Tunisian-born Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was a 31-year-old delivery driver and father, and until a few days ago he was just another tiny cog in the multicultural machine. Other than a minor scuffle with a work colleague, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel’s relatively unblemished record would have been marketed by liberals as an immigration success story. Leaving for work every morning from his modest Nice apartment, paying his taxes, and giving neighboring girls the eye, he was every inch the affable prospective citizen — proof, surely, that nationalities and identities are fluid and interchangeable. In keeping with the principles of modern multicultural France, the former Tunisian was entitled to participate in French society on an equal footing with those who can root their sense of nationhood in their Gaulish and Frankish forefathers. And by act of bureaucratic magic, through the issuance of a new passport, a social security number, and registration on the tax system, our affable Tunisian was transformed into a Frenchman — heir, it was argued, to the same French spirit that animated Voltaire, Rousseau, and Hugo. On the night of July 14th, this facile understanding of national belonging collapsed when the French spirit departed from Lahouaiej-Bouhlel as rapidly and mysteriously as it had allegedly descended on him. Motivated by the aspirations of his co-ethnics in distant, desert climes and armed with guns and grenades, the adopted ‘Frenchman’ boarded a large truck before making his way to the epicentre of Nice’s Bastille Day celebrations. Gathering speed, he drove with determination and calculation into crowds of men, women and children, swerving in pursuit of his victims, pulling their mangled limbs beneath his vehicle. Before he was shot dead by police, Lahouaiej-Bouhlel left in his wake a macabre trail of broken lives and bodies; little girls lying as lifeless as the fallen dolls beside them.
In a chaotic world in which such violence is numbing in its frequency, I was jarred by this event and left aghast at the world that will be passed on to my children. I was particularly angered and saddened by the above image. Perhaps because of its obvious power, I noticed an immediate social media backlash against the publication of images from Nice. The hypocrisy was stunning. Although the victim of his father’s negligence, images of the drowned ‘refugee’ toddler Aylan Kurdi have served as a rallying cry for multiculturalists and pro-invasion forces within our society for almost a year now. Most recently, a 1,300 square foot mural of the child’s corpse had been painted on a Frankfurt bridge in an attempt to “have people emotionally rethink their selfish fears of refugees coming to Germany.”
While images of dead children are evidently fair game for Marxist propaganda, a different set of rules appears to be in operation if the dead children in question are the undeniable victims of the hybridized interests of foreigners and the Left. Social media was awash almost immediately on the night of the 14th with pleas to delete images from Nice and ‘respect victims’ privacy,’ often from the kind of ‘refugees welcome’ types who wave posters of beached African corpses at candle-lit rallies. Our enemies do not want the kind of social action that might be provoked by the image of our young French child, and we can thus be sure that it will rarely feature in mainstream press coverage, and certainly never ‘go viral’ like that of the young Arab.
Liberal Hypocrisy in Action
Liberal hypocrisy aside, events in Nice revealed more novel aspects about our current situation. Although it would have been no real comfort to hear the French authorities parrot familiar nonsense about ‘doing something’ and ‘tackling radicalism,’ I was left speechless by the immediate official response to the latest catastrophe associated with the invasion of France. Following the crushing of innocent French citizens on their own soil, Prime Minister Manuel Valls’ statement that France is going to have to “learn to live with terrorism” was breath-taking in its coldness and its cynicism. More than that, it marked a break with decades of pretense that the liberal worldview is based on optimism, ‘progress,’ and the achievement of a wonderful and peaceful new society. In a France that has been in a consistent state of emergency for 19 months, the message, in that brief moment, was crystal clear: There is nothing ‘progressive’ about modern liberalism. Your society is regressing into violence and chaos. Your nation is slipping into the abyss. And you will have to learn to live with it.
When I was a little younger I used to daydream about living in an earlier time; one where world-changing events were taking place. It’s a temptation a lot of us can succumb to because we only intimately know our own lives and we have a curious tendency to assume that those in previous eras were somehow more exciting or significant. However, if we focus on what is going on in Europe and White nations globally at this time, it is difficult to deny that we are in fact living in the most rapid global transformation in history, and certainly the most volatile and precarious period in the history of our race. The transition of Europe into what Barbara Spectre described with sinister glee as ‘multicultural mode’ is both momentous and, for us, extremely dangerous. All signs in Europe, and indeed across all White nations, now suggest that even within this multicultural mode we are entering a new, more violent phase. Its ideological foundations laid in previous decades, we are now witnessing a rising tide of unrest and skirmishes that presage more significant future civil conflict. But do we, as Valls’ claims, have to ‘learn to live with it’?
Liberals inform us that we have to ‘learn to live with it’ because they offer us a very limited menu of social and political possibilities. Just as we were never consulted on whether or not we wanted mass immigration in the first place, we are never presented with the option of abandoning multiculturalism, and thus the ideological and demographic cancer that is slowly eating our nations alive. The menu of options is kept limited through strict liberal definitions of the problems we face.
For example, terrorism in France is now very frequently presented mainly as the result of French foreign policy. By locating the heart of the problem outside France, controllers of the narrative convince the public that changing anything in the domestic sphere is pointless. Even when domestic circumstances are taken into account, they are perversely skewed and then used to berate and blame the French for the violence being inflicted on them.
Take, for example, Pierre Haski’s diabolical charge that the French haven’t been generous enough to their newcomers and that France is “paying the price for allowing the development of ghettoes in its suburban areas and disenfranchised youth who do not feel welcome in mainstream French society.” All of these arguments and interpretations push conceivable actions and outcomes into an intellectual bottleneck that preclude more comprehensive solutions.
By way of contrast, ethnically-based nationalism is the only ideology and worldview that insists that we do not have to learn to live with the current fractured and violent nature of our societies. I don’t deny that the intervention of the French in the affairs of foreign nations has been counter-productive and in many cases senseless. The resultant clash between native European ideals (human rights, free speech, democracy) and more primitive societies with radically collectivist, kinship-based histories has not been conducive to international harmony.
However, people are not being killed in the streets of France because of French foreign policy. People are being killed in the streets of France because the perpetrators are Muslim and France has the largest proportion of Muslims relative to its general population in Europe — the result, as Islamic terrorism expert Jason Burke points out, of France importing “large numbers of labourers from former or existing colonies to help with post-war reconstruction.” In an ethnically homogenous France, the French could pursue any range of foreign policy options, with the only repercussions falling on the nation’s adventuring soldiers. Modern terrorism is thriving because multiculturalism obliterates national boundaries and with it the frontline of any conceivable war. The foreign and domestic spheres become one when human geography becomes liquid. Our people comfort themselves too often with the thought that Islam is based in ‘the Middle East,’ without realizing that multiculturalism has brought ‘the Middle East’ to their doorstep. Multiculturalism is the security equivalent of an army inviting its opponent to cross the field of battle and commence hostilities in its own trenches.
Multiculturalism has also fuelled new and evolving micro-cultures built on minority aggressions, and the outright rejection by minorities of the liberal fantasies of assimilation and integration. This is partly connected to the manifest inability of some minorities, predominantly those with a low IQ, to attain social and economic success even when the balance is tipped in their favor by liberal efforts at social engineering. Their resultant frustrations gradually fuel an evolution from the rejection of assimilation and integration to attacks on White society as a whole.
Although the process has been accelerated among Arabs because of religion, the same pattern may also be observed among African populations in White nations. Despite a substantial Black middle class (significantly the result of affirmative action policies), the great majority of the Black population throughout the West is unable to adjust to a contemporary society demanding impulse control and cognitive competence. The cross-over of mutual frustrations has manifested itself in the emergence of what Burke describes as “gangsta jihad” — the cross-pollination of Black subculture with Islam, resulting in “debased, ultra-violent culture” that along with rapidly increasing Black militancy will surely form the spearhead of eventual mass-violence against Whites. This in-built and inevitable failure of multiculturalism has been particularly acute in France, but has been observable in every Western nation.
While the multicultural cancer slowly metastasizes, to date France has been in a state of media-induced sedation. A Pew Research Centre study earlier this year reported that only “24 percent of French people were found to believe that diversity made France a worse place to live. A higher proportion, 26 percent, said it made France better, while 48 percent said that it didn’t make much difference.”
To what extent these results are attributable to cultural fears about appearing ‘racist, or to genuine blindness to the collapse of French society, is difficult to determine, but the muted French reaction to their social collapse is likely to continue. Already the narrative is being disseminated that the Nice attacker “radicalized his views very rapidly,” as if such an occurrence could mitigate the underlying problem of his alien ethnicity and identity. ‘Rapid radicalization’ also appears to have been part of the background to the recent shooting in Dallas of several White police officers by a militant Black possessing his own ethnic grievances and aspirations. While one can interchange religions, locations and liberal interpretations, the result inevitably involves White deaths at the hands of low IQ, ethnically distant groups pursuing their own vision of “gangsta jihad.”
Click for Full Text!
