A CULTURE OF TERROR

Nothing more needs to be said about the Muslim attack in Westminster, London. These sorts of attacks are happening on a monthly basis around Europe, just as the rape of our girls and women and common assault of our boys and men is happening on a daily basis. But there is no war against us, we are told. This, apparently, is normal then.

 

 

It is also apparently normal to have a Paki Muslim Mayor of London. Sadiq Khan finally emerged a day later more to dismiss Donald Trump Jr's tweet that expressed his disbelief at how far the West has fallen, quoting Khan's own statement that this sort of thing is "part and parcel of living in a big city". Khan was given the opportunity to practice his taqiyya, stating, "We have diverse communities living in peace together." Obviously not. He also stated ominously, "What I do know is that the threat level in London and across the country is severe. That means an attack is highly likely." And so he and his brethren keep us in a state of terror.

 

The reaction to Trump's tweet was interesting. The universal condemnation by the media demonstrates a severe self-loathing and perverse love for the Other, particularly for those who wish to destroy us. It is pseudo-intellectualised masochism and nothing more. One can see their fetishes for the Other in their portrayals and language they use. About the terrorist Khalid Masood, The Telegraph have several articles in which he is varyingly described as a "bright student turned troublemaker" and as being "stronger than a bull"; The Times examines his youth, when he was "one of the lads from a great family" and "a confident cheeky teenager who enjoyed chasing girls, smoked and dabbled in drugs"; The Mail Online leads today with "How the Westminster killer lived with his glamorous businesswoman partner and two devoted daughters in a £700k gated home".

 

I have used these three online newspapers quite deliberately, as they constitute the three allegedly right-wing newspapers in Britain (The Sun and The Star being more comics). It exposes them as nothing of the sort and as being infected with the same cancerous nihilism as all the rest. There are articles that reveal his negative attributes, but the descriptions I have mentioned come from the articles they were leading with yesterday morning and mostly from the headlines writ in bold. One notes all these build him up into an idealised superhuman who merely took a wrong turn in life.  Superior strength and intelligence make him out to be a superhero, while his family-orientedness makes him seem caring, and his activities of chasing girls and smoking give the impression of a jack-the-lad. Notice his alleged relation to drugs: the word "dabble" gives the impression of frivolousness, of triviality, of it being the activity of a lovable rogue. Then there is his success story, measured, of course, by money, by the free-market system, in which his white trophy wife is one of the jackpot prizes for a non-White. And The Mail does so love to push the miscegenation angle.

 

 

 

The roots of this thinking are undoubtedly Christian. While Christianity's universalist doctrine sees nothing wrong with miscegenation, its obsession with the "fallen", with forgiveness and with the possibility of redemption has led to an unhealthy fixation with the criminal. To quote St Augustine:

 

"Forgiveness is the remission of sins."

"There is no possible source of evil except good."

"Human law cannot punish or forbid all evil, since while doing away with evils, it would do away with many good things, which would hinder the cause of the common good."

"There is something in humility that strangely exalts the heart."

 

I've put the latter quotation last deliberately, because humility, when pushed, can become humiliation, can become the will to be humiliated and terrorised. The fact is that Christians, deep down, want to be victims like their lord and saviour. They want to suffer, for suffering is a moral good. This, when coupled with their attraction to the criminal, is a recipe for nihilism. The culture they thus subconsciously wish to create is one in which they are held in terrorem.

 

Yet there has always been that side of the human psyche that strives for power. The will to power is natural and Christianity stamping on it through the ushering in of guilt complexes has created an internal conflict in European Man between Christian doctrine and Natural Law. The twentieth-century successors to Karl Marx recognised this and pushed against both by using Christian morality against the Christian tradition itself (which still had healthy remnants of Paganism in it) and against Nature, which has created the twenty-first century schizoid man we see now. Bear in mind that almost everyone who goes into politics, the media, education and finance go through the same tertiary education system, where they are brainwashed into neo-Marxist thought by their university professors. A contemporary post-Marxian thinker like Slavoj Žižek, a man whose constant nervous tics betray a cankered mind, is quite open about this. Here, although himself an atheist, he can readily be seen pushing his nihilism through Christianity:

 

This brings us to the third position above and beyond the first two (the sovereign God, the finite God), that of a suffering God: not a triumphalist God who always wins at the end, although "his ways are mysterious," since he secretly pulls all the strings; not a God who exerts cold justice, since he is by definition always right; but a God who – like the suffering Christ on the Cross - is agonized, assumes the burden of suffering, in solidarity with the human misery. It was already Schelling who wrote: "God is a life, not merely a being. But all life has a fate and is subject to suffering and becoming.... Without the concept of a humanly suffering God...all of history remains incomprehensible." Why? Because God’s suffering implies that He is involved in history, affected by it, not just a transcendent Master pulling the strings from above: God’s suffering means that human history is not just a theater of shadows, but the place of the real struggle, the struggle in which the Absolute itself is involved and its fate is decided. This is the philosophical background of Dietrich Bonhoffer’s deep insight that, after shoah, "only a suffering God can help us now" – a proper supplement to Heidegger’s "Only a God can still save us!" from his last interview. One should therefore take the statement that "the unspeakable suffering of the six millions is also the voice of the suffering of God" quite literally: the very excess of this suffering over any "normal" human measure makes it divine.... Which is why the secular-humanist reactions to phenomena like shoah or gulag (AND others) is experienced as insufficient: in order to be at the level of such phenomena, something much stronger is needed, something akin to the old religious topic of a cosmic perversion or catastrophy in which the world itself is "out of joint".

 

One also notes him pushing the new secular religion of Holocaustianity too, but, of course, with the same Christian, Semitic morality at its base. Žižek, like most of his Leftist pathological liars and nihilists, wish to ally themselves to militant Islam. They pretend, of course, that they wish to build bridges with moderate Islam, but Islam is Islam. It is easy to see what the dogma of Islam is, because the instructions regarding terrorism are written in the Qur'an:

 

"I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.” Qur'an 8:12

 “Let not the unbelievers think they will ever get away. They have not the power so to do. Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy…” Qur'an 8:59-60

 “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Qur'an 9:5

 

That is just a taste. The Left wish to use the Muslim hordes as their jackbooted thugs to keep themselves in power and the masses in a state of terror, while keeping their hands clean. And simultaneously, they wish themselves to be terrorised by Muslims, by the Other, as a fetish. It is a cult of sado-masochism that has been foisted by the elites onto the masses at large. The real enemy, they tell us, is "the Far Right", by which they mean anyone who recognises Natural Law and prior forms of identity. The real enemy is apparently the likes of me and many who read this website, who have killed no one. This line was again parroted by police and politicians alike after the Westminster attack. Muslims are afraid of Far Right terrorism, they said. It is merely an excuse for the Leftist political elite to create the global police state thery have always had in mind. This is not secret or even new. Anyone can now access online all speeches and debates given in the British House of Commons, and, on 13th December 1933, the future prime minister of Great Britain, Clement Attlee, said the following:

 

'I do not believe much in the limited idea of an international police force which is to be merely a sort of super-force over a large number of national armies, navies and air forces. We believe that it is necessary to get rid of all national armies, navies and air forces and to substitute an international police force for it. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary cast considerable scorn, some of it quite unjustified, on this idea of an international police force. Those statements were based on their conception that an international police force would only be something to hold in terrorem over a number of armed national states. I do not think you can succeed by that method. You have to go the whole way…’ 

‘We ought to envisage the creation of an international police force as a deliberate attempt to build up a World State. I know that a great many points can be raised against it, but, after all, the objections are purely relative'

 

One notes the use of in terrorem again. The Left wishes to leave the masses with a false choice: between terrorism by the Other and state terrorism. Yet it is one and the same. The state allows the Other to commit acts of terrorism because the masses will turn to the state for help, and the Other knows the state it not serious about combatting their acts. It is not just about Islam. In the last few days since the Westminster attack, there has been a gun attack in Lille and a car attack in Islington. The government were quick to tell us these were not terrorist attacks. This is a lie. What they are doing is bending language, because they know everyone associates terrorism with Islam. It is a tacit admission that Islam is a religion predicated on terrorism. Yet these two incidents are acts of terrorism because they keep the masses in a state of terror. And I mean state in both senses, because the government wills this condition.

 

The real choice is clear: it is the choice between life and death, between the vitalist Right and the nihilistic Left. I do not speak here in terms of political parties, for what is seen as left and right has been corrupted, but in terms of the eternal, the Right as champions of Nature, of Natural Law, of prior identity, and of an organic culture pertaining to that identity. It is what the Left, that which is sinister, one remembers, reacts against. They are the first reactionaries. And in their reaction, they demonise us as Far Right. Well, better to be Far Right than far wrong.