RSS
Following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that France “is at war with terrorism, jihadism and radical Islamism.” This tells us what France is fighting against.
But what is France fighting for in this war on terror? For terrorism is simply a tactic, and arguably the most effective tactic of the national liberation movements of the 20th century.
Terrorism was used by the Irgun to drive the British out of Palestine and by the Mau Mau to run them out of Kenya. Terrorism, blowing up movie theaters and cafes, was the tactic the FLN used to drive the French out of Algeria.
The FALN tried to assassinate Harry Truman in 1950 at Blair House, shot up the House of Representatives in 1954, and, in 1975, blew up Fraunces Tavern in New York where Washington had bid his officers farewell. The FALN goal: Independence from a United States that had annexed Puerto Rico as the spoils of war in its victory over Spain.
What did the FLN, FALN, Mau Mau, Irgun and Mandela’s ANC have in common? All sought the expulsion of alien rule. All sought nations of their own. All used terrorism for the same ends as Uighurs do in China and Chechens do in the Caucasus.
Osama bin Laden, in his declaration of war upon us, listed as his casus belli the presence on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia of U.S. troops and their “temple prostitutes.” He wanted us out of his country.
What are Valls’ terrorists, jihadists and radical Islamists fighting for? What are the goals of ISIS and al-Qaida, Boko Haram and Ansar al-Sharia, the Taliban and al-Shabab?
All want our troops, our alien culture and our infidel faith out of their lands. All seek the overthrow of regimes that collaborate with us. And all wish to establish regimes that comport with the commands of the Prophet.
This is what they are recruiting for, killing for, dying for. We abhor their terror tactics and deplore their aims, but they know what they are fighting for. What are we fighting for?
What is our vision that will inspire Muslim masses to rise up, battle alongside us, and die fighting Islamists? What future do we envision for the Middle East? And are we willing to pay the price to achieve it?
Comes the reply: America is fighting, as always, for democracy, freedom and the right of peoples to rule themselves.
But are we? If democracy is our goal, why did we not recognize the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, or of Hezbollah in Lebanon? Why did we condone the overthrow of the elected regime of Mohammad Morsi in Egypt? Why do we not demand democracy in Saudi Arabia?
But hypocrisy is the least of our problems. The real problem is that hundreds of millions of Muslims reject our values. They do not believe all religions are equal. They do not believe in freedom of speech or the press to blaspheme the Prophet. Majorities in many Islamic countries believe adulterers, apostates, and converts to Christianity should be lashed, stoned and beheaded.
In surveys, the Muslim world not only rejects our presence and puppets, but also our culture and beliefs. In a free referendum they would vote to throw us out of the region and throw the Israelis into the sea.
For many in the Mideast collaboration with America is a betrayal. And our presence spawns more terrorists than our drones can kill.
This week Valls conceded there are “two Frances,” adding, “A territorial, social, ethnic apartheid has spread across our country.”
Have her five million Muslims become an indigestible minority that imperils the survival of France? Have France and Europe embraced a diversity more malignant than benign, possibly leading to a future like the recent past in Palestine, Cyprus, Lebanon, Sri Lanka and Ukraine?
T. S. Eliot said, to defeat a religion, you need a religion.
We have no religion; we have an ideology — secular democracy. But the Muslim world rejects secularism and will use democracy to free itself of us and establish regimes that please Allah.
In the struggle between democracy and Allah, we are children of a lesser God. “The term ‘democracy,'” wrote Eliot, “does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces that you dislike — it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God … you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.”
Germany used democracy to bring Hitler to power. Given free elections from Morocco to Mindanao, what kind of regimes would rise to power? Would not the Quran become the basis of law?
If Charlie Hebdo were a man, not a magazine, he would be torn to pieces in any Middle East nation into which he ventured. And what does a mindless West offer as the apotheosis of democracy?
Four million French marching under the banner “Je Suis Charlie.”
Whom the gods would destroy …
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.” Copyright 2015 Creators.com.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Twelve points on a 1 to 10 scale. One of Pat’s very best encapsulating the idiocy and contradictions of the “War On Terror”. The crystal clear substance of Islam that has given meaning and structure to huge populations over vast areas for centuries is opposed by an amorphous substance free drivel of vague abstraction.
I agree. Great piece. The nihilistic West versus fanatical true believers.
We have nothing to offer the people of the Middle East except drones and bombs.
One common thing with most of those successful terrorist movements (and the examples you list) is that they received a lot of financing from outside benefactors, whether governments or wealthy donors. Other examples include the various communists throughout history (note, that was just an ideology), and perhaps Washington and co, if not terrorists, the American revolutionaries skirted the line closely. The communists in Russia were funded by Schiff, and the Americans were funded by France.
I agree with Pat that the current reigning ideology is effete, degenerate, and decadent. As an ideology, political correctness lacks the sort of texts that the average person or even intellectual can get behind. Sure, it has the texts by the Frankfurt school, but as I understand it those are more about how to destroy/deconstruct a society than how to enhance it for the benefit of the society members. PC seems mostly impelled by the classic methods of propaganda, film and music, though the education system also a major part. By contrast, Communism, National Socialism and the American independence movement all had texts that intellectuals could get behind, even if some of them were useful idiots.
In any case, the point is being approached when the average person is openly contemptuous of political correctness. With Jews backing parties like FN, there is a good chance of the current intellectual fashion doing an abrupt shift within the next 10-20 years. There is also money to be made with a mass repatriation. If you knew that it was going to happen ahead of time, you would sell any real estate you held in areas of high North African population, and probably other real estate as well. And then you would buy back in after the repatriation, when prices were depressed to the lowest possible point. Gentrification on steroids.
Pornography and violence are by-products of societies in which private identity has been…destroyed by sudden environmental change.
Letter to Clare Westcott, November 26 1975. Letters of Marshall McLuhan, p. 514
Now we have the by-products of Iraq…ISIL and US debt. Privacy has been destroyed too and now you owe more while getting less. What’s the projection for bank failures in 2015? Sign up people for micro loans and health care. The new system is built on the VA model. The more patients you get rid of the bigger your bonus. More bureaucracy.
Pat in his comments betrays an envy for the religious fervor of his opposition. This is a disconnect from reality. If he had read the pentagon reports he would know that the opposition in Iraq, along with the opps in Syria, and the fighters on the ground in Afghan, consist of paid mercenaries. The average Boko Harram or ISIS fighter would need a years wages to pay for an AK-47 and its ammo for fighting – not to mention the fuel, transport, food logistics for continuing the battle. These Mercs may or may not have an ideological preference, just like American Mercs in Iraq. But both our Mercs and their Mercs fight for an elite with cash to throw into the conflict. In America, its our cash, the taxpayer’s cash, and the sub contractors take their piece along the way. Stiglitz estimates trillions were syphoned off average America into the pockets of the intermediaries and contractors for the simple stupidity of blowing up cement and rebar infrastructure in the Middle East. And like the Israelis in Gaza, they get to be paid to rebuild the demolitions. This is not a clash of civilizations so much as a Live Fire Weapons demonstration with the flag waivers paying the admissions price, involuntarily.
In Paris, AP reports funding and munitions came out of Bulgaria, the semi retarded Kosher market illiterate could not pray in Arabic, and his leaders in AQ Yemen couldnt care less. They got a demonstrable result and a million Parisians marching in the street to celebrate anti-Christian porn cartoons. No, you do not want to google Charlie Hebbo Holy Ghost Jesus cartoon. So why all the fuss about the selective right to blasphemy, and the insistence on the banning of authentic religious expression?
Why is the Burqa so offensive and destabilizing of western civ?
Slut Shaming.
Contemporary western women go through a carousel of hook ups before settling down to get married., and then wonder in their anger why they can’t find a man willing on match.com This has been going on since the 60s, for some fifty years. These are contemporary mens’ grandmothers, mothers, sisters, daughters, future and past wives.
Or as one feminist put it: ‘the attire works its way into the religious shame cycle which keeps that relic from dying out. Basically, by not wearing it, you’re the equivalent to dressing provocatively [ a slut] ‘
The Burqa is about slut shaming your mother.
A form of blasphemy.
Tunisia had a parliamentary election last year. The Islamist party secured only 28% of the vote. The country’s largest party is officially secular.
This may be the best thing I’ve read by Pat.
But I have to disagree, though. Becoming your enemy to defeat him is a bad idea. Folks like Pat and Kevin MacDonald long for the rise of a Catholic Imperium and Crusade, and think that if one worships Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef even harder that it will free us from the NWO and the other fun stuff They-who-must-not-be-named have planned.
Pro tip: It’s a recipe for failure. Just ask the German National Socialists if molding yourself into a sort of mirror image of your Abrahamic Religionist enemy for the purpose of defeating them is a winning strategy.
“War on Terror” is, I think, a term that was settled upon after discussing what to call this … thing … with the Saudi’s, who said, “Whatever you do, don’t have the word Islam in there anywhere.” We all know what “War on Terror” means – a fight against (supposedly) extremist and (allegedly) totally unrepresentative elements from some religion or other.
But what is France fighting for in this war on terror?
Self determination.
The French, not ISIS, AQIY, or whatever misunderstander of Islam happens to be blowing people up today, will decide how the liberty they value is circumscribed.
Pat was not calling for a new religion to fight their religion. He was pointing to the foolishness of fomenting world revolution and imperialism if all you are backed by (and all you are pushing the world to submit to) is a pathetic, feeble, and degenerate ideology.