No one with a single decent bone in their body wants to see harm come to children. But clearly, the media and their lapdog governments are milking this tragedy for all its worth–as an ideological emotive sledgehammer in order to weaken European resistance to the invasion of their continent by hordes of violent Third World men.
by Guillaume Durocher . September 8, 2015
History is being made before our eyes. Or rather, if Europe, above all, has given birth to History, then we are witnessing a true “End of History.” We have known the demographic facts of European decline and Afro-Asian expansion for years. We have seen all of Western Europe’s great cities become scarred or encircled with ghettos. We know that European women have 1.4 children on average, and that Africa is projected by the United Nations to reach a population of over 4 billion this century. But never before has this reality been so visible as it is today.
In the camps of Calais, washed up on Lampedusa, storming Ceuta and Melilla, arriving en masse at Kos, we can see the shape of things to come. The eviction of poor Germans at Ludwigshafen to make room for migrants, the punishment of Dresden with the overnight imposition of a refugee camp, and the horrific rape gangs of Rotherham are merely a foretaste.
Do you see that in the distance? Those aren’t mountains. They’re waves. A tide of humanity, of Afro-Islamic humanity, moving to submerge Europe this century.
The outpouring of emotion on official and social media has been growing to unprecedented levels. The hundreds drowned in the Mediterranean and the dozens of dead in overheated trucks in Austria did not elicit the emotion of one Kurdish boy, whose image has been reproduced a seemingly infinite amount of time, across social networks, the mass media, and even public art and seen by hundreds of millions around the world. The details of the event are irrelevant, the psychological impact has already been achieved. Few know and fewer care that little Aylan Kurdi and his family had been living as Syrian refugees in Turkey for three years. Not making enough to live on, they were supported by a family member in Canada until their entry to that country was denied. Thus, the family attempted to reach Europe not to flee immediate violence, but, rather, for a better life, and “to get his [father’s] damaged teeth fixed.” Poor little Aylan, dead for a cavity.
But, for the nation-wreckers, this death is not in vain. Bernard-Henri Lévy—a leading advocate of the Libyan and Syrian interventions and among the guilty men responsible for these migrant deaths—has already noted that Aylan’s corpse will be useful to undermining European opposition to immigration. Even one as mainstream a politician as Mayor of Antwerp Bart De Wever (of the pseudo-nationalist New Flemish Alliance (NVA)) has said he wants to “try to stay rational because [Aylan’s death] is becoming a means of emotional pressure to argue in favor of a European policy of open borders.” A “rational” approach to politics? Impossible in the age of “victimocracy,” of the “dictatorship of emotion.” We shouldn’t underestimate the degree, to which what we call “democracy” amounts to media and political elites managing public opinion on a set of complex issues by reducing them to catchy phrases or, in this case, images.
Such emotional manipulation is necessary for the globalists. The replacement of European populations by Africans and Muslims has long been opposed by the peoples of Europe. For the past 70 years, public opinion in virtually all countries has been overwhelmingly hostile to displacement-level non-European immigration. Last July, 64 percent of Frenchmen were opposed to allowing migrant settlements and, even after highly-televised deaths of migrants in trucks and Aylan, 51 percent remain opposed. Similar figures could be cited across the West.
This puts the lie to the West’s pseudo-democracies. Of course, given our evolutionary predisposition towards ethnocentrism, implicit and explicit ethno-racial politics necessarily resonate with public opinion. As a result, the entire game since 1945 has been for mainstream conservative parties to pander to White tribalism without actually defending the interests of White majorities, while at the same time scrupulously suppressing and marginalizing any populist politicians who could actually preserve these interests (Enoch Powell, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Patrick Buchanan, et al.).
Make no mistake, there is a conscious effort by the mainstream political parties and, especially media and academia, to demonize the defense of European interests and to apologize for the Afro-Islamic invasion. In France, the Trotskyite-founded news site Mediapart is officially colluding with other European media to launch an international campaign under the hashtag #OpenEurope to produce sob-stories promoting immigration (and never about the European victims of immigration). German media have, since 1945, officially and continuously worked to undermine right-wing and nationalist ideas, lest any free speech lead to a return of He Who Must Not Be Named. (The head of the German press’ trade union has openly proclaimed this as an objective of German media.)
Unfortunately for the System, Europeans’ will-to-life is yet strong enough that—even though most reject “racism”—they in their overwhelming majority instinctively oppose policies leading to their physical replacement by Blacks and Muslims. We know what the results of this mass settlement will be. First, ethno-cultural Balkanization. The current French Prime Minister says that Afro-Islamic immigration has led to de facto “segregation” on French soil, and yet continues to be an enthusiastic immigrationist. Second, it will lead to increases in crime, welfare use, and left-wing votes, decreases in social trust, educational performance, and economic achievement, and the creation of ethnic powder kegs, ready to explode at a moment’s notice into race riots or even, as in Yugoslavia or Lebanon, outright tribal war.
The indigenous peoples of Europe would be reduced to vulnerable minorities at the mercy of the new Afro-Islamic majorities for their well-being and the respect of their rights. According to mainstream projections, indigenous Europeans will become a minority in Great Britain by the 2060s and, no doubt, in France and Germany shortly thereafter. Yet, know full well that the rule of law and human/minority rights are absolutely alien and unpracticed concepts in Sub-Saharan Africa and the House of Islam. Indeed, they are European concepts.
Of course, the official media pretend not to understand and reduce an existential issue of national survival to one of mere “color prejudice.” As The Economist asks disingenuously: “[H]ow might the many voters who share [Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor] Orban’s [anti-immigration] restrictive views be convinced that a few dark-skinned refugees will not irreparably alter the nature of their societies?”
Western Cultural Marxists vs. Eastern Anti-Communists
The current crisis has also starkly shown the divisions within Europe itself. In the West, we have known over 60 years of relative economic prosperity and ethno-masochist propaganda. Far from trying to stop the tide of refugees, European officials and Western leaders have been seeking to organize and even encourage it. Empowered by Aylan’s corpse, the European Commission has been emboldened to propose a quadrupled figure of 160,000 for binding refugee quotas to be imposed throughout the European Union. French and German leaders have pledged to support a binding scheme. European naval operations in the Mediterranean, far from seeking to repulse the invaders, encourage more adventurers by rescuing them and bringing them to European soil.
Worse, the Westerners seem seized by a kind of collective insanity of “moral signaling” and economistic autism. Pope Francis has demanded that every Catholic parish in Europe welcome a refugee family. Ten-thousand people in Iceland, a country of less than 330,000, have offered to host Syrian refugees. In Finland, the prime minister himself (one Juha Sipila, whom history and, perhaps, the coming European Revolution will judge harshly) has pledged to house refugees in his home. I have personally heard British diplomats make the point, in the context of the migration crisis, that Europe’s demographic aging means Afro-Muslims settlement should be welcomed to “rejuvenate” the Old Continent. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad!
In the East, in contrast, a generation of European leaders—still scarred by Communism and still blessed with an intuitive understanding of what is a European—are resisting the invasion. Viktor Orbán in Hungary is building a wall across his southern border (immediately-condemned by the EU and Western leaders) and has passed legislation allowing police and the army to search homes for illegal immigrants. Czech President Miloš Zeman has gone so far as to suggest the creation of a European army to halt the African invasion. The leaders of the old Visegrád bloc_—made up of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia—have assembled and solemnly pledged to reject the EU’s migrant quota scheme. Though we must be honest with ourselves: the “conservative” reflexes of the Ossis_, based on traditional mentalities not yet destroyed by diversity propaganda—as opposed to a vigorous racialist ideology—will not prove enough.
I personally have grown … intolerant … of those Europeans who shame other Europeans for being unwilling to accept more immigration—and I make a point of shaming them in turn. The situation’s moralizing and moral signaling have been quintessentially Eurocentric. There is the typical assumption that renewed moral sacrifice by Europeans alone is what is critical to solving the situation, combined with ignorance and apathy for the situation elsewhere. Only Europeans are susceptible to this.
For example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has again pledged to “control our borders” against the influx of migrants. Meanwhile, Grand Rabbi of France Haïm Korsi, naturally an avowed Zionist with a firm belief in Israel as a racially Jewish ethno-state, has demanded that France be “a land of asylum” and undergo “a civic and human awakening” to welcome migrants. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, all wealthy and nearby, have accepted virtually no “refugees.” For there, we can be assured, pictures of Aylan will not be opening hearts or borders.
Geopolitical Anarcho-Tyranny
How is all this happening and being allowed to happen? No doubt, the events currently underway will be greatly studied by the historians of the future. If we triumph and survive, those historians will be Europeans examining just how close our peoples came to losing their homelands (not to mention their minds). If we fail, those historians will, no doubt, be East Asians seeking to understand what madness seized the European world, in a similar spirit to our study of Ancient Greece and Rome.
The details will long remain unclear: How many “refugees” are using fake Syrian passports? And are U.S. organizations financing some of the illegal immigrants? But let us look at the big picture. The current situation is completely artificial and the fruit of Western governmental action. It is the United States and its allies that destroyed Iraq, Libya, and Syria, creating millions of refugees and opening the floodgates of African immigration. Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi had proven an effective watchman on Europe’s southern frontier and a generous financier of development projects in Sub-Saharan Africa. He warned us before his assassination: “There are millions of blacks who could come to the Mediterranean to cross to France and Italy, and Libya plays a role in security in the Mediterranean.”
Why then has this “migrant crisis” been allowed and even made to occur? I do not believe in any concerted or conscious overarching conspiracy. Rather, the American Empire and its satellites (which include the EU and national governments in Europe), in what I like to call the Atlantic Constellation, have a kind of collective intelligence, which goes as follows.
For the most part, the Empire[1] “goes with the flow” and is happy to allow the further development of a neoliberal, globalized, and borderless capitalism, the steady erosion of national sovereignty, the gradual emergence of an ultra-wealthy superclass of deracinated, mostly “Jeurasian” oligarchs and elites, and the slow reduction of ethnic Europeans to minorities in their historic homelands. This is what President George Bush senior and others theorists of globalism have called “the New World Order.”
However, on occasion, the American Empire and its satellites want a little show, they want a spectacle, they want a war. If so, the following three imperatives must be respected:
1]Powers independent of the United States, and, especially, enemies of Israel, are to be isolated (Perón’s Argentina, De Gaulle’s France, Putin’s Russia …), punished, and, if possible, destroyed (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria).
2]Nothing that undermines Israel as the Jewish State or Jewish privilege more broadly can be tolerated.
3]Anything that undermines ethnic Europeans worldwide, and especially destroys their nations as cohesive and sovereign entities, can be safely encouraged.
The policy of the United States and other Western powers since the end of the Cold War, and, arguably long, long before that, has followed these imperatives. The American Empire and the Atlantic Constellation rule through a mixture of tyranny (outright coercion and war) and anarchy (the conscious promotion of chaos, of which de-nationalizing individualist consumerism in the West and the civil-war-producing Islamic State in the Middle East are two different versions).
There is then a kind of overarching structural logic[3], within which there is contingency. This accounts for the destruction of nationalist regimes across the European world—European ethno-nationalism being in all likelihood the only thing, which could overthrow the ethnic and plutocratic elites currently ruling in the West. (Given the popularity of Noam Chomsky and critiques of “neoliberalism,” these elites clearly do not consider Marxoid babble to be a threat to their power; their concern is with the the Right.) This also accounts for the destructions of Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, and the aborted overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, all executed by shifting American-led coalitions. The timing of these wars did not answer to a historical inevitability, but were contingent events compatible with the three underlying fundamental interests (Imperial-American, Jewish-Zionist, and anti-European). This structural logic has culminated in the current “crisis” threatening to submerge Europe—putting out the incomparable lights of her civilization, forever.
The demographic changes—executed against the will of the European peoples—must be understood as ideologically-driven ethnic warfare. In this, the changes underway in Europe and North America can be compared to the Stalinist policies of physically removing rebellious ethnic groups to Siberia. The objective is the same: to weaken peoples considered “problematic,” to physically replace them with populations believed to be more “pliant,” to fundamentally break the nation’s will and its resistance potential, and ultimately to break its sense of peoplehood itself.
What is to be done? Our grandchildren will not forgive us for doing nothing. What are you going to do? The Waves are coming.
Source with links…..