bright people. So, the problem could have been racial than cultural/religious. In contrast, Western Europe had more high-IQ people. This isn’t to discount the power of culture which is important, but we shouldn’t discount the power of race and biology.

Another reason why the Byzantines might have faltered and declined is because their civilizational continuity led to loss of vigor, to boredom and apathy. Paradoxically, it may have grown weaker in the long run(when compared to Western Europe that fell to Germanic barbarians) because it remained intact as a civilization.
Sometimes, a thing has to be rediscovered to spark curiosity and imagination. The Renaissance had a powerful impact on the West cuz the old was made ‘new’ again. It was reinvigorated as something to fire up the imagination again.
It’s a tragedy to lose one’s heritage and past, but there is also the mythic excitement of rediscovering it again through chance and imagination. The Renaissance wasn’t just an imitation of the rediscovered past but an inspired act of using its fragments—as too much of it had been lost forever—to envision something even greater and grander and richer.

So, the lesson for the Alt Right shouldn’t just be heritage and tradition. It needs to be the power to re-imagine the past and its lessons in a spirit of renewed vigor. It’s like sticking with the GOP is like trying to keep the Byzantine civilization going. It has lost its vigor. It’s about the likes of George Will and Bill O’Reilly arguing over Reagan’s mental health. It’s like Soviets in the 80s still trying to keep up the holy myth of Lenin that had turned into a mummy.

It would be stupid and crazy for a people to reject their own heritage. But mere clinging to heritage leads to dissipation, boredom, and enervation. The past must be retold and re-imagined and reinvigorated to inspire new visions of the future.
This is why Jews win. They use Hollywood and other industries to re-imagine and re-create the past in their own inspired manner(that is good for their power but deadly to their enemies, the white race).
With a culture of reinvigoration, one’s culture and identity turn into museum pieces, into mummies.

* The regime change in Syria was a ‘Israeli Project’ from day one.

On July 4, 2011, a conference of Syrian anti-regime groups was held in Saint-Germain in France. The meeting was attended by 200 people representing none of the Syrian groups calling for reforms in Syria – the ‘Democratic change in Syria’. The meeting was organized by La Regle du Jeu (The Rule of the Game) magazine and website which is headed by Zionist Jew Bernard-Henri Levy. The other Zionist Jews who attended the meeting included Bernard Kouchner, former French foreign minister, Frederik Ansel, a member of Israel’s ruling Likud Party, Alex Goldfarb, former Knesset member and adviser to Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak and Andre Glucksmann, an Islamophobe French writer.

After the destruction of Africa’s richest country and most secularist regime in Libya, Bernard-Henri Levy, told a meeting of French Jewish Lobby CRIF, that he convinced French president Nicolas Sarkozy to remove Qaddafi because had become a threat to the security of Israel.

* Leading members of the George W Bush administration along with Blair and the leading neocons/Israel firsters must be brought to justice. The names of the leading neocon figures are:

Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Lewis Scooter Libby, Michael Ledeen, The Kagan clan, including Victoria Nudelman, The Kristol clan, The Podhoretz clan, Elliot Abrams, Eliot A. Cohen, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, John Bolton, Jennifer Rubin, Joshua Muravchik, Michael Rubin, Daniel Pipes, Marc Grossman, James Woolsey, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich.

About Luke Ford

I've written five books (see Amazon.com). My work has been covered in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and on 60 Minutes. I teach Alexander Technique in Beverly Hills (Alexander90210.com).
This entry was posted in France, Islam, Israel. Bookmark the permalink.