Growing up, I remember being informed by various female school teachers and former Flower Children that “if women were in charge,” there’d be no more wars (among other things), because...you know...women are about caring and sharing and the only reason why there’s violence in the first place is because of testosterone and penal rivalries...und so weiter...

There is, of course, a kernel of truth to such claims. No doubt, Paris abducted Helen out of a blinding lust that all men, and only men, can understand. That said, anyone who has ever witnessed female relations in High School recognize that the fairer sex is more than capable of vindictive violence. (Mencken quipped that the definition of a misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate one another.)

Whatever the case, the Obama administration’s foreign-policy team offers all but definitive proof that women have the gene for bellicosity. Obama’s intellectual guiding light, Samantha Power, has written tomes scolding Washington for not intervening militarily enough over the past century. Hillary cackles over the brutal death of a foe. And then there’s Susan Rice, Obama’s UN ambassador, whose sepia skin tone might led one to believe that she has more than one reason to oppose the war-making ways of “The Man.”

No so! Today, China and Russia wisely vetoed a resolution that would, quite likely, have been a precursor to regime change in Syria (much like the Libya adventure began as a UN mandate for a no-fly zone last March). Rice reacted to this offense much like a bitchy HR manager who feels compelled to lecture her cubicle-dwelling underlings after “SOMEBODY took my Pad Thai leftovers from the fridge…I don’t know who it is, but I have suspicions!”

“The United States is disgusted that  a couple of members of this Council continue to prevent  us from fulfilling our sole purpose,” U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said. “For months this Council has been held hostage by a couple of members,” she said, referring to Russia and China, who she said had been “delaying and stripping bare any text to force Assad to stop his actions.”

Without referring to Russia by name, she said the vetoes were “even more shameful” given that Russia has continued to sell weapons to to Syria.  She called the vetoes “unforgivable” and said “any further blood that flows will be on their hands.”

ABC News

“We should expect tyranny to result from democracy, the most savage subjection from an excess of liberty”.

-Plato, Republic, Book VIII, 564 a

This December, as many Americans attended to their rituals of shopping, spectator sports and celebrity voyeurism, the 2012 fiscal year’s National Defense Authorization Act was passed by the U.S. Congress. It has now been signed into law by President Obama. This legislation has attracted some controversy, if characteristically muted, thanks to one of its provisions in particular. The U.S. military will be granted the power to detain citizens on the soil of the Land of the Free for indefinite periods of time. All that’s needed to do away with due process is the suspicion of involvement with “terrorism,” an activity elastically defined[1].

Well-meaning commentators have expressed some shock at the passage of an act that enables martial law and interminable vacations to Guantanamo. America was founded on the concept of inalienable rights! Critics and opponents of the liberal order, however, are in no way surprised at this development, for it was decades in the making. With the NDAA, our policy elites have appropriated a mask of legality to manage the chaos they themselves engineered. The rights once upheld as inalienable were ultimately a fanciful construct, a fiction employed in the service of enlightened government.

As Western democracy evolves and extends its power across the world, its ascendance must be secured and made absolute. Serious resistance abroad and at home will surely be crushed. With hearty approval of the new act, Senator Lindsey Graham remarked that America had now assumed its place as a segment of a much larger battlefield for freedom. Old fairy tales of civic virtue have outlived their usefulness in an age of globalism; the new narrative of universal terror assures us liberty and equality forever. A CIA officer-turned-security consultant explains the need for ubiquitous surveillance and government intrusion into all spheres of life:

If we watch – in the United States, in Germany, Sweden, the U.K. – things are constantly at a low boil and we always need to be on our guard…This can take place just about anywhere.

Terror and tyranny are inevitable byproducts of democracy, the one legitimate form of rule permitted by Washington to the tribes of humanity. Our struggle for the rights of man must by necessity incur some casualties, but such bloodshed waters the tree of liberty. Tabulated (or not) as collateral damage, Pashtun villagers are ripped apart by Hellfire missiles launched by drones so that one day girls from that very community may go to an NGO-run school and learn about voting and contraception. Yet when a Pakistani who has taken U.S. citizenship attempts to blow up Times Square in revenge, no one in America’s political and media establishment seems the least bit curious as to his motives. The entire affair is written off as business as usual in the Open Society--after all, it could have taken place anywhere. This regime is the culmination of liberalism’s logic; it is what U.S. forces patrolling the Hindu Kush and all other corners of the earth defend. We fight them over there to invite them over here, for peace and unity in our world must first be enforced through universal war.

“This is sin”, said a bloodied Muammar Gaddafi to his tormenters in a last moment of humiliation. “Do you know right from wrong?” After NATO airstrikes destroyed his convoy and forced him to flee on foot through Sirte, Libya’s deposed leader was seized from a drainage ditch. Footage off of a captor’s cell phone shows a howling rebel mob parading him along the dusty city blocks of his birthplace. Beaten, pistol-whipped and sodomized with a knife, Gaddafi was then summarily executed with a gunshot to the temple. His body was displayed as a trophy of war, and his secrets were effectively buried, never to be revealed at another farcical international tribunal in The Hague.

U.S. policymakers weren’t likely planning on the mass release of a Gaddafi snuff film. In their jubilation and braggadocio, the Libyan “freedom-fighters” ruined the enjoyment of a private viewing session available only to a chosen few within the Beltway. And so an eccentric dictator with a terrorist past and delusions of pan-African grandeur evoked unforced human sympathy as he suffered and died before a world audience. Colonel Gaddafi knew grave sin well; this was the man who ordered the passengers of Pan Am 103 blown out of the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. He had since come to terms with the West, paying restitution to the victims’ families and scrapping his nuclear weapons program in favor of restored diplomatic and commercial ties eighteen years later. Yet when Benghazi and the rest of Cyrenaica rose up against the regime in early 2011, Washington, London and Paris smelled blood in the water.

"The West is the best and we'll do the rest," sang Jim Morrison on that damning 1967 indictment of poor parenting and pharmacological excess, The End. Despite it's intended irony, the lyric nevertheless reflected the realities underlying US foreign policy at the time, which consisted of believing in the Western way, stepping up to the mark when challenged, taking responsibility for what happened on one’s watch, and trying to win in the cold light of day and with the world’s media watching. Heck, America still gets it in the neck for that famous photo of one gook shooting another gook in the head.

With the Soviet Union doing such a good job of being a shining beacon of progress in those days with its cheap shots against, post-colonialism, inequalities of wealth, and mean differences in height and body mass, America had to do its best to fight the good fight and to go down with the ship when holed below the waterline, as it did in the 1970s, a decade which can be likened to one enormous session of navel gazing: cue Apocalypse Now.

Not in vain is Russia heir to the traditions of Byzantium; intrigue, secret diplomacy and espionage are integral to the Third Rome’s strategic culture. Over the past decade Vladimir Putin has proven a consummate practitioner of statecraft in this fashion, as well as an able defender of the national interest. Yet where is he leading Russia? The answer remains a mystery. His formidable will and predisposition to action are impressive, but only in the service of a higher principle will these gifts signify greatness.

Barring any extraordinary surprises or disasters, Putin will again be president of the Russian Federation by spring of next year. His liberal protégé, Dmitry Medvedev, is slated for a return to the premier’s seat (now occupied by VVP, as he is referred to in Moscow), thereby flipping the leadership “tandem” back to its natural state. Titles in contemporary politics carry limited meaning. It’s clear that Putin was and is the Gosudar’, Russia’s ruler; he’s a Byzantine emperor, Petersburg technocrat and KGB veteran all at once. And his operating methods today still reflect the formative years he spent in Soviet intelligence.

Ding, Dong, the oppressive dictator is dead! And don't fret, Libyans, that civil order has been destroyed, for soon NATO will install wonderful “Democracy” in your homeland! ...

While my guess is that the American public couldn't care less about the recent toppling of the Gaddafi regime, if it's aware of it at all, the event has revealed, once again, the small, windowless box in which the commentariat reside.

• A left-liberal professor, who from 2003-2008 defined the anti-war blogosphere, is solemnly quoting Niebuhr as he openly supports Obama's NATO intervention and the rebellion.

• It took Washington and NATO an embarrassing five months to topple the regime of a colorful tin-pot dictator, proving, definitively, that the world's supposed “Superpower” is barely capable of small “Jonah Goldberg wars,” fought through surrogates; big ones against regional powers like China and Russia would most certainly prove disastrous. And yet for a Beltway liberal who styled himself a “realist” in the Bush years, Libya marks a “win” for Washington. (Steve Clemons isn't the only “realist” living in a dreamworld...) 

• The “conservative” response, as represented by people like former UN Ambassador John Bolton, is to cheer on “democracy,” but fret that some “Islamicists” might be among the rebels NATO has been backing. (Libyans must learn to elect good men.)

All are on the same page that America is an interventionary force that must spread its political and economic system abroad—and by the D word, they certainly don't mean the will of the people, which in the Middle East and North Africa is likely something close Hamas, nor even liberalism. Democracy means, as the South Park song goes, a pacified, mass population getting the opportunity to choose between a Douche and a Turd, both of whom don't pose the slightest challenge to Washington's dollar-debt-oil world order, as Muammar Gaddafi most certainly did.

And in many ways, the ongoing implosion of America's debt-financed empire reveals Washington's motivations all the more starkly.

Iraq and Afghanistan might have evolved into pointless quagmires; however, when they were launched, they had the shine of the Force of History and Progress sweeping across the desert. The question was how to restrain, or at least ethically harness, American omnipotence.

From the beginning, the Libyan campaign has seemed like something desperate and pathetic—at best, Samantha Powers's fever-dream; at worst, a blatant power grab.

It's worth remembering that on March 19, shortly after NATO became involved, the rag-tag crew of anti-Gaddafi rebels decided to launch a new private central bank, an arrangement more to Washington's liking than Gaddafi's stated desire to begin pricing oil in a gold-backed Dinar. And does anyone doubt that NATO's European underlings will expect the oil to flow?

However the chips might eventually fall, Washington's latest overseas “victory” bespeaks nothing but full-spectrum decline.

It was my discovery of the European New Right that finally convinced me that one could be both a serious intellectual and a political rightist. My initiation came when I discovered Alain De Benoist’s and Charles Champetier’s manifesto for the French New Right eleven years ago. I had never seen rightist ideas presented in such a way before and I knew I had come upon something powerful. Previously, I had been more or less a left-wing Chomskyite. I had long found the left dissatisfying, particularly its victimological ressentiment and its PC bluenoses. Yet, when I looked at the bulk of the American right and saw the jingoist flag-wavers, Bible-bangers, Israel-firsters, plutocratic apologists, conspiracists, and knee-jerk militarists, I would wonder why would anyone could possibly want to be associated with that, for God’s sake? Murray Rothbard’s championing of the legacy of the “Old Right” notwithstanding, I considered the right to be an intellectual wasteland. Fortunately, the European New Right rescued me from such a narrow perception. It was from the European New Right that I learned one could be a progressive without being an egalitarian, a conservative without succumbing to vulgar economism, and a traditionalist without being a yahoo.

A major problem with bringing ENR ideas to North American audiences has been the fact that much of the scholarship produced by ENR writers has yet to be translated into English. For instance, De Benoist is the leading intellectual of the ENR and one of its founding fathers, yet only only two of De Benoist’s dozens of books, On Being a Pagan and The Problem of Democracy, have undergone an English translation and the latter appeared in English only this year thanks to Arktos Publishing. Two original English works surveying ENR thought have also appeared. One of these is by Tomislav Sunic and the other is by Michael O’Meara. If you are a college student and you want to shock and offend your politically correct professors and peers, then the distribution of copies of these works on campuses would certainly be an easy way to do so.

Because of the efforts of Arktos, more and more works of the ENR are gradually being made available in English as well as older works originally written by long-forgotten conservative revolutionary figures of the interwar era. Arktos also makes available works by leftist thinkers offering genuine insight and other writers whose ideas fall way outside the paradigm of what passes for “the right” within the context of U.S. style “conservatism.” Suffice to say we will not be seeing any of the plutocrat-funded and neocon-managed publishing houses of America’s “conservative movement” issuing the works of Lothrop Stoddard, Antonio Gramsci, Georges Sorel, Carl Schmitt, Michael Cremo, Andrew Fraser, or Pentti Linkola. Arktos has also issued an English version of Ernst von Salomon’s It Cannot Be Stormed. Salomon was a conservative revolutionary author whose success continued well into the post-WW2 period and earned the denunciation of TIME magazine in the process. I’m still waiting for English translations of Ernst Junger’s Der Arbeiter and of the works of Ernst Niekisch (hint, hint).

Several contemporary works by leading ENR writers, such as De Benoist, Sunic, and Guillame Faye have been given extensive review on Brett Stevens’ website. (See here, here, and here.) Sunic’s Against Democracy and Equality is particularly helpful not only as an introduction to ENR ideas on a more abstract level, but as a source of critical insights that shed extensive light on the realities behind some of the more important political and cultural phenomena of our time. As Stevens observes in his review of Sunic:

Liberalism dehumanizes its adversaries. According to Carl Schmitt as channeled through Sunic, the left abhors war — so it phrases every political action as a police action. The bad guys become inhuman because they are immoral, not nice, not egalitarian, etc. and thus can be exterminated not in a war but in the right-thinking people detaining or removing the bad ones.

De Benoist’s The Problem of Democracy subjects the most sacred of all modern pieties, the ideal of liberal mass democracy, to rigorous and unrelenting criticism. The only other contemporary work that I am aware of that offers such a thoroughgoing assault on modern democracy is Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed. I gave Hoppe’s work an extensive review when it first came out ten years ago. The twentieth century’s two leading critics of modern liberal democracy, with its tendencies toward mob rule, were arguably Carl Schmitt and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Schmitt attacked liberal democracy from the perspective of a traditional conservative in the mode of Hobbes or Burke, while Kuehnelt-Leddihn offered a critique rooted in a synthesis of Catholic traditionalism and a monarchist variation of classical liberalism reminiscent of Lord Acton.

Hoppe’s work is clearly influenced by and somewhat derivative of Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and employs arguments one might expect a conservative Catholic and liberal monarchist to make. De Benoist’s observations on democracy more closely resemble and are influenced by those of Schmitt. While Hoppe and Kuehnelt-Leddihn defended classical eighteenth and nineteenth century liberalism against modern egalitarian democracy and its social democratic manifestation, De Benoist like Schmitt before him sees liberalism as the root of the problem. De Benoist offers not classical liberalism but classical democracy as conceived of by the Greeks as the answer to the “problem of democray” in its modern form. Whereas Hoppe postulates the concept of a society ordered completely on the basis of private property as the alternative to modern democratic institutions, De Benoist offers suggestions that at times resemble the notions of “participatory democracy” or “direct democracy” advanced by certain strands of the Left. These contrasts should make for interesting dialogue and debate on the alternative right.

Guillame Faye’s Why We Fight differs from much of the literature of the ENR in that while Faye incorporates the essence of the broader New Right philosophy into his analysis, he also demonstrates a greater concern for on-the-ground practical politics, strategic formulations, and particular policy prescriptions in a way that is atypical of ENR thinkers with their general focus on arcane theoretical abstractions, historical interpretations, or “metapolitics.” Faye’s geopolitical outlook in some ways resembles a melding of the “Eurasianist” idea advanced by Alexander Dugin and the anti-Islamism of Western European euronationalism. This puts Faye at odds with other strands of the ENR which leans towards at least a tactical solidarity with the Third World and regards Islam as a potential traditionalist ally against globalization and Americanization.

I am inclined to regard Faye’s view as appropriate for Europeans and the latter view as more relevant to North Americans. Islam is geographically far removed from North America, and poses no immediate demographic threat. Islamic terrorism directed towards the United States and its allies is for the most part the inevitable “blowback” generated by U.S. foreign policy or, more specifically, the exercise of Zionist influence (whether Jewish or Christian) over American foreign policy in the Middle East. An alliance with Russia against both Americanization and Islamication may serve the interests of Europeans, but America would be best served by a simple renunciation of globalism and a return to old-fashioned isolationism. Indeed, domestic U.S. Muslims may well be valuable allies against domestic Zionism.

The European New Right clearly has much to offer to ordinary conservatives looking for ideas of infinitely greater substance than what is typically found on talk radio, FOX News, or the subcultures of American right-wing populsim. But the philosophy of the ENR might well prove to be the bridge that also helps many disaffected leftists to eventually find their way to the alternative right. The thinkers of the ENR have developed a critique of globalization, imperialism, and Americanization every bit as thorough and radical as that offered by neo-Marxists like Immanuel Wallerstein, indeed even more so. Likewise, the ENR possesses a critique of consumerism, recognition of ecological issues, anticlericalism and critique Christianity that avoids the shrill bigotry of the “new atheists” that at times resembles but is more substantive than that offered by the Left. The ENR emphasis on the sovereignty and self-preservation of all peoples might even appeal to non-white nationalist, separatist, or autonomist movements.

Writers of the ENR have also advanced an intelligent and sincere but measured social and cultural conservatism that lacks the “homosexual-atheist-abortionist-under-every-bed” hysteria of the American right-wing. ENR thought upholds masculine and feminine identities without sinking into crass misogyny, and De Benoist has even controversially called for solidarity with Third World nationalism against US imperialism in a way that resembles a rightist version of Chomsky, and advocated a federated European “empire” of autonomous ethnic, cultural, and national identities that is reminiscient of the Holy Roman Empire (which, as Voltaire said, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire). Meanwhile, the ENR-sympathetic Telos journal has postulated a critique of the modern liberal-managerial “new class” that greatly resembles Bakunin’s early critique of Marxism.

If we are going to build a rightist opposition in North America that is worthy of the legacy of Nietzsche, Pareto, Schmitt, Mencken, Ortega, and Junger, and is not merely a movement of useful idiots for the neoconservatives, military-industrial complex, and right-wing of the U.S. ruling class as so-called “movement conservatism” often is, then it would appear that the ideas of the European New Right are thus far the best thing going.

This past June Rome’s Circus Maximus, where chariots were once raced in honor of emperors, was the site of the Europride-2011 festival. The Continent’s annual celebration of homosexuality also featured a special performance by a disturbingly popular entity known as Lady Gaga, a vocal supporter of the gay agenda[1]. The show was doubtless a hit with the million-strong crowd, and the carnival deemed a success, if only to remind the Vatican it operates in enemy-held territory. Yet Mme. Gaga wasn’t originally on the Europride billet- she needed some special persuasion from behind the scenes to make her grand appearance.

As it turns out, we can thank U.S. diplomacy for another round of last-minute heroics in the defense of freedom. American Ambassador to Italy David Thorne was ‘instrumental’ in bringing Gaga to the event, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed. But the Rome concert only serves as a symbol of the U.S. campaign to normalize homosexual practices throughout the world. In her address to the organization GLIFAA (Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies) last week, Clinton enumerated State’s achievements on this front, from U.S. embassy employees helping organize a ‘pride’ march in Bratislava, Slovakia, to new gay-friendly UN resolutions and specialized aid for LGBT (in commissariat-speak, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered) refugees and sex workers. She then rallied the troops with this St. Crispin’s Day barn-burner:

I’ve always believed we could make progress because we were on the right side of equality and justice. Life is getting better for people in many places, and it will continue to get better thanks to our work. So I ask all of you to look for ways to support those who are on the front lines of this movement, who are defending themselves and the people they care about with great courage and resilience. This is one of the most important human rights struggles of all times. It’s not easy, but it is so rewarding.

Who today remembers the once-mighty Warsaw Pact? Not the punk rock group, of course, but the Soviet Bloc’s formidable answer to U.S.-led NATO. Twenty years have now passed since it was peacefully dismantled in what was a finishing touch on the collapse of Communist power and the end of the Cold War. Yet unlike the Warsaw Pact, the North Atlantic alliance did not disband; it steadily pushed east toward an exhausted Russia and then metastasized. Like any successful multinational, NATO went global.

Largely through its role in NATO, the United States had applied generations of resources and manpower in containing the Soviet threat, and its investment paid off. America’s triumph against such a dangerous peer competitor was total and unambiguous- the one state that spanned the length of Eurasia had fractured into fifteen. The End of History was at hand, and with Marxist management practices discredited only one contender for humanity’s future remained. A democratic-capitalist world system, already organized in the post-war years, could now be fully implemented under Washington’s benevolent aegis.

One Cold War veteran who can well recall the course of this vast transformation is Robert Gates. After all, he operated behind the scenes and at the highest levels of power during critical moments of the U.S.-Soviet struggle. A career CIA analyst, Gates was National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s staff aide when the Carter Administration launched a covert action program to aid the Afghan mujahideen in 1979. The White House signed off on the order six months before the Politburo in Moscow committed to an invasion of its southern neighbor, along with a disastrous occupation that would cripple the USSR.

When I was finishing The Real National Interest (TRNI), it became clear that a follow-up article would be needed; because there is a complimentary aspect of state policy; common to all nations of the West, whose justification isn't entirely clear from the ethnocentric perspective referred to in the original article.

It might be useful to first restate the hypothesis posited in TRNI: That American Near- and Middle-East policy is logical and comprehensible when viewed from the perspective of its actual purpose: to destroy or marginalize potential threats to the state of Israel. These threats being other nation-states or coalitions thereof. And that “terrorists” are not only not a threat to Israel (or any other state)—they are to a large extent useful catalysts for the aggrandizement of state power. Thus the goal of American policy in this region is to destroy nation-states; and if the dissolution of a given state actually results in the propagation of terrorist activity—all the better.

When a modern, secular state such as Iraq is replaced by a largely anarchistic, proto-feudal and unstable pastiche of clashing religions and ethnicities, sharing nothing in common but a tendency towards religious fundamentalism and intolerance for “the other”, the region (one can no longer refer to it as a state in any meaningful sense) loses the capacity to act outwardly—to project a common will to power—and instead becomes consumed by internal conflicts that feed upon themselves, and that are relatively easy for external forces to influence, inflame, and maintain.

And when readers of the original article suggest that “hand[ing] Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood” is a failure of US foreign policy, they are precisely missing the point. In fact, the spread of Islamic fundamentalism is one of the greatest boons of our adventures over there. People need to consider what Islamic fundamentalism actually is: It is not only a retrograde religion—it is cultural and civilizational retrogression! Islamic fundamentalism creates societies of unemployable men and ignorant and civically “invisible” women, who are collectively incapable of maintaining, much less producing, the level of technological development necessary to create a functioning, modern state. Indeed, Islamic fundamentalism is the indoctrination of teeming masses into a societal model taken en bloc from the first millennium AD.

In Western countries, boys and girls go to school and learn things like math, biology, physics, chemistry, history, and their language. One can argue convincingly about the pathetic state of education in many western countries—but the intent is as described. In Muslim countries dominated by fundamentalists, boys go to madrasas and learn how to recite the Koran forwards and backwards by heart. Girls . . . well, girls get to stay at home and be quiet and out of sight—OR ELSE. The extent to which reciting the Koran can help put a man on the moon (or more to the point—design and build a modern, main battle tank capable of taking on, say, the Merkava) is unknown to me, but I have a feeling it's rather limited.

So in conclusion, the spread of Islamic fundamentalism is an effective means of transforming what might otherwise be a temporary state of political disarray into a permanent state of 6^th century, ineffectual feudalism. That these teeming masses are at times inclined to strap dynamite to their chests and blow up stuff in a futile expression of their inability to accomplish anything on a meaningful, political level is icing on the cake.

This leads me to the larger point about the state policy exhibited throughout the West: wholesale immigration of various, culture enrichers—many of them Muslim. People are often incredulous when they note the current degree of anti-Semitism prevalent in these new arrivals—and they ask the logical question of whether or not this immigration isn't mortally dangerous for the Jewish populations of the countries being culturally enriched. The suggestion being that the Jewish community—by supporting (as they unquestionably have) wholesale Islamic immigration into western countries—is actually engaging in an insane and ultimately self-defeating policy. I do not believe this is the case, and indeed, I think that this policy meshes well with the Zionist project of Greater Israel (which is being facilitated by the foreign policy that was the subject of TRNI). There are three aspects that characterize the successful nature of this external political project—the transformation of the West into a multicultural soup comprised in no small part of Islamic ingredients:

Firstly, there is the “secular” political benefit of destroying ethnic homogeneity of Western states. This being the ability of a group exhibiting high intelligence, an ingroup/outgroup moral code, a strong sense of self, and the willingness to act in its own interests, to control a motley collection of other groups that are lacking one or more of the same characteristics. In order to affect this transformation, one makes use of the materials that are available. Since France is a long swim—even for a Mexican—one turns to France's southern “neighbors” . . . making use of a little, good ole collective guilt over colonialism in the process. Indeed, one can already see this playing off of various parties taking place in Europe – where Jewish, crypto-Jewish, or philo-Semitic politicians like Geert Wilders co-opt nativist movements in a fashion that remains beneficial to Jewish interests, while Leftish Jewish groups join hands with Muslim organizations to condemn European racism.

Secondly, Jews have historically gotten along fairly well with their Semitic cousins. They did well for themselves oppressing the Visigoths in Spain, while acting as agents for their Moorish masters. Sure, there's some bad blood between them right now over the whole Palestinian thing, but that won't last. My personal theory in this regard is that the Zionists figure that giving Europe to Islam is a small price to pay for securing their Biblical homeland in its entirety. If the Jews in Europe are frightened by near-term anti-Semitism, all the better. They're having trouble convincing them to make Aliyah in its absence. And after a century or so, they'll be able to move back to what's left of Paris and enjoy the pleasure of manipulating the various, competing ethnies in the former, romantic capital of the world via petty politics, corruption, and manufactured intrigue.

Thirdly, the infusion of Islamic populations—and Islamic fundamentalism as described above—is part of the dysgenic process by which the populace of the Western world will be transformed into a permanently manageable herd. The Germany of 1933 was an unpleasant lesson (as was the Spanish Reconquista and subsequent Inquisition) of precisely what happens when one visits too much abuse on a homogenous and intelligent host population. Point #1 above deals with the whole “homogenous” part. The second part of this, final solution is to reduce the level of intelligence and knowledge of the host population to the point that it is no longer capable of engendering effective resistance. A friend of mine used to refer to this as the “São Paulo Model”. I used to scoff at it. I'm not so sure anymore. Certainly, the dumbing-down of education and culture is unquestionably useful in making the citizens of Western countries manageable and manipulable. This is a goal that is beneficial not only to alien powers. Limiting access to education is a tool used often and historically to control certain populations; women in Islamic countries being a useful example. But overwhelming intelligent populations with sub-intelligent ones seems like a logical extension of this—and a permanent one at that. No need to worry about controlling “evil” books and ideas when there's no one willing or capable of reading or thinking them.

Some might suggest that this is all too conspiratorial. But it doesn't have to be a “conspiracy” in the sense of an entire ethnic group getting together in auntie Ruth's basement to make plans that they put secretly into motion. More likely, it's an organic movement in a common and commonly beneficial direction, of a people united in their perception of self as “the oppressed outsider”. Some might also suggest that the Jewish community might feel unhappy or disappointed by the end product of these machinations. Aren't they happier within a French France or an English England than they will be in these countries, once the demographic time-bombs they've helped build explode? Maybe. But one of the greatest failures of Western man has been his ridiculous tendency to project his sentiments and sensibilities on others. The idea that the Negro (or the Japanese, or the Indian, and so forth) is just like him—but in a different, physical wrapper—is pathetic and fundamentally wrong. Is it not logical, in fact, that a people who are themselves products of thousands of years of history in crowded, chaotic, multi-ethnic cities would be more at home in such an environment than in the quiet, orderly, homogenous, “boring” communities that we Europeans find most comforting?