What Would Bismarck Do?

Tags

American Liberty, Christian, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Germany, germany europe, invention of germany, iron, iron and blood, iron chancellor, iron man, iron man p, Islam, Italia, Italy, Jews, machiavelli, Multiculturalism, nation, Nationalism, Otto Von Bismarck, Paris, Patriotism, polish, pride, reunification of germany, state, Sweden, Twitter, unification of germany, War

A few years ago, I was enjoying a lazy evening in my university library when I noticed that an essay was due for the following day. I had been completely unaware of it until then (having been absent on the day it was set). To my further anxiety, I noted that I was also unaware of its subject, the Father of Germany – Otto Von Bismarck.

I can be excused for the latter offence, I think. In British schools, we are taught an extremely limited curriculum (usually covering only the Holocaust, Henry VIII and Slavery in any detail). Bismarck was a familiar name to me, as it is to most people, but I had never been given a reason to make him any more vivid or lifelike in my imagination.

Needless to say, I got no sleep that night, spending the whole period in the library, pumped full of machine coffee and knee deep in a pile of thick, dusty books. But despite the anxious mood in which I was prompted to discover it, the story of Bismarck has proven enduringly fascinating to me. More than anyone in European history, Bismarck seemed to have been a living embodiment of the romantic ideal – Nietzsche’s ‘Ubermensch’, Carlyle’s ‘Great Man’, Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’ – a superman of reality, gifted far beyond the ordinary and with a drive to succeed that dramatically alters world history. There wouldn’t even be a ‘Germany’ without Bismarck, without his deviousness, intellect and personal strength. He is the author of Germany. Germany is his magnum opus. What other major country can call itself the product of one man’s cunning?

I believe the elephantine heroism exhibited by Bismarck goes some way to explain the quintessentially Germanic reverence for strong leaders (a reverence which, of course, went terribly astray in the 20th century). Bismarck was the proof of the German type. He demonstrated what a German could achieve. In this regard, he can be compared to Abu Bakr, the Muslim leader who conquered most of what is now defamed as the ‘Muslim World’. Bakr, like Bismarck, demonstrated an ideal – an ideal which Muslims try (in vain) to emulate right up to the present day (see, Bin Laden, Baghdadi, Zarqawi etc…). They are unwilling to accept that Bakr was a one-off giant, unrepresentative of the human average. Hitler and the Jihadists are thus products of the same delusion.

Still, unlike Bakr (a talented barbarian), Bismarck still has lessons to teach the leaders of the civilised world. For example, what would a man like Bismarck do in the context of the Euro-Islamic war? Let’s speculate now with the aid of three famous Bismarck quotes.

“A conquering army on the border will not be stopped by eloquence.”

This saying could hardly be more timely. As in Bismarck’s tinderbox era, Europe today finds itself under a long and potentially devastating siege. This time, the conquering army is not composed of other Europeans, but represents a detachment of our most ancient geo-cultural rival. Bismarck is surely correct to say that eloquence, reason and speech-making are bladeless weapons, useless in times of war and crisis. What we need is a physical, material blockade, strong enough to keep the hordes from advancing on our cities. In the case of the ‘refugee’ invasion, we should be deploying a massive, pan-European military force to Southern and South-Eastern coastlines. Anybody who shows up and is unable to prove they are Christian or of another non-Muslim minority faith must be turned away. If they try to rush the borders after being warned, they should be shot. That’s what war is like.

“With a gentleman I am always a gentleman and a half, and when I have to do with a pirate, I try to be a pirate and a half.”

Bismarck here uses ‘pirate’ to mean barbarian. He is correct to say that one should adjust one’s manner and values depending upon the force one is faced with. Since with Islam we are faced with a force of barbarism, we need not be overly civilised in defending ourselves.

“The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia.”

As regards European politics, this is a timeless truth. No attempt to secure Europe is feasible if it does not factor in the influence of Russia. To have thought otherwise is the foundational error of NATO. If Islam is to be kept at bay, Russia must be incorporated into our security structure and provided with a role reflecting her size and innate capabilities.

Though the age of Great Europeans has passed, their words and wisdom remain as relevant and necessary as in their own time.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Do the Palestinians Want Palestine or Israel?

Tags

Alcohol, Caroline Glick, Defend the modern world, Demonstration Australia, Demonstration London, Gaza conflict, Innovation, Islamism, Israel-Palestine, Jealousy, Jerusalem, Liberalism, Lily Allen, Middle East, Modernity, Nationalism, Palestine, politics, Self-deception, Sexual Freedom, Shiny, Shop, Shopping

“Man can do what he wills but he cannot choose what he wills.” – Schopenhauer.

So, another war is raging between the Jews of Israel and the Arabs of Gaza.

We know the routine from here. When the guns eventually fall silent and the silos close, Western elites will pontificate to Israel as if they themselves were virgins to violence; the UN will achieve nothing at a furious pace; Hamas meanwhile will probably claim a strategic ‘victory’ and won’t – I suppose – be wholly unjustified in doing so.

It seems the Israelis have once again been suckered into a publicity nightmare for zero strategic gain. Only a concerted effort to topple Hamas will prevent rockets being fired into Israel. Hamas knows this, and starts these wars on purpose, daring Israel to make a move. Israel also knows this, or should do by now.

But I don’t want to talk at length about this current dispute. Rather let’s use the occasion to broaden our view and ask a question about the fundamental clash of interests underlying this cycle of violence.

The standard view of the Israel-Palestine conflict (or that upheld by the UN and Western public opinion) is that it involves a claim by two peoples to the same territory. The troubles of the region originate from this simple contest, and are only later exacerbated by religious belief.

The radical or revisionist view of the conflict claims it is the other way around. The territory is secondary and religion (in particular Islam) motivates most of the violence.

A third view, and one I’d like to advance today, considers the economic factors of the divide and proposes that the advocates of at least one of the competing peoples are purposely deluding themselves.

Anyone who has read or studied basic psychology will be well-placed to judge the capacity human beings have for self-deceit, and that the thing one ‘wants’ is not necessarily what one claims to want or even what one wishes to want. If a problem-drinker, for example, goes to the corner shop for a bottle of gin, he may sincerely believe along the way that he is going to buy a newspaper. The human mind is so fallible that it can be manipulated even by itself.

In this context, consider this: Do the Palestinians really want ‘Palestine’ with its olive groves, rolling hills and ancient alleyways? Or do they in fact desire Israel, with its shopping malls, freedom and high standard of living?

It’s surprising how rarely this question is put to the world, and tragic too, since it can illuminate a hidden simplicity behind a seemingly complicated problem.

Given its strategic urgency, there have been innumerable remedies suggested for the Israel-Palestine conflict over the previous few decades, from the UN-backed ‘return to 1967 borders’, through the ‘Arab peace plan’ sponsored by Saudi Arabia, to the ‘three-state solution’, to the US ‘Roadmap’, to the most recent Lieberman Plan.

The last of these is most relevant to the context we have set ourselves.

The ‘Lieberman plan’ – named after its author Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party – suggests that a two state solution include the exchange of the Arab-populated areas of Israel for the Jewish populated areas of the West Bank, thus avoiding the need for a population ‘transfer’.

According to this plan, the Galilee region of Northern Israel would be attached to the bloc of West Bank inhabited by Palestinians. The Israeli Arabs in the area of Israel to be detached would lose their Israeli citizenship and become citizens of Palestine instead. The Jewish settlements of the West Bank would be attached to Israel proper. A Jewish majority in Israel would thus be assured, and the ‘problem’ of Jews on the West Bank would be solved at a stroke.

Personally, I don’t think this idea is workable in practice, but the reaction the policy has provoked is almost worth the effort put into proposing it.

The Arab citizens of Israel have branded the plan philosophically ‘racist’ and morally outrageous. The Palestinian establishment outside of Israel’s borders has also condemned the plan, presenting a claim of native descent specifically to the land currently tended to by the Jews, and re-stating a commitment to the return of refugees to towns within the same territory.

Let’s be clear. If, as it is routinely claimed, the Palestinians merely want a state of their own, the Lieberman plan should be sweetly palatable to them. It delivers immediately the state they claim to crave, and even supplies the Palestinian people with a social unity they have arguably never before experienced. Hamas in particular would get its wish of a Judenrein Islamic state, emptied of democracy, development and dirty Kuffar. The PA would be given full political sovereignty over its own citizens. What is there to object to?

The answer can only be that it leaves a highly developed, wealthy and democratic society living next door to them. This society and its high level of living is what is craved, and only by its destruction or infiltration can the Palestinian blood-lust be satisfied.

It has been well noted by travellers for many centuries that Islamic countries tend – almost without exception – to be dirt-piles. Places where nobody of depth or youthfulness could happily spend a week. Why then did any Leftist imagine Gaza could turn out differently?

For years, the PA and its Western cheerleaders squealed for the liberation of that strip of coastline. Now they have it and the rockets never stop coming.

Is that really due to those IDF troops calmly patrolling the other side of the border? Or does it actually involve those skyscrapers towering in the far distance, tortuously superior and forever out of reach?

In some dusty and eccentric corner of the Palestinian mind, does the thought arise that those sparkling buildings are the natural fruit of the territory, and not the work of those who have settled it? Do they imagine that they would be enjoying that same prosperity had the Jews never returned?

I don’t believe the Palestinians will ever be satisfied with gifts of land, however extravagant. There are countless states they could relocate to, and if it really was peace they craved, they would already be in them. But that is not and was never the point. They have glimpsed a better life through a forest of watchtowers and cannot now forget it.

D, LDN.

‘Islam Versus Europe’, Immigration and the Jews.

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Holocaust, Jew, Karl Marx, Kevin Macdonald, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, Nazi, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Tommy Robinson, United States, Zionism

A friend once asked me why Neo-Nazis hate ‘Zionism’ so much. ‘Surely…’ he said ‘…they don’t care about the Arabs.’.

I explained as best I could that ‘Zionism’ to a Nazi means something very different than it does to a Western Liberal. For the former, ‘Zionism’ is a shorthand for any organised Jewish Political force, real or imagined.  The kind of political force usually intended is a conspiracy to promote (or enforce) multi-racialism on the European world, with the ultimate goal of wiping out the White race via miscegenation (encouraged by a Jewish media and pornography industry).

It’s easy to dismiss such ideas as crackpot, if not borderline psychotic. They are not comfortably distinct from black helicopters behind the clouds, or brain-rotting chemicals in the water supply.

But it would be unfair to dismiss them so completely.

Back in July (hat-tip Enza Ferreri), the respected CounterJihad blogger IslamversusEurope  (‘Cheradenine’) published a lengthy post reviewing the book ‘Culture of Critique’ by Canadian author Kevin Macdonald. To my surprise, Cheradenine, a great foe of Islamisation and terrorism, said the following:  ‘

“Having now read MacDonald’s books A culture of critique and A people that shall dwell alone…. I have to say they have made an unexpectedly strong impression on me. I now understand antisemitism. I wouldn’t say I now share the feeling but I am at least much further along that spectrum of sentiment that I was before.”

He goes on to explain his reasoning:

“MacDonald documents, in excruciating detail, the overwhelmingly disproportionate Jewish involvement in intellectual movements that have worked to delegitimise and denigrate the traditional forms of cohesiveness characteristic of European societies, including patriotism, church and family structures…..Communism blighted eastern Europe; multiculturalism is destroying western Europe. Although Jews are clearly not solely responsible for either, it’s reasonable to ask whether either ideology would have achieved such “success” as it did achieve, establishing doctrinal dominance in the minds of policy-making elites, had Jews never immigrated to Europe. In my opinion, the answer is no. Without Jewish political and intellectual activism, without the Holocaust, without the Hitler stick ready to beat down any manifestation of European pride or patriotism, Europeans would not now be losing their countries to Islam.”

OK. Let’s address these points.

I do not personally find the idea that Jews instinctively promote societies which are not repressively homogenous unlikely, but nor do I find it disturbing. It is perfectly natural for Jews to desire a Nationalism they can be part of, and to combat a Nationalism which excludes or threatens them. The cultural totalitarianism of the Middle Ages offered no comfort for the Jews, despite their eschatological importance to the Christian faith itself, and post-enlightenment liberalisation was strongly desired by Christian minorities (Catholics in Protestant countries and vice versa) too. This was (at least initially) nothing like a conspiracy, but merely the fight for a better society.

The modern blight of Communism too is not something to lay solely at the door of the Jews. Communism precedes Karl Marx (who merely provided its most eloquent expression). Class interests and the desire to correct economic ‘injustices’ arose organically among the gentile working classes, and may never have required the assistance of Jews to enact a political effect.

Similarly, modern ‘Multiculturalism’ is as much a class movement as it is an ideology. Multiculturalism is favoured by the business elite and the liberals of the middle class, both of whom associate the objections of the working class with ignorance and inferiority. A desire to not be seen as ‘racist’ is not motivated by Holocaust guilt alone, but by an arrogant wish to prove oneself superior to the uneducated.

As for the author of ‘Culture of Critique’, one must be honest and call him at minimum a suspect character. Professor Macdonald is a sometime associate of David Irving, and a venerated hero of the Ethno-Nationalist fringe. His work typically attracts the dregs of sub-political society and is animated by a science (‘Evolutionary Psychology’) that is rarely accepted as mainstream. As John Derbyshire pointed out in his evaluation of Macdonald, the very idea of a ‘group evolutionary strategy’ (vital to Macdonald’s argument) is open to doubt:

‘The Jewish over-representation in important power centers of Gentile host societies became possible only after Jewish emancipation—which, like abolition of the slave trade, was an entirely white-Gentile project! Did the genes of 12th-century Jews “know” emancipation was going to happen 700 years on? How? If they did not, what was the point of their “evolutionary strategy”? There is a whiff of teleology about this whole business.’

I agree. Perhaps even more than a whiff.

In sum, Jews have long been at the forefront of the struggle against Islamism and I truly hope that Cheradenine’s unfortunate fascination for Mr Macdonald’s work doesn’t precede a split in the CounterJihad movement. I have always subscribed to the ‘Big Tent’ ideal when it comes to this issue. It will take Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Ba’hai, Christians and nonbelievers working in agreement for any kind of successful resistance to be formed. A defensive phalanx; not a gabble of factions divided by race.

D, LDN