October 13, 2017
That may sound like a contradiction, but it makes sense perfect sense if you’re a predatory Jew.
According to Sasha Polakow-Suransky’s op-ed, “liberal democracy” means unelected officials like judges should be given all the power as long as they consistently rule against the interests of the majority they oversee. To invoke the will of the people is to warp “Western tradition” says the parasite.
On July 14, 2016, as French families strolled along Nice’s seafront promenade, a Tunisian man driving a large truck rammed into a crowd, killing 86 people. A month later, the mayor of nearby Cannes declared that “burkinis” — a catchall term for modest swimwear favored by many religious women — would be banned from the city’s beaches; a municipal official called the bathing suits “ostentatious clothing” expressing an “allegiance to terrorist movements that are at war with us.”
One of the law’s first victims was a third-generation Frenchwoman who was ordered by the police to strip off her veil while onlookers shouted, “Go back to your country.” Still, many French politicians and intellectuals rushed to defend the ban. The former president Nicolas Sarkozy called modest swimwear “a provocation”; Alain Finkielkraut, a prominent philosopher, argued that “the burkini is a flag.” But what they presented as a defense of secular liberal values was in fact an attack on them — a law, masquerading as neutral, had explicitly targeted one religious group.
When rapid immigration and terrorist attacks occur simultaneously — and the terrorists belong to the same ethnic or religious group as the new immigrants — the combination of fear and xenophobia can be dangerous and destructive. In much of Europe, fear of jihadists (who pose a genuine security threat) and animosity toward refugees (who generally do not) have been conflated in a way that allows far-right populists to seize on Islamic State attacks as a pretext to shut the doors to desperate refugees, many of whom are themselves fleeing the Islamic State, and to engage in blatant discrimination against Muslim fellow citizens.
But this isn’t happening only in European countries. In recent years, anti-immigration rhetoric and nativist policies have become the new normal in liberal democracies from Europe to the United States. Legitimate debates about immigration policy and preventing extremism have been eclipsed by an obsessive focus on Muslims that paints them as an immutable civilizational enemy that is fundamentally incompatible with Western democratic values.
This argument has a long pedigree. It can be traced back to the Dreyfus Affair, when the virulently anti-Semitic writer Maurice Barrès warned that immigrants wanted to impose their way of life on France and that it would spell the “ruin of our fatherland.” “They are in contradiction to our civilization,” Barrès wrote in 1900. He saw French identity as rooted purely in his bloodline, declaring, “I defend my cemetery.”
Today’s version of the argument is: if you have foreign blood and don’t behave appropriately, then you don’t get a passport.
Calais and Charlottesville may be nearly 4,000 miles apart, but the ideas motivating far-right activists in both places are the same. When white nationalists descended on Charlottesville in August, the crowd chanted “Jews will not replace us” and “you will not replace us” before one of its members allegedly killed a woman with his car and others beat a black man; last week, they returned bearing torches and chanting similar slogans.
Just as Mr. Trump has plenty to say about Islamic State attacks but generally has no comment about hate crimes against Indians, blacks and Muslims, the European far-right is quick to denounce any violent act committed by a Muslim but rarely feels compelled to forcefully condemn attacks on mosques or neo-Nazis marching near synagogues on Yom Kippur.
Their ideology is especially dangerous because they present themselves as natives valiantly defending the homeland. Because they look and sound like most of their co-citizens, they garner sympathy from the majority in ways that Islamists never could. White nationalism is in many ways a mirror image of radical Islamism. Both share a nostalgic obsession with a purist form of identity: for one, a medieval Islamic state; for the other, a white nation unpolluted by immigrant blood.
If the influence of white nationalists continues to grow, they will eventually seek to trample the rights of immigrants and minorities and dismiss courts and constitutions as anti-democratic because they don’t reflect the supposed preferences of “the people.” Their rise threatens to transform countries that we once thought of as icons of liberalism into democracies only in name.
Notice how in this Jew’s definition of liberalism, it calls for whites to be forced at gunpoint to embrace liberalism, while at the same time guaranteeing the right of groups like Muslims to reject it… in the same country!
The only explanation for this is a desire to keep one group virile (gender roles, collectivism, religious zealotry) and another sterile (feminism, individualism, degeneration, small families). This is why if a German youth ever dares to punch an Arab or African bully back, the entire extended family comes out to jump the helpless white only-child from a single parent household.
Then Sasha Polakow-Suransky’s unaccountable “courts” give the culprits suspended community service for the crime!
The goal is to keep whites under permanent siege and suffering from terror in their daily lives so that they are never able to sit back, take a minute to think, and then hatch a plan to resist Jewish tyranny.
Thus, we get to the article’s point: the main threat to Polakow-Suransky’s “West” is “anti-Semitism,” which he believes will bloom if white people are allowed to choose their own rulers.
He’s right. The key to Westerners taking back their countries is to openly confront the international Jew.
His references of anti-Jewish thinkers and intellectuals are mostly from before World War II. Jews have always pursued the exact same political program they put into practice today, the only thing that has changed is the Occident’s appetite to fight them. The tools for censorship and suppression have also gotten more sophisticated.
Since WW2 they have sailed smoothly with almost no obstacles – look at the results!
The Alt-Right knows it is on the right side of history. The Jews know this as well. We’re the only two relevant political forces that know what’s actually going on in the world. That’s why they’re pulling out every weapon at their disposal (and inventing new ones) in an attempt to stymie our folkish revolution once and for all.