It is eerie how bad Western governments are at preventing these Islamic terror attacks.
Take the Manchester attacks that happened recently. MI5 knew about the terrorists because they had helped them to travel to Lybia to overthrow Ghadafi.
As far as I can tell, the “Invade the World, Invite the World” approach to Western migration policy is actually a powerful tool of empire-building. I’ve written about this before back when I had a blog, but about America:
There are many ousted revisionist groups that have to flee their countries as political refugees. And the United States government can occasionally be picky about who it lets into the United States and why.
It lets in Cuban political dissidents, Iranian dissidents, Chinese dissidents, Ukrainian dissidents, Georgians, Armenians, Russian Jews, and many many other disgruntled ethnic groups.
After Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States started to accept thousands of Iraqi’s and Afghans. (Collaborators and their families who would be strung up if they were allowed to stay.) This is tied in with keeping America’s word to these local populations- and establishing a reputation as a trustworth partner. It gives local collaboraters an incentive to cooperate if they know you’re not going to throw them to the sharks after the fact.
This may at first strike you as a bad policy (and it is in some ways) but it is not an illogical policy.
The United States functions as an empire, and likes to do what many empires used to do- use Auxillaries in the service of the state.
You can say the same about the British and the French governments. They want to be able to effectively meddle in North Africa, Africa and the Middle-East, so they allow communities to re-settle in the home country to be able to influence, prepare and use that community in their dealings with the home country.
Whether its Iranians that got ousted by the Ayatollah, or disgruntled Cubans, these are all useful Governments in Exile.
They are allowed to resettle in the United States and then work as spies, as consulting experts, as useful pawns to destabilize the regime back home.
In many cases, they are actively prepared to replace the government should a colored revolution happen.
Bingo. That’s your Manchester bomber for you:
Salman Abedi, 22, the British-born son of exiled dissidents who returned to Libya as the revolution against Gaddafi gathered momentum, is also understood to have spent time in the North African country in 2011 and to have returned there on several subsequent occasions.
But I had more to say about the “Invade the World, Invite the World” phenomenon because I was writing at the time of the Orlando nightclub shooting:
In many cases, they are taught to feel a weird hybrid of Liberal Nationalist sentiment.
Like all immigrants, their children either drown in consumer cosmopolitanism or develop a powerful sense of Nationalism for their home-country. They feel the need to rediscover their identity, and so they latch on to the identity of their homeland, and become even stronger patriots than their parents- who’s idealistic view of their home country has been tempered by actual experience with their own countrymen.
Their children do not have these experiences, and have in fact been presented with the best of their culture from a little suburban time-capsule that their parents and the expat community have provided for them since early childhood.
These kids grow up adopting Western habits though, thought-patterns, values and develop either an animosity or a loyalty to the United States. Either way, they can be used. Their Nationalism or their Liberalism can be tapped, and their feelings of rootless volkwanderung can be used to effect social and political changes back in the Urheimat…
I’m talking about the Expats. Exiled communities of political dissidents from sensitive hot spots around the world where US Foreign Policy has taken an interest.
The United States lets in these poor huddled masses longing for a coup in their homeland to restore them to power in the future and prepares them for the spotlight.
This used to work well- and arguably still works. But you need to have a powerful vision of Empire that you sell to these people to make them loyal. If the Empire starts losing faith in itself, and its values, its Auxillaries start losing their loyalty.
I pointed out that Omar Mateen’s family was from Afghanistan, from a Pashtun tribe. His father is an open supporter of the Taliban who emmigrated to the United States in the 80’s.
Now why would the United States be allowing Taliban sympathizers (and actual Taliban) into the United States in the 1980’s? Well, because they were using them to fight the Soviets, of course.
Why were the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston? Part of a Western-backed Islamic Chechen faction that fled Russia, of course.
What were the Saudi 9/11 hijackers doing in the US? Ah, now that one’s a bit trickier, isn’t it?
Is the story about the Manchester bomber, Salman Abedi, any different? He and his clan were fighting Ghadaffi, so MI5 cultivated them while in the UK. And like a mad dog on a leash, they let them go off after Ghadaffi when the time was right.
The only problem with mad dogs is that they occasionally turn around and bite the handler. As far as I can tell, the British government thinks that 22 dead children is a fair price to pay for Imperial ambition.
In general, it looks like the Western governments are losing control of their assets. What made Salman and his co-conspirators snap? Did the Brits renege on an agreement that they had with them? Were they promised more than they received for their services? Has the UK started supporting a rebel faction in Lybia that they don’t get along with?
These are the questions that we should be asking. Internal migration policy has become an extension of external power projection in the West. Every time there is a terror attack, we learn about yet another foreign Muslim faction that the West has supported abroad, and subsequently managed to piss off.
Nice White Pill……
With the usual White Leftist or (((typical)))) Anti-White Stupidity included…….
Sebastian Stoker @SebastianStoker May 25
Doesn’t explain it all. I am sure a big factor is fact that Poles, like most Eastern Europeans are notorious xenophobic.
Cris H W @chwyatt May 25
Xenophobia, is that one of those words used to insult patriotic people who have (justified, proven) concerns for their security? It is.
Sebastian Stoker @SebastianStoker May 25
No. It’s a euphemism for Naziism.
Cris H W @chwyatt May 26
No, like Islamophobia, xenophobia is a word used by the anti-democratic Left to shut down debate
“Why were the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston? Part of a Western-backed Islamic Chechen faction that fled Russia, of course.”
Actually, I believe that the Tsarnaevs were in good with the current Moscow-backed regime of Ramzan Kadyrov. They came here as refugees………………..from the very regime that their family supported. No, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. There was alot of deep-state CIA s**t surrounding the whole case. Steve Sailer has written extensively about them. The whole episode is very fishy-smelling.
According to this couple, who supposedly lost a son at the Manchester “bombing” event, it is no big deal if a loved one is killed, since you can just remember the good times and be content with that.
“Due to a shortage of labor, immigration to Iceland will most likely increase in the future. Estimates show that the number of immigrants could be as high as 15% of the total population by 2030.”
1.74 Total Fertility Rate in 2016……
I served for 2+ years in Iraq with the US Army. I did a lot of heavy labor and saw a lot of ugly moments that would’ve never happened if the US adhered to the Alt Right’s general ideas concerning foreign relations and use of military force. Needless violence, death, and legitimate despair were the only relevant themes between meaningless games of Texas Hold Em meant to pass the time. While I’m pro-White and loyal to no people but my own, I feel sympathetic to these Muslims that love their own country, and their own people, and have to suffer horrible lives as they try to make it work, rather than give up and go to the US, Europe, etc. Because of what we have done, in total error, we should do whatever it takes to bring stability to these people. There is no need to fight, truly. The Iraqi people who love Iraq and want to make it work are just like us when it comes to making it work in the US and Europe. They want an ethno-state of their own, and I dare say, we want that for them. But, then there’s the Jew$. They get their outrageous hooknoses into real people’s lives and ruin them, and even end them, for the sake of feeding their own narratives, to perpetuate the destruction of Whites and Arab-Muslims who would otherwise have no reason to fight, if not for being instigated by the Joos… and the Hebrew Hammers just love it, it’s the perfect day for them when we kill each other.
This Memorial Day Weekend……
Let’s Pause and Remember the Thousands of Years of the Caucasian Peoples……
…..Warring against and Killing each other…….
Wow, what place is this? What nasty link did I click on? Has anyone hear heard of Islamic Dawah? Hijra? Immigration jihad, as predicted by Qadafi and other Arab and Islamic leaders and as practiced by Islam for 1400 years?
You think all these western conspiracies are the root of it? You think Western leaders caused the invasion of Muslims from Libya and Africa into Europe to further some plot? You think they are that smart and capable? Back to planet Earth for me. See ya.
Invaders in the Past were Beheaded and Impaled……..
The enemy within – The unholy alliance between Islam and the Left.
Its the socialist-nazis on the left that caused this, right fellow alt-righter?
Yet you somehow manage to ignore the part that the neocons play in the “Invade the world; invite the world” strategy.
Sure they want in, but the only reason they can get in is because white traitors let them in.
There is no conspiracy. There’s just non-Whites, Jews, and cucks acting naturally. They’re doing what they normally do. There’s no need to conspire.
In the end it does not matter if it is a conspiracy or not, somebody let them in, more specifically they were let in by the governments of France, Germany, UK, etc. Seems pretty clear to me who is ultimately responsible here.
You somehow missed that Qaddafi was holding back the invaders, and that the groups backed by the US, UK, French, and other Western governments in their destruction of Libya as a functioning state have enabled them? And that the bomber and his father were not diehard Qaddafi backers retaliating against the West, but members of one of these same radical Sunni (Salafist) mercenary groups? And that this is not a new pattern, but that the majority of terrorist attacks in the West come from these radical Salafist groups backed by our governments? And that Salafist ideology among the Islamic invaders of Europe is funded and backed by “friendly” governments like our second greatest ally, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.?
No one’s claiming that Qaddafi was some kind of warrior for Christendom, or even that he was good guy, but it’s indisputable that he was holding back the invasion (in large part for financial reasons) while the US- and UK-backed warring bands of radical Salafists currently “governing” Libya are enabling it.
Qaddafi predicted that if the rebels overthrew him, they would set up an Islamic state in the country, or what he called an “Al Qaeda Emirate.”
He concluded: “They want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe.”
Qaddafi’s son, Saif, warned at the time that the removal of Libya’s government by force would lead to a refugee crisis of titanic proportions. “Libya may become the Somalia of North Africa, of the Mediterranean,” the younger Qaddafi declared in 2011. “You will see the pirates in Sicily, in Crete, in Lampedusa [the Italian island home of migrant detention facilities]. You will see millions of illegal immigrants. The terror will be next door.”
These were not declarations of intent. They were predictions. Neither Qaddafi runs the country now. The people that our governments backed, who are currently facilitating the invasion, and who set off the Manchester bomb are in charge of what remains of the country. In any case, it’s been almost six years since Moamar Qaddafi was sodomized to death with a bayonet in the streets of his hometown of Sirte by Western-backed rebels operating under NATO air cover. It seems rather questionable to claim, as you do, that he is masterminding the invasion, and the terrorist attacks, from beyond the grave.
“You think Western leaders caused the invasion of Muslims from Libya and Africa into Europe to further some plot?”
You think millions of non-White invaders made it into Europe without the active connivance of Western governments and NGOs? Really? You don’t know that those boats only started leaving Libya in large numbers after the country was destroyed with your government’s backing? That none of those boats have engines– they’re towed a couple of miles offshore, and the smugglers coordinate pickups with the NGO ships, who, together with Western navies, operate as a taxi service to transport them across the Mediterranean from there.
There is no Arab or North African army that could stand up to even the armed forces of Norway, let alone the UK, France, or the US. Their intent, and all of this “muh evil death cult of Islam!” crap, is beside the point. This invasion could not happen without the active support of Western governments, and the people behind them. The boat is sinking. Sure, you have to bail out the water, but if you don’t stop the man drilling holes in the hull, it’s not going to do any good, is it?
Sounds like you’ve been watching a little too much teevee lately, and you’ve started to confuse it with reality.
My take on terrorism. Essentially a big PsyOp. We don’t know exactly the level of involvement of Western security services in perpetrating these attacks, but at a very minimum they let them happen.
The purpose of these terrorist attacks is to make EXTREMISM look bad and then they call all pro-whites EXTREMIST. Whites wanting to have the same rights to homelands and self-determination as every other race get falsely associated with terrorists -we’re as bad as the radical Muslims. That gives them political cover to ban pro-white speech (which they call “hate speech”). HATE is the problem, not forced integration in all and only white lands.
Almost every time one of these terrorist incidents occurs, the media makes a point of running stories about how the terrorist had made one or more trips to a Muslim country where he was RADICALIZED. That works up the rubes on the right, cheered on by neo-cucks like Gavin McInnes, to scream for tomahawking and MOABing the Middle East to wipe out RADICAL EXTREMIST Islam. Then the people on the left use that as justification for letting in refugees who are just fleeing chaos created by us. (That’s mostly a lie but it’s the narrative they use.)
Another purpose of these attacks is to put people into a fearful, confused state where they are suggestible to whatever propaganda, and whatever solution, the people in power want to put out. They already have the guns in Europe, so the next target is speech. Problem–>Reaction–>Solution.
Another purpose of these attacks is to get people mad at pro-whites. Under political correctness, the only people you are allowed to hate are white people. Therefore, the anger people naturally feel after an attack gets redirected towards white people in a process psychologists call “displacement.”
Since white people are not allowed (in their own demoralized minds) to do the obvious, have their own country, they get put into a psychological state similar to proto-humans on the veldt being preyed on by carnivores. They pray and practice ritual sacrifice, including child sacrifice, in an attempt to appease these malevolent forces they otherwise can do nothing about. That’s why prominent people say “we’re just going to have to live with terrorism” just like an Australopithecus band has to live with a member occasionally being taken by a leopard as show in the Dawn of Man sequence of “2001: A Space Odyssey.”
I see no evidence that these terrorist incidents are to get people to force Muslims out of Europe. Anyone who even suggests it gets immediately demonized from all sides if not fired or thrown into prison.
It’s also a giant red herring, a distraction from the crime of white genocide through mass non-white immigration combined with forced assimilation being pushed on all white countries.
Exactly. Note that your quote from (((Rebel Media))) stooge and supposed alt right figure Gavin Mcinnes is exactly what (((Bill Kristol))) or any other neocon would say. Does he say “Damn, it’s time to stop letting these non-White savages into our countries, and get rid of the ones that we have? Just close the damn door.”
Nope, it’s “Stop laying flowers and lay some MOABs” In other words “We have to bomb them over there, so we can bring them over here.” People are so used to hearing the leftist rhetoric of endless appeasement, that they think that something like this is fighting back. Through simple force of repetition, it has come to seem like a reasonable response to them, and they fail to realize how deeply irrational it is.
Suppose you called the police to say: “I’ve been helping some poor, oppressed street gang members lately, and I’ve run into a bit of a problem. Gang A just doesn’t meet my standards, so I’ve been giving firearms and training to gang B, because democracy. Anyway, gang B has been losing lately, and gang A was really oppressing them, so I invited some of the members of gang B to live in my house. As refugees, you know. One of them just stabbed my wife– I think she’s dead. I shot the guy. He’s dead, too.
This is simply an intolerable situation. Can you do something about it? Maybe if you could send some cops over to gang B’s neighborhood, and shoot some random people over there, just to show them that I’m serious? But I’m going to let the other members of gang B keep living at my house because proposition nation and melting pot and stuff. Actually, I plan on taking in quite a few more of them because multiculturalism.”
Would they treat you as a witness to, and possible suspect in, in a crime? Or as someone likely to require inpatient psychiatric treatment?
This is part of the issue, but another (of course) can be traced from the Yinon Plan to “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” to PNAC, and beyond. Greater Israel. Failed states and terrorist groups are a manageable threat to the Zionist entity compared to united, powerful nation-states.
Nice to have someone pointing that out. Great article.
Something to notice about all these Muslim terrorist attacks – they always hurt the Muslim diaspora and they never advance any pro-Muslim cause, almost always the exact opposite.
The group that the bomber’s father (Ramadan Abedi) belonged to, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), is like a microcosm of the history of the way that these internationally-recruited groups of Salafist mercenaries serve alternately, or even simultaneously, as bogeymen/ terrorist groups attacking the West, and proxy armies for ZOG.
It was formed by veterans of the Afghan war against the Soviets. Several senior members of al Qaeda were part of LIFG. They tried (apparently with MI6 assistance) to assassinate Qaddafi in the 90s. Qaddafi cracked down on them in the late 90s, and even more so after 9/11. LIFG was involved in fighting against US forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
2007– al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, announced that the LIFG had joined forces with al-Qaeda (AQ) and was calling for the overthrow of Qadhafi’s regime.
The wikileaks database of State Dept. cables then shows something interesting in 2008– a focus on pressuring the Qaddafi government to release LIFG members from prison. A number were released in 2008, then more in 2010. In 2011, of course, this clemency was rewarded when they became leaders in the attack on Qaddafi that reduced Libya to a failed state. And now? Attacking the indigenous people of England. This one group supplies the “terrorists” behind attacks in the West, a proxy army for ZOG, and ZOG’s designated enemy in foreign wars, depending on the situation.
We have to bomb them over there, so we can bring them over here. The real threat is large-scale non-White immigration, of course. Terrorism and “radical Islam” are distractions from the existential threat.
“We have to bomb them over there, so we can bring them over here”
That’s good. We should try to work that into the popular lexicon, so that we can eventually hear it being said, unironically and unwittingly, by people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain.
It’s too late to save Great Britain…..
When you have the Police enforcing Speech Crimes….
….against the Natives….
America was headed there before Trump…..
Great Britain has a Monarchy…..
America has a Kardashian Idiocracy…
We have Guns, more Land, more Rights….
….President Trump and Richard Spencer…
Great Britain has a lot of Gay Cucks…..
…..and Actual Thought Police..
I’m still thankful to have been born in America….
It’s not too late to save our English brothers and sisters. Don’t give up. I know the situation is awful. But take heart, I heard a coworker of mine, who was born in England from a Paki family say, “we left England because of the racism.” While we may not see it from here in the USA, her story alone gives me hope that the English White people, the Proper Fucking English, are not going down without a fight. If there is one thing to say for the English people, it’s that they’re tough and stubborn SOBs. I wouldn’t underestimate their abilities – they have survived for centuries, and they can survive this century as well. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with them now. Dig in, man, and put your shoulder to the wheel!
A good deal of Asia & Africa emerged from a few centuries of European Colonial Empires, with the British Empire being the largest.
Beginning around the late 1940s most European Empires began to fall. From Egypt to the Subcontinent, from Indonesia to South East Asia became independent of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium,Portugal, claimed nationhood and defined their identities.
Within the next 50 to 70 years ethnic pride to ethnic chauvinism began to assert itself using language, ethnicity, faith, history and historical grievances.
Within the last 30 to 20 years Nationalism to militant nationalism is replacing concepts of ethnic pride. Some include the BJP (Bharata Janata Party) of India.
A potent mix of “Hindutva”, (Hindu-ness) is changing India. The BJP, the RSS, and the Shiv Sena form a lethal militant face where 100’s of thousands of RSS Kar Sevak (male volunteers) & Durga Vahini (female volunteers) train across India to use the Lathi (long bamboo stick) to discipline those who get out of line. Inter caste wars and lynchings are growing in number.
Most Hindus live in India (or 1 billion) .
Across the Muslim world Islam, Nationalism and militant ideology has produced some of the most violent reactions to the Western & the modern world.
The same can be said of Buddhism where strong militant nationalism is defining the lives of millions in a faith whose population is around 800 million (not including China).
Sri Lanka, the oldest Buddhist nation which emerged from a 30 year secessionist war with a fire brand nationalistic fervor led by her Buddhist Monastic order. Shades of hyper nationalism are found across S E Asia to E Asia.
Even Sikhism went through a violent secessionist movement that was brutally ended by Indira Gandhi under “Operation Blue star” and “Operation Woodrose” where the Indian army invaded the Golden Temple, killed the leader Brindanwale and his followers and then swept across the Punjab in a bloody cleansing where thousands of Sikhs were killed..
For that Indira’s Sikh Body guards killed her. These hyper nationalist militant movements backed by a fire brand version of faith, history and culture are intolerant to ideas they see as foreign and Western.
Mo Muslims, Mo Problems.
That being said, not engaging in foreign wars that mean nothing to your average American/European would be a good place to start. Until that happens, these attacks won’t cease.
You have a point……
I don’t think we can turn back though. Our errors are so numerous and so severe, that even if we stayed faithful to a vow of peace (or at least no combat) with Islam, I don’t think they would ever stop these attacks. It’s far too late for that.
They feel their former European colonies are their rightful property and their taking back what is rightfully theirs. It’s on whites to protect their borders, stop letting them in, deport, sink boats etc. Not creating more refugees is a good place to start.
Creating refugees like the 40-year old Somalian ‘teens’ escaping from the devastating civil war in Syria… sure, that’s not because they’re parasites who wants everything handed to them, it’s because YT did slavery upon them.
You’re a disgusting anti-White.
Anti-white how? The EU is using the Syrian refugees as a proxy to let the entirety of the third world into Europe. If it was up to me they wouldn’t be letting in any of these migrants. Not even the Syrians, who as far as I’m concerned stop being refugees as soon as they leave Syria.
They’re being brought into the US, particularly MN and MI. So yes they’re worthless parasites that want everything handed to them, and I think Johnny would agree with that (I’m guessing)… but how did Johnny say that’s ok? It’s not like he’s HOPING for these Somalians (or any other non-whites) to be brought into our country. If you could elaborate more, that would be appreciated, because I don’t think it’s clear what you mean.
You’ve got it backwards. Defense of your own country comes before attacking random countries overseas. Again, the same people backing these pointless wars are gung ho for open borders. One of the functions of these wars is exactly that– to provide an excuse for the Left (with the assistance of the neocons) to whine about muh poor victims of imperialist aggression and sh!t. Priorities. Why are you worried about attacking these people overseas, when we haven’t come close to stopping their invasion of our own countries, let alone sending them back.
Did the Spanish in the 1400s worry about attacking Mecca? No, they got rid of Muslim invaders in Spain. That’s where you start.
Islam will never stop its rapist, torturous, genocidal ways. If we stop the military actions against them, they will still attack us because we’re infidels, kaffirs, and our choices in the face of Islam: Convert, pay 90% of all your wages and assets to live, die by torture (and gangrape), or kill the Child of Satan and all of its followers.
Well I don’t care what they do when their not in Europe or North America. It’s on whites to stop letting hostile foreigners into their countries. The results are never surprising.
You’re missing the larger point. With the exceptions of (possibly) Turkey and Pakistan, Muslim countries are laughable as conventional military threats. They might put up a decent defense of their own countries, but their ability to project force abroad is insignificant. Thought is not action. It doesn’t matter what kind of feelz these people have towards us; good, bad or indifferent. It’s irrelevant– if they’re over there. They’re simply not a major threat to us.
Bring millions of them over here, and you’ve got a different story entirely. That is an existential threat, and it’s entirely due to policies designed and implemented by our rulers. The invaders didn’t just appear here, and they didn’t get here on their own. They were brought here. Someone who facilitates the invasion of his country by hostile foreigners is a traitor. Period.
You’re right to point out that it’s not simply “backlash.” But it’s certainly not an unassisted invasion of the West by hostile Muslims, either. Compare the last 1400 years of European history to the past 60 years– hundreds of battles were fought to hold of invasions far smaller than the one that Europe is undergoing now.
Also, the same neocons who back wars for Israel in the Middle East are big promoters of the Third World invasion )that these wars provide an excuse for). “We have to bomb them over there, so we can bring them over here!”
Do you remember when the legacy media marketing campaign for the invasion consistently characterized the invaders as “refugees from the Syrian civil war?” Yet all along, the vast majority of the migrants (85%) were coming from other countries– many from sub-Saharan Africa and other locations nowhere near Syria. Now that the majority of the invaders are coming by the sea route from Libya, they seem to have dropped nearly all mention of the “Syrian civil war” excuse, likely because of the geographic implausibility of the claim. But have you ever seen any mainstream media figure say “Well, looks like we were mistaken. Those “refugees” weren’t coming from Syria after all. How did we get taken in so thoroughly that we unanimously promoted a partly line that was so far from the truth, and for so long?”
They simply shifted seamlessly to speaking in general terms about “refugees” that Europeans are morally obligated to accept in unlimited numbers because reasons, and just dropped Syria from the narrative. Chances that this was accidental, and that all of these media organizations decided independently to promote the same false narrative, and then to memory-hole it when it got too implausible? None.
Watching what President Trump has said/ done before and after taking Office…
There is a Consistency…..
He does want to put Americans back to work…..
But, a lot of Americans including Whites either don’t want to work or don’t want to perform Hard Manual Labor…..
So, Trump is expanding the H2B Program to keep the Economy going since a lot of Americans are Horribly Lazy, Disgustingly Out of Shape, and Entitled Childish Narcissists….
And his latest Budget Proposal has Cuts in Welfare Spending to pour Salt on the Leeches….
Makes sense to me….
Salman Abedi’s father already had a high ranking job in Libya. As described in the media, I can’t figure out whether Abedi’s father worked for the Libyan military, or for a police force. It appears that Salman did not necessarily become more nationalist, but more religious. It was Salman’s religious fervor that drove him to carry out the Manchester bombings. Remember, Salman also killed himself, in the hope that he would achieve paradise.
Islam is not a real threat to Western states.
There is not a single Islamic or Muslim-majority state that could defeat or seriously challenge the US or its European puppet states. Likewise with stateless Islamic jihadist groups; they can be dealt with easily with military force. Will here is more of an issue than ability -not to mention that many Western states are in bed with many of these groups. The point is that, on the planetary scale, Islam and Muslims are not a threat. They’re either an irrelevant nuisance, or very useful to use against enemy states.
Domestically speaking, firstly: there would be no Muslims in Western countries if they hadn’t been invited in the first place. The presence of Islam and Muslims in Western states is something Westerners can blame themselves for. As for domestic Islamic terrorism; well, no Muslims = no Islamic terrorism. But even accepting the presence of Muslims as an unchangeable fact, the idea that any Western state is incapable of dealing with its local Muslim population is absurd. Domestic Islamic terrorism is an acceptable side-effect of using Islamic movements globally, and an acceptable side-effect of using the presence of Muslims at all as shock troops against the natives -to keep them in a state of fear and alienation.
If Western states seriously thought that Islam or Muslims were a genuine threat, they would have been dealt with by now. What Western states really fear is ethnic nationalism of the natives, which is why they do not treat Muslims the way they treat the far right. Islam and Muslims are a pathetic distraction -not a real threat.
Excellent point that the typical “counter-jihadist conservatives” and the “NRx” types either don’t get or pretend not to.
Your analysis ignores just how bad the demographic situation really is and how much worse it is liable to become. Keep in mind that Western European states tend to be militarily weak, at least relative to the U.S. They have not had a serious war in a long time. Once Muslims become the majority of the military age male population, we’ll see just how much of a threat they really are.
Smuggling networks currently being used to bring in migrants can (and have) been used to bring in military grade weaponry. How much would it really take to start a Lebanon style insurgency in a modern West European state? Assuming it does not get that bad, as the demographic presence of Islam increases, Muslims will form an important electoral bloc, and will be able to have greater sway over the political system, as well as greater presence in the streets. Of course, once Muslims are an outright majority, they can simply vote their way into power without firing a shot.
I am sure that our (((elites))) think they will be able to control the Muslim golem. However, I don’t put much stock in their capacity to grasp reality.
The population that has waged a genocide upon us for 1400 years isn’t a threat? Do you sell any of what you’re smoking?
You are right of course. No muslim country is an existential threat to western countries. And muslims need not be, if we simply didn’t let them immigrate. It is only the fact of their coming here and settling in large numbers that is a threat to our civilization.
On the occasion of Memorial Day, some of the FOX News personalities were droning on about ISIS, and what awful monsters they are, and how we must smash them, yada, yada, yada. It’s all such a load of horses**t. And – obviously – it works, with the patriotard crowd, anyway. A lot of Americans are happy to have some kind of far-away enemy we can bomb, so that we can experience that inneffable ecstasy of the righteous.
When such people gas on about how “our troops” are fighting for “our freedom” (i.e. “muh freedom”), I like to remind them that they aren’t – that we are steadily getting less free, the more our troops fight. Can any of them even explain what our war aims in Afghanistan are anymore? I’ve lost my score-card, so I no longer remember which side we are on.
We’re on the side of the “moderate rebel” internationally recruited bands of Salafist mercenaries (including al Qaeda), of course, and against the “ISIS” Salafist mercenaries. Sometimes it gets even more complicated, like when we’re on the side of the “LIFG” Salafist mercenaries when they’re attacking Qaddafi on our behalf, but worried about “Islamophobia” when the same group is bombing Manchester. Or, to go farther back, we were in favor of the mujahedin “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan, but (sort of) opposed to them when they morphed into al Qaeda. Does that help?
We’re on the side of US. In the real world, in a nasty place like the middle east you have to keep your enemies closer than your friends at times and join hands with nasty people sometimes. And sometimes it doesn’t work out so you try something else. And sometimes you f@ck up. That’s the real world. It doesn’t make us evil, like the Islamists, it doesn’t make us the same as them. It doesn’t make us hypocrites. It makes us realist, pragmatists. I don’t get the whole narrative about how Islamic Hijra is our fault for our foreign policy foibles of the past and present or that “neocons” are wanting this all to happen or whatever the conspiracy theory is around here.
Islam is a supremicist ideology and has been doing this crap for 1400 years, long before there were neocons. It’s not about us, it’s about Islam. We are not the problem.
I think the author is giving the intelligence of Western managers (they’re not leaders in any real sense) way too much credit.