Terrorism and the Mendacity of the Left

They promote terrorism by excluding ideological opponents from participation in the political process.

Amren, 3/18/19.  That you saw before at Sallis, 3/16/19.

The best way to prevent terrorism is to allow dissidents to fairly participate in the political process, politics being broadly defined to include all activity related to power and influence and their acquisition. Conversely, the best way to promote terrorism is to exclude people from the political arena, leaving them no alternative than to engage in violence.

The Left has systematically excluded the Far Right from access to the political process. Let’s consider White Nationalists. These people are deplatformed, censored, their leaders physically attacked with impunity, meetings shut down, speeches prevented, and rallies attacked, and in some countries merely expressing these ideas are illegal (what some want in America as well).  In Australia, a Senator, an elected official, was physically assaulted in an act of political violence (*), and the Prime Minister of that nation supports the assault, praises the attacker, and wants the victim legally persecuted because he struck back in self-defense – all for the crime of being a “nationalist.”

In general, this repression preceded the acts of terror being used to justify the repression and to justify further repression. Things similar to the Australian “egging” have always occurred on a regular basis before New Zealand – always attacks by the Left against the Right.

The Left claims that White nationalism needs to be suppressed because random acts of terrorism have occurred; the reality is that those acts of terrorism have occurred precisely because White nationalism has been suppressed.  Cause and effect are reversed as a part of typical leftist gaslighting.

Also note that leftist terrorism is never invoked as a rationale to ban Far Left political parties or to legally persecute leftists. Islamic terrorism is met with calls for “more understanding” and “more integration” – no one is banned or deplatformed. Islamic parties exist in Europe. Despite terrorist attacks in Europe, those parties are not banned. No Antifa show up at rallies or meetings of those parties. And Antifa itself is not persecuted; curiously enough, the government of the allegedly “racist fascist” Trump coddles Antifa and legally persecutes Antifa’s victims. Antifa itself celebrates Marxist mass murderers and terrorists. Indeed, despite being characterized by political violence and terrorism in the 1960s and 70s (never mind the horrors of communism), the Left is now dominant in the Establishment of what used to the West.

On a more fundamental racial level in the USA, acts of violence by BLM supporters have not resulted in targeting of that movement by the System; instead, BLM gets support. The Zebra murders did not result in the banning of Black Muslims; no one dares deplatform or censor them, and the idea of their rallies being broken up by Antifa is comically ludicrous, as is the idea that some soyboy would dare ”egg” any Black nationalist leader.

It only White nationalism that is held responsible for rare acts of lone wolf violence, and that is because White nationalism was already repressed before the violence – the violence, which is a result of the repression, is used to not only retroactively justify the past repression but to proactively justify even more repression.

Let’s put it this way: What came first – Richard Spencer having to cancel his college speaking tour or the New Zealand attack?  What came first – deplatforming and censorship or the New Zealand attack?  What came first – an endless series of cancelled Amren and VDARE meetings, or the New Zealand attack?  Shall I continue?

That is why political violence and terrorism by the Left and/or Coloreds is never met with banning, deplatforming, censorship, denunciations by the US Congress, hysteria by the Australian Prime Minster, any of it.  It’s not the rare acts of violence by isolated Nutzi types that really bothers these people.  That’s just an excuse; again, it’s a rationale to justify their pre-existing hostility toward the ideology of White nationalism and the people who believe in it. On a deeper level, it is a rationale to justify their pre-existing hatred of White people and the desire to see Whites demographically and cultural replaced.

*”He was only ‘egged’ so it is no big deal,” the Left says.  Really?  What do they think would happen if they tried to “egg” a US President?  One could imagine the screaming if an Alt Righter “egged” Her Majesty AOC. Forget about people – imaging the anguished screaming if a Nutzi “egged” the statue of Saint Martin of King.  Look, it doesn’t matter if you believe that “it is not a big deal.” The attack on Anning was a physical assault in the service of political ideology; hence, it can be termed terrorism.  

Also see this.

Youth and the Left

Whither idealism?

Why are young White people (in the West, or whatever is left of it) typically leftist?  One argument is that it is youthful rebellion against parents, who are themselves typically more conservative due to the effects of family formation and increasing responsibility (and general experience with life and the realities of human nature). It is interesting that this scenario always seems to work in one direction – the children of leftist parents never seem to rebel by moving to the Right, if anything they may become even more radically leftist than their parents are.  So, it can’t be simple rebellion against parental authority.  Is it rebellion against a conservative society?  Well, today, the System is so far to the Left and so anti-White, that actual rebellion would mean that young Whites should all become neo-Nazis; “movement” fantasies about “Generation Zyklon” aside, that is not happening.  Is it because System propaganda portrays itself as exhibiting “systemic racism” and the youth perceived a Far Left System as being Far Right?  Is the rebellion against a perception rather than against a reality?

Or maybe it is not just rebellion – youth are by nature idealistic, and the Left traffics in idealism, as opposed to the stuffy, reactionary Right, which stupidly advertises itself as “standing athwart history yelling stop.”  What an inspiring image!

The reactionary Right needs to be displaced by the revolutionary Far Right and an inspiring ideology and worldview needs to be promoted.  By the way, “traditionalism” “snug in one’s hobbit hole” is not such a worldview.

Sallis is Right Again: Farstreaming

Orban moving right.

Read this.

Recall this?

Well, my comment that Jobbik is to Orban's right no longer holds, because Orban has continued farstreaming to his right, while Jobbik has been mainstreaming to the center.  The two ships have passed each other on the sea of political rhetoric.

Outcome:

Orban farstreaming to the right = sailing to political success.

Jobbik mainstreaming to the center = sinking and hemorrhaging supporters.

Mainstreaming may be good in theory but has no empirical support in practice. Mainstreaming fails.  Pushing the radical envelope succeeds.  Sallis is correct...again.