Jan 23, 2015

Golden Dawn Fighting at the Ballot Box

via Majority Rights

The most viciously attacked and oppressed political party in the Western world is fighting a legislative election on 25 January 2015.  This is the snap election called to elect all 300 members to the Hellenic Parliament when Parliament failed, in large measure because of the votes of Golden Dawn’s 21 MPs, to confirm the current government’s hand-picked successor to the out-going Karolos Papoulias as President of Greece.

The opinion polls tell a story of waning popularity for Golden Dawn.  The party, though, disdains them and points to polling which shows a more resilient level of support:

When the results of the election are announced, they say, they will be revealed as the third force in Greek politics and the only true opposition to a kleptocratic and traitorous Establishment.

That Establishment, meanwhile, continues to bear down relentlessly on Golden Dawn.  Required by electoral law to allow it national TV access during the campaign, just one appearance of the minimum prescribed length has been offered by ANT1.  And this was it, presented by Kostas Alexandrakis, Golden Dawn candidate in the Attica region:


This is one of the rare instances where a representative of Golden Dawn appears on a television station. There should be no disabuse, this is occurring due to legislation that requires it and not due to democratic sensitivities. This rare opportunity, it should be noted, has a scandalous duration of only four minutes.  They are giving us only four minutes to present our positions, after a lengthy isolation of Golden Dawn. So we must use condensed and concise language.
We should first mention, since they claim we live in a democracy, that some time ago in parliament, a revelation was made that didn’t receive any coverage, not even a mention by the channels. An audio document was revealed, which was authentic, certified by an independent European expert, in which the outgoing Prime Minster, Antonis Samaras, using vulgar language, which I will not repeat, - anyone that is interested can find the audio document on the internet- speaking with a high ranking judicial official, he orders the detention of Golden Dawn’s MPs. More specifically, Speaking on the phone, Samaras states: “Tell big Panathinaikakia, the next three that are going” and then a vulgar phrase, which means put them in prison, follows.
The persecutions and the silence weren’t enough. It was necessary for even greater terrorism efforts by the system to break Golden Dawn - naturally, the reason for the murders of our brothers, Giorgos Fountoulis and Manos Kapelonis, whom we will never forget.
However, Golden Dawn didn’t break. Golden Dawn can’t be broken. Our leader and comrades are found in prison, but there is no evidence that ties them to any unlawful action. Any citizen can look at the proof by performing a simple search on Golden Dawn’s site, xagr.net. Despite this, our imprisoned comrades, the leader and all of us continue the struggle for the fatherland and the Greek people - the other parties in the papers and the channels, and us on the streets and from prison.
I present to you an overview of Golden Dawn’s program for a free and powerful Greece:
• Political catharsis - the thieves in prison, what’s been stolen returned to the Greek people
• Abolishment of politicians’ special privileges
• An end to state funding of parties
• Zero tolerance for the bankers, contractors and television station owners that have embezzled public funds
• Termination of the memorandum
• Audit and deletion of the illegitimate debt
• Termination of the ENFIA property tax and over-burdensome taxation
• Deletion of bank debt with social criteria
• Referendums for all the major national and social issues
• Proclamation of an exclusive economic zone, territorial waters set at 12 nautical miles, a united defense front Greece - Cyprus
• Primary production with the aim for Greek autarky
• Exploitation of our natural resources surveying and drilling for oil and natural gas
• A geostrategic shift toward Russia and China
• Claiming the occupation loan from the Germans
• Zero tolerance for crime
• Expulsion of all the illegal immigrants
• Priority to the Greek in every sector of public life
• National planning for a resolution to the demographic problem so we don’t become a minority
In conclusion, and since there is only a week left until elections, I would like to say that on the night of January 25th, Golden Dawn will be the country’s third political force and the only true national opposition party, against both the ethno-nihilists of SYRIZA, and against the memorandum party of New Democracy, against the Bolsheviks and usurers.
Golden Dawn, so that Greece can belong to the Greeks!
Freedom for the Fatherland - Vote Golden Dawn!

The Islamization of the Teaching of Western Civilization

via Counter-Currents

In the United States today only two percent of colleges offer Western Civilization as a course requirement. I teach Western Civ in two parts, but they are not required, and I had to change the title to “Sociology of Western Civilization” for approval. Since I decided to teach this subject ten years ago, I have detected in new texts, and in newer editions of older texts, a growing emphasis on Islam in their narration of the cultural history of the West.

A well-established older text is The Western Heritage, by Donald Kagan, Steven Ozment, and Frank Turner. This is a relatively conservative text by the standards of today. I have the tenth edition at hand, published in 2010 (a new 11th edition has just come out). I can’t say when this text began to include sections on “the Western debt to Islam,” cute captions on topics such as “European Embrace of a Black Saint” or an alleged “Multicultural Book Cover” from Carolingian times. But it is clear that the 2010 edition, in comparison to the first editions, with the first going back to 1979, has felt the impact of political correctness. The Wikipedia entry on the first edition(s) of this text observes:

Considered conservative and old-fashioned when it was published, reviewers chided it for ignoring the Byzantines and Ottomans as well as giving short shrift to Russia and Poland. Others indicated lack of attention to the role of the Islamic states and ignorance of Islamic sources.

But now in stark contrast it is clearly stated in the Preface that a new feature of the 10th edition is a greater emphasis on the West’s connections to the rest of the world, with a series of comparative essays added at various points in the text under the general heading of “The West & the World.” There is nothing wrong with this per se. Students should learn about the West’s connections with the world. But something else is going on here. Without getting into details, older editions did not neglect these connections; the difference now is that academics who still teach the West — as this course has been replaced by more loving histories for Us All — feel that they can only justify the teaching of the West as long as they frame its history as an inclusive affair in which all the peoples of the world participated.

Most of the Preface reads like an effort to placate those who think that the West should no longer be taught. They are not calling for an end to the teaching of Western civilization; they are right wing liberals who believe that the West represents the first magnificent example of a civilization that speaks for humanity. The Preface notes:

Students reading this book come from a variety of cultures and experiences. They live in a world of highly interconnected economies and instant communication between cultures. In this emerging multicultural society it seems both appropriate and necessary to recognize how Western civilization has throughout its history interacted with other cultures, both influencing and being influenced by them. For this reason, we have introduced in this edition a new chapter on the nineteenth-century European age of imperialism. Further examples of Western interaction with other parts of the world, such as with Islam, appear throughout the text. (xxii)

Nevertheless, Western Heritage is still a very good text. It is the textbooks being published in current times that show the full impact of multicultural correctness. A recent text is Clifford Backman’s The Cultures of the West: A History, first published in 2013. This two-volume text calls for the inclusion of the Islamic world in the West:

This book overtly . . . insists on including the region of the Middle East in the general narrative, as a permanent constitutive element of the Greater West. For all its current appeal, Islam is essentially a Western religion, after all. . . . To treat the Muslim world as an occasional sideshow on the long march to western European and American world leadership is to falsify the record and to get the history wrong (xxii).

Check its front cover here. What justifications Backman offers for the “Greater West”? To students already accustomed to diversity and wobbly images about connectedness, he says that the “European world and the Middle Eastern world have been in continuous relationship for millennia.” World historians, of course, follow this idea to its logical end: Europe is a continent connected to Asia, and the history of the Middle East and Asia constitute an amalgam of many cultures and civilizations, all of which have been in continuous relation with each other and with Africa, and with the Americas after 1500; therefore, a proper understanding of the history of the West requires a history of the whole world.

But Backman is a modest man seeking fairness in a world of extremes, he believes that it is possible to teach a course in Western Civ as long as this civilization is conceived as “the Greater West,” which, I might add, includes not just the Near East but Muslim India and Muslim Africa. He thinks this “Greater West” is justified on the grounds that

nearly every one of the fundamental turning points in European history . . . have been experienced jointly by the European and Middle Eastern societies. (xxii)

This is a falsification of the historical record. Nowhere in Backman’s textbook do we find a substantive argument supporting this claim. For one, there is no way round the fact that the classical Greek invention of deductive reasoning, disciplined infantry warfare, invention of prose writing, analytic historical writing, discovery of the mind, the literary forms of tragedy and comedy, and citizenship politics were achieved when Islam was not in existence, and so was the Hellenistic revolution in scientific knowledge, the Roman invention of the legal persona, continuation of republican institutions, and numerous novelties in warfare and engineering.  The Muslims played a role in retaining, commenting, and advancing some of the works of the classical Greeks from about the 8th century until 1200, but thereafter every single turning point in European history was accomplished by Europeans.

Proponents of connectness never care to pose why all the turning points in the making of modernity happened inside Europe; if Europe was connected to the Muslim world, and the Muslim world was connected to Europe, why can’t they point to a single turning point inside the Muslim world? Even the Twelfth Century Renaissance was a uniquely European phenomenon, and so was, in fact, the Papal Revolution of the eleventh century, and numerous technological inventions and innovations.

Volume 2, which is three times the length of Volume 1, commences with the “Renaissances and Reformations,” pluralizing these two terms so as to give the impression that there were renaissances and reformations in the Middle East and North Africa. But since Backman cannot marshal a single argument demonstrating any degree of Muslim responsibility for these turning points, he is compelled to create separate sections for the Muslim world with bits of information about trade connections and European impacts on this world, as well as events in this world, none of which can be framed, however, in terms of anything that could reasonably be called a renaissance or a reformation.

The net result of making space in the text for events outside Europe is the diminution and suppression of key formative events, intellectual figures, and even whole epochs in the making of the actual West. He leaves out all the great artists of Renaissance Italy: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Donatello, Botticelli, to name a few. There is nothing about how Italian merchants created modern double-entry accounting.

In separate sections, he tries to create the impression that Muslims were at the forefront of modernity; for example, in the championing of the rights of women (807). We are supposed to have a picture of Muslim co-participation in the Industrial Revolution simply on the strength of the eventual adoption by a Muslim country of techniques invented in Europe. Forget that not a single technology of this revolution is shown to have been invented in the Muslim world.

Students are actually made to think that if there was any opposition to modernity it came from the nasty Catholics. In a section, “The War on Modernism,” Backman writes:

To many in the broader Western society, the [Catholic] church’s war on modernism seemed a painful embarrassment, not merely a flat-out inability to understand modern scientific and textual thinking but a petulant refusal by pious ideologues to think or to allow others to do so. (773)

This description actually applies to Backman. It is well known in the narrow circles of medieval scholarship that the Catholic Church played a crucial role in the development of Western modernity starting in the Middle Ages, as Thomas Woods explains in How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Rodney Stark in Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success, and Edward Grant in The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages. In the words of J. L. Heilbron of the University of California, Berkeley:

[The] Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably, all other institutions.

Yet, Backman, an expert in medieval European history, though the “social history” type, ignores this literature. He acknowledges that “few of the advances and discoveries of the 19th century made much of an impact in the Islamic world,” but then asks his students to show sympathy for Muslims and disapproval of Europeans:

[Muslim] opposition was not merely a knee-jerk rejection of innovative thinking. Rather it was a rejection of European political imperialism. (779)

In the introduction Backman portrays himself as an edgy professor willing to rock the boat, a man with a peculiar talent for “eccentric” ideas, a dissident in a world of conformity; in short, the one and only proponent of the “Greater West.” The truth is that this idea has been in the air for some time, proposed by Ian Morris in Why the West Rules — For Now, by many advocates in the West (and the Islamic world) of an “Islamo-Christian Civilization.”

As I explained at length in a two part paper, the idea that Europe’s history has to be seen in connection to the rest of the world cannot be divorced from the political promotion of the colonization of Europe by non-Europeans through mass immigration and indoctrination. This political agenda is being pursued by all the established parties and institutions. Backman is another pawn pushing in the same direction. Deep down he knows it is about politics, and says as much in the concluding pages of his text dealing with Europe after 2001. “To center Western identity on Christianity is just bad politics.” Why? Because “the Western world is increasingly Muslim” (1154).

Good politics equals the rewriting of the history of the West so as to justify the current reality of Muslim mass immigration. It does not matter that the historical evidence invalidates the concept of a “Greater West”; students must be made to believe in this concept; they must accept the current Third World colonization of their homelands. “We have often forgotten that Islam has been a Western religion from the start” (1156). From the start? There was no Islam in the Middle East through the entire epoch of classical Greece, Hellenistic times, the long reign of Rome, and the first centuries of the Middle Ages. Historical veracity is not the issue. The goal is to create students who will view an increasingly Muslim Europe as a natural phenomenon consistent with the past.

Will these students, then, see the Rotherham rapes as a “Western” problem committed by ethnic groups that were British “from the start”?

The Face of Islam: Intolerance and Aggression Are Inherent in Islam

via American Renaissance

In his book, The 100, Michael H. Hart profiles the 100 people he thinks had the greatest impact on world history. He ranks the prophet Mohammed number one.
Mohammed and the Unbelievers is very critical both of Mohammed and of Islam, but its author, Bill Warner, would probably agree with Prof. Hart. It is hard to think of anyone who, single-handedly, so dramatically changed the lives of so many people. Dr. Warner believes that it is essential for non-Muslims to understand Islam, and Mohammed and the Unbelievers is the first of a series of books he has written to explain the religion’s true nature to Westerners.

Because Mohammed lived in an obscure corner of the world, we have only Arab accounts of his life, and the only sources of information are the three holy books of Islam. The best known is the Koran, of course, but there are two other sacred texts that, together, contain six times as much material as the Koran: the Sira, which is a set of biographies of Mohammed, and the Hadith, which is a compilation of the prophet’s works and teachings. For all we know, these books could be fairy tales, but that doesn’t matter; what is important is that Muslims believe them.

All three books are hard going. They are filled with genealogies, poetry, and other fluff that do not tell us much about Mohammed or Islam. Dr. Warner has boiled this mass down to its essentials to give us a concise, readable life of the prophet and the founding of Islam.

Koran

From Mecca to Medina

Mohammed was born in approximately 570 AD in Mecca, which was one of the wealthiest cities in Arabia. At that time, Arabs were polytheists, and one of their principal gods, a moon god, was already called Allah. Mohammed’s father’s name was Abdullah, which means “slave of Allah,” and it was common to pray to Allah. The people of Mecca already revered the Kabah–the square black structure in Mecca–which they believed had been built by Abraham.

Mohammed was a trader who had married a wealthy widow, and he lived an ordinary life until middle age. Suddenly, at about age 40, he began to have visions, and wrote the Koran–which means “recitation”–under instruction from the angel Gabriel. Part of the Koran is a retelling of Old Testament stories, and Mohammed clearly got this information from the small population of Jews and Christians who lived in Mecca.

For three years, Mohammed revealed his new teachings only to a few intimates and to his wife, who became his first convert. Mohammed’s principle new idea was monotheism, but he was not the first Arab to promote it. A Meccan named Zayd had preached monotheism, and Mohammed recognized him as a precursor.

Mecca was religiously tolerant, and no one cared if Mohammed wanted to be a monotheist, but when he began to speak openly he made a pest of himself by insisting that everyone else was wrong. Skeptics asked Mohammed to prove his powers by performing miracles, but Mohammed refused, claiming that he was only Allah’s messenger not Allah himself. Meccans repeatedly proposed that people should be left alone to practice whatever religion they liked, but Mohammed indignantly refused, insisting that anyone who didn’t follow his teaching would burn in hell. There was constant trouble between his followers and everyone else.

Mohammed had more success on a visit to Medina, which was a ten-day trek to the north. The town was about half Jewish, and the Jews and Arabs did not get along. The Jews kept predicting that a prophet would come and deliver them, and when Mohammed showed up claiming to be a prophet, some of the Arabs decided to get a jump on the Jews by adopting the prophet first, and became Muslims. There were plenty of non-Muslim Arabs still in town, however, so Medina ended up with the same kind of strife as Mecca.

When the Meccans learned that Mohammed had allies in Medina they were afraid of his growing power and decided to kill him, but Mohammed learned of the plot and ran away with his disciples to live in Medina. This was in 622 AD, and the flight to Medina, known as the hegira, is year one on the Muslim calendar.

In Medina, Mohammed worked out many of the details of Islam. His followers built the first mosque, with attached living quarters for the prophet. He established the muezzin’s call to prayer as a way to distinguish Muslims from Jews, who blew the shofar to announce prayers, and Christians who rang a bell.

He also developed the theory that the Jews had been Allah’s chosen people, and that the Torah had originally predicted his coming. However, the Jews deliberately changed the text to keep Mohammed out of the Torah, and thus turned their back on Allah and lost their special status. The Koran was therefore the true version of the Hebrew scriptures, and Mohammed claimed that he was “closer to Moses than they [Jews] are.” In Mecca, Muslims had faced Jerusalem when they prayed; after Mohammed rejected the Jews, Muslims faced Mecca. Mohammed also recognized Jesus as a prophet of Allah but said he could not have been Allah’s son. Moreover, Jesus was not crucified but taken up directly into heaven while a double died on the cross.

Mecca today
Mecca today

After two years in Medina, during which the number of Mohammed’s followers grew from about 150 to 300, the prophet got orders from Allah to make holy war, or jihad, on the Meccans. The Muslims went on a few desert raids but either never found anyone or did little damage. The first serious fight with the Meccans–the Battle of Badr–took place in 624. The Muslims are said to have been outnumbered three to one, but Allah sent angels to join the fight, and Mohammed routed the Meccans. Dr. Warner calls this one of the most important battles in the history of the world, because it immediately established Mohammed as a political as well as religious figure.

The prophet quickly worked out the rules of jihad. He got one fifth of the plunder, and his soldiers shared the rest. Anyone who died fighting the unbelievers–known as Kafirs–went straight into the arms of houris: specially trained nymphomaniac virgins.

Muslim paradise: plenty of houris.
Muslim paradise: plenty of houris

Strangely, the next major fight with the Meccans–the Battle of Uhud–was a defeat; even Mohammed was bloodied in the face and had to leave the field. Where were the angels? The Koran spends 60 verses looking into what went wrong, and explains that this was a test of the courage and commitment of Mohammed and his followers.

In 630, after another series of victories, Mohammed invaded Mecca with an army said to have numbered 10,000 men. By then, he was considered invincible, and he met little resistance. From Mecca, he spread Islam by the sword–Kafirs had the choice of conversion or slaughter–and by the time he died in 632, all of Arabia was Muslim.

Preacher and warrior

As Dr. Warner explains, Mohammed’s life had three distinct stages. For about 40 years he was a trader. For the next 14 years, he was a preacher, but attracted only about 300 followers. He became wildly successful only during the last nine years of his life, when he started spreading Islam by violence.

Dr. Warner calculates that during that last period, on average, Mohammed’s men were in a battle or on a raid every seven weeks, and that does not include the many assassinations and executions carried out under his orders. It was Mohammed the warrior, not the preacher, who changed the course of history.

The violent struggle to convert Kafirs–jihad–is what gives the Koran its character. Dr. Warner points out that the religious tenets of Islam are not very complicated and do not take up many pages. It is Mohammed’s endless battles with the infidels and his rules for dealing with them that are the heart of the Koran. In this sense, the Koran is more about politics than religion.

Inspired by Mohammed
Inspired by Mohammed

For centuries, Islam was in a constant state of war with Kafirs, who were to be converted or destroyed. Jews and Christians–the “people of the book”–had a special status because they believe in Allah, even though their understanding is corrupt and contemptible. They could be tolerated in an Islamic society if they accepted inferior status as dhimmis, which means paying a heavy tax and following humiliating rules. For example, they could not own weapons or ride horses or camels, and when they rode donkeys they had to ride side saddle. They always gave precedence to Muslims, and in a dispute their word counted for nothing against that of a Muslim. Dhimmis could still be enslaved or deported more or less at the whim of the authorities.

Sometimes, Kafirs who were not “people of the book” were granted dhimmi status, but were treated even more harshly.

Jews

There were many Jews in Medina, so Mohammed had much more contact with them than with Christians. There were three tribes of Jews in the city, and Mohammed made war on all of them. He drove out the first two with only the clothes on their backs, and stole their possessions. The third tribe had a fort, which held out against a Muslim siege for 25 days. When the Jews surrendered, the Muslims abducted the children, took the women as sex slaves, and slaughtered the men. Mohammed is said to have watched with approval, his favorite wife by his side, as 600 to 800 Jews were executed.

Some of the Jews Mohammed chased out of Medina went to a town called Khaybar, northeast of Medina, where they became the first dhimmis. They were allowed to stay, and were not forced to convert, but they had to turn over half their crops every year. On his deathbed, Mohammed ordered that all Jews and Christians be expelled from Arabia, so the dhimmi status of the Jews of Khaybar was revoked and they were driven out.

There are a number of stories in the Muslim holy books about individual Jews. One Jew in Medina criticized Mohammed before he was powerful enough to run Jews out of town. This man could not be touched because he lived in a well-guarded, fortified house. Some of Mohammed’s pals then claimed to be disenchanted with Islam, and approached the Jew for a loan. They offered to put up weapons as collateral, but this was only an excuse for four or five Muslims to enter his house with arms. They killed him and stole his property. Mohammed’s followers assassinated several other Jews through similar trickery.

Jews were not, however, the only people Muslims treated harshly. One of Mohammed’s lieutenants, Khalid, besieged a town of Kafir Arabs who eventually surrendered, on the promise that the men would be spared. Khalid massacred them anyway.

Sex

Mohammed was a sex fiend, who had at least 10 wives and countless sex slaves. He married his favorite wife, Aisha, when she was six, and had intercourse with her when she was nine. He let her bring her dolls into the harem, which was a great concession, since he was against images of any kind. Another of his wives, Zaynab, was originally married to Mohammed’s adopted son, but he caught sight of her in her underwear, and made his son divorce her so he could have her. It was about this time that Mohammed started making women wear veils, since he didn’t want other men getting a good look at his wives.

One of Mohammed’s wives was a beautiful Jewess named Safiyya. She had been captured in war after her husband was tortured and killed, and one of the Muslim soldiers made off with her. When Mohammed heard how beautiful she was, he took her from the soldier and told him to find someone else. Since Safiyya was a captive infidel, Mohammed could have simply kept her as a sex slave, but she converted to Islam and he married her, thus giving her the same title–“Mother of Believers”–as his other wives. After he died, Safiyya became a woman of considerable influence, though other wives were suspicious of her because of her Jewish origins.

Yet another wife famous for her beauty was a Coptic Christian. The other wives were jealous of her fair skin and curly hair.

Besides wives, Mohammed took countless sex slaves from among the women captured from the Kafirs, and he established rules for how to treat captive women. The Koran says they may be raped in front of their husbands, but only if they are not pregnant. Pregnant women must be allowed to give birth before they are raped. Mohammed ordered that all captured men be put to death, but children were to be distributed as slaves and reared as Muslims. Mohammed also forbade mutilation of the dead.

Barbarous as his practices sound today, Mohammed was no different from many other conquerors. In the Old Testament, the Children of Israel sometimes killed every man, woman, child, and animal in the cities they conquered. The Mongols, the Huns, and plenty of Europeans had no compunction about mass murder, either.

What sets Mohammad apart is that he was a ruthless conqueror who also started a religion. People who start great religions don’t usually have hands dripping with blood. Abraham, Jesus, Gautama Buddha, Zoroaster, and the Hindu saints could hardly be more different from Mohammed.

Islam today

As Dr. Warner points out, there are plenty of Muslims who still believe and act as Mohammed did. The people fighting for the Islamic State undoubtedly see themselves following in the footsteps of the prophet, observing the Koran to the letter. When its commanders recently handed out rules on sex slaves, they were just following Islamic scripture.

After Boko Haram kidnapped hundreds of girls in northern Nigeria last year, its leader Abubakar Shekau made a video in which he explained that he was selling the girls he wasn’t keeping as slaves for his own men. Like the Islamic State, Boko Haram was following Koranic doctrine.

Boko Haram militants
Boko Haram militants

Islam has no separation of church and state; the caliph is the both religious and civil leader, just as Mohammed was. Islam–which means “submission”–can therefore govern every aspect of one’s life, and it appeals to people who want to devote themselves to a greater cause. It may be more attractive than ever in today’s era of abundance, in which so many people find no goals in life beyond the satisfaction of personal desires. Its aggressive masculinity also appeals to men who do not like societies that promote equality of the sexes.

Whatever the reasons, the only religion that still asks its followers to die for it finds no shortage of martyrs. Various jihadist movements have attracted thousands of Muslims from all over the world. There may be as many as 700 French citizens, for example, now fighting in holy wars. The Islamic State gets the most volunteers these days, no doubt because of its bloodthirsty, back-to-the-Koran authenticity. It beheads its enemies–just as Mohammed did–and videos of these executions are its most effective recruitment tools.

ISIS

It is certainly true that most Muslims do not make war on the infidel. However, of all the major religions, only Islam is famous for conversion by the sword, and it did so for centuries, across great parts of the world. There are passages in the Koran that forbid aggressive war or conversion by force–and Muslim apologists make much of them–but there are plenty of passages, such as Sura 9, Verse 5, that command death for unbelievers:
[S]lay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
There is a story from Islamic scripture that even today captures Islam’s nature and its unique appeal. At one point, Mohammed told his followers in Medina, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” Muhayyisa, a good Muslim, then promptly killed his long-time Jewish business partner. Muhayyisa’s brother, who was not a Muslim, started beating him for this act of treachery, but Muhayyisa explained that Mohammed had ordered the killing. The brother asked if Muhayyisa would kill his own brother if the prophet told him to, and Muhayyisa said yes, he would. “By Allah, any religion that brings you to this is marvelous,” said the brother, and immediately converted.

The Return of the Protected Jewish Minority in Europe

via The Occidental Observer

Contrary to the standard narratives of Jewish ‘history,’ a prominent feature of the historical presence of Jews in Europe has been their protected status. The common context for this status was a symbiotic relationship between the Jewish minority and exploitative or tyrannical elites. As agents of the feared elite, as foreigners, as exploiters in their own right, and with interests antagonistic to those of the non-Jewish majority, the Jews would not be long in incurring the wrath of the peasantry. The elite, often in the form of the Crown, was keenly aware of this, and numerous measures were taken to increase security for Jewish populations across Europe. The now infamous “identifying badge,” normally a yellow star, originates from one such period, the 13th century  — though it is a lesser-recalled fact that it was first introduced to better facilitate the recognition of Jews by their official protectors.[1]

With this in mind, I’ve been intrigued, but not very surprised, by one of the broader developments arising from the Charlie Hebdo shootings. I’m often slow to form judgment of events such as what occurred recently in France, preferring to let the dust settle and to look for interesting patterns or opinions which may emerge in the aftermath. One such pattern, inescapable in its current scale, has been the Jewish co-opting of the jihadist murders. At TOO, and in Nationalist circles more generally, we are aware of what the narrative should be. We know that what occurred in France was the result of the actions of an Islamist fifth column which remains rooted in, and continues to thrive on, the Muslim mass immigration to Europe. In addition to this, we are only too aware of the Jewish role in facilitating this monstrous migration.

But this was not the narrative served up by the media. Instead we were treated to a confused and emotive chronicle, full of vacuous bleating about “free speech,” debates over whether the journalists “deserved it,” and how the actions of “a few cranks” certainly don’t typify “all Muslims.” As familiar and diseased as this narrative was, it was at least slightly more honest than the one now creeping into public prominence. You see, the events in France have now taken on a new aspect. In this new narrative, it is the kosher supermarket, rather than the unassuming office at 10 Rue Nicolas-Appert which has become the primary focus of the political fallout from the Charlie Hebdo incident. The attacks, clearly a symptom of disastrous immigration and foreign policies, are now redrawn as an allegory which offers a lesson to Europe on how it should treat its Jews, and the need to tackle what is imagined to be Europe’s ‘anti-Semitism problem.’

In the first part of my review of Hilaire Belloc’s The Jews, I made a prediction based on the observation of historical patterns, also alluded to by Belloc himself. With the dawn of the Enlightenment, Jews seized upon ‘citizenship’ as a replacement for the security and protection offered by the now redundant symbiotic relationship with the older, weakened elites of yesterday. ‘Equality under the law,’ or rather the unequal application of this principle, was the path to the security and special treatment which, as Belloc argued, ‘the Jew’ feels “to be his due.” Belloc wrote:
Without it he feels handicapped. He is, in his own view, only saved from the disadvantage of a latent hostility when he is this protected, and he is therefore convinced that the world owes him this singular privilege of full citizenship in any community where he happens for the moment to be, while at the same time retaining full citizenship of his own nation. … What the Jew wanted was not the proud privilege of being called an Englishman, a Frenchman, an Italian, or a Dutchman. To this he was completely indifferent. What the Jew wanted was not the feeling that he was just like the others — that would have been odious to him — what he wanted was security. (The Jews, p. 26).
I noted that the incessant search of Jews for security remains a stark but often overlooked reality in the present:
The rise of the National Socialists, and the wave of pent-up exasperation which swept through Europe during World War Two, revealed to Jews the weakness of citizenship, in and of itself, to maintain the fiction of equality and to offer the deep level of security they crave. Confronted with a mass expression of European ethnocentrism, the Jew could find no appropriate mask. Not one of religion, for the guise of ‘Christian’ no longer offered protection and the opportunity of crypsis. The state now comprised a citizenry of racial brothers rather than ‘fellow citizens’ of the Jews. For the first time in the long game of musical chairs they had played since arriving in Europe, the music had stopped playing — and the Jews were left without a chair.
At TOO, we are aware that since World War II Jews have set about creating a new world. Citizenship, its vulnerabilities exposed in that slight and brief piece of legislation, “The Nuremberg Laws,” was clearly no longer enough. What remained was for Jewish security was to be achieved by regulating non-Jews and imposing limits on the exercise of their citizenship. Since World War II this has taken the form of everything from engineering the demographic profile of Western nations, to ‘hate speech’ laws and lobbying for gun control. I closed my thoughts on that section of Belloc’s work by pointing out that the “process which began following the Enlightenment with Jewish admission to citizenship, has slowly evolved to the gradual diminution of the citizenship of non-Jews and the ascendance of Jews to privileged protected status throughout the West.”


‘Je suis Juif’ will be the refrain that rings in a new era of protected status
‘Je suis Juif’ will be the refrain that
rings in a new era of protected status
Rather than closing borders, vetting terrorists, or adopting saner foreign policies, the final stage of the ascendance of Jews in Europe to privileged protected status will be the sole lasting legacy of the French murders. Just a few days ago Haaretz reported that a delegation of European Jewish leaders has asked the European Union to establish “an anti-Semitism task force.” The request came during a meeting between a European Jewish Congress [EJC] delegation and EU foreign policy chief and European Commission Vice-President Federica Mogherini in Strasbourg. Moshe Kantor, EJC President told Mogherini :
Now more than ever, the European Union needs to create a position and organization specifically geared towards finding long-lasting solutions for anti-Semitism. The recent events demonstrate that the sense of security among Jews in parts of Europe is at its lowest point since the end of the Holocaust and many are leaving their homes as a result. It is incumbent on the European Union to urgently place combating anti-Semitism as one of its highest priorities because this is a hatred that transcends borders and cannot be dealt with by any single nation on its own.
Of course, an appropriate response to Kantor would be that there is a much greater case for combating immigration as one of the European Union’s highest priorities, and that preventing people from transcending borders is infinitely easier than preventing ‘hatred’ from doing the same.

But the wave of protection spreads. The BBC now reports that Theresa May, the British Home Secretary, has said the Charlie Hebdo incident means the UK must redouble its efforts to “wipe out anti-Semitism.” May said she “never thought I’d see the day when members of the Jewish community” would be “fearful” of staying in the UK. Failing entirely to draw any rational conclusion from the events in Paris, May said the attacks were “a chilling reminder of anti-Semitism, not just in France but the recent anti-Semitic prejudice that we sadly have seen in this country.”

The fact that, even including the deceased kosher customers, most of the Charlie Hebdo victims were not Jewish has been entirely lost. Part of the reason for this has been the subtle re-framing of the French massacre. For example, May made the above comments while speaking at an ostensibly open remembrance service commemorating all of the victims. But the service had been organized by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, with the focus inordinately placed on the supermarket victims. Because of re-framing such as this, the London Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner, Mark Rowley, has also now announced that police chiefs were holding talks over “more patrols in key areas” following concern from the Jewish community and after “anti-Semitic rhetoric from extremists” in France and elsewhere.

There are now increased police patrols in areas of England with large Jewish populations
There are now increased police patrols in areas
of England with large Jewish populations
The result of re-drawing the incident in the name of Jewish victimhood is that Jews will be the primary beneficiaries of the political response. This is despite the fact that the biggest victims of the Islamic presence, and the presence of other immigrant peoples in Europe, are the native Europeans, their freedoms, and their way of life. Speaking after Sunday’s service, Jonathan Sacerdoti, from the ‘Campaign Against Anti-Semitism UK,’ said: “We are not running scared and we are not running away. We are here to stay, and we are here to say that it is time Britain stands up to this.”
But bravado such as Mr Sacerdoti’s is easy to display when you have a police force as your personal bodyguard and a system of laws in place which is designed to frighten or persecute your foes into submission. The level of protection in place isn’t merely limited to the bomb and the bullet. Oh no. As London Mayor Boris Johnson has made clear, the Jew is also to be strictly protected against the word. In Johnson’s own words: “I’ve set a clear expectation that the police treat all harassment and hate crime offences very seriously.”

Belgian paramilitary commandos on patrol near a synagogue in the city of Antwerp
Belgian paramilitary commandos on patrol
near a synagogue in the city of Antwerp
The ring of protection covers Jews far and wide.
  • There are now more than 10,000 troops deployed on streets across France, in addition to 5000 police officers deployed specifically to Jewish sites.
     The French office of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has also now announced that it has nine troops protecting it:

    Following the deadly terror attacks, security has been elevated with armed soldiers all over Paris. Nine soldiers have been assigned to our building: two at the front, two at the back, and an additional five as a night surveillance squad bunked down in one of our meeting rooms…In the same block as our offices, which serve as the neighborhood headquarters, there are also two synagogues and a kosher restaurant with army units posted at each location. Our office staff and volunteers, though relieved, wonder how long they will be with us. We have recommended to the authorities that they publicly announce that plainclothes guards will be in the area to deter prospective assailants once the impressive military defense is eventually removed. Armored command cars are stationed at junctions in the neighborhood ready to mount checkpoints against hostile vehicles…This past Shabbat, under army protection, the synagogues were overflowing, unlike the week prior where the synagogues were closed.

  • In Belgium, hundreds of soldiers have been deployed on street patrols of Antwerp’s Jewish district.
  • In Denmark, Jewish Community of Denmark chairman Jonathan Fischer has urged the police to monitor its synagogue and other Jewish areas in Copenhagen, saying that it was clear Jewish people were “high priority targets” for terrorists.
  • In Sweden, police spokesman Lars Bystroem has said that police have increased security around Jewish institutions, particularly in Stockholm.
  • In Norway, Jewish museums have been protected by police. In a few cases has the nature or purpose of the patrols been made explicit, with the troop movements and police actions being described shamefully and euphemistically as targeting “key areas,” or in the words of Belgian Prime Minister, Charles Michel, “certain sites.”
Menachim Margolin: Wants Jews to have exclusive right to carry arms.
Menachim Margolin: Wants Jews to
have exclusive right to carry arms
But this isn’t enough for some Jewish leaders. In fact, some are even calling for exclusive rights as Jews to hold firearms, in contrast to the rest of the population which is to remain muzzled by gun laws. The European Jewish Association (EJA) calls itself “the biggest federation of Jewish organizations and communities working all over Europe.” Rabbi Menachem Margolin EJA and Rabbinical Centre of Europe (RCE) general director, has now called on EU legislators for Jews to be given special permission to carry guns. Margolin wrote to EU Interior Ministry stating:
We hereby ask that gun licensing laws are reviewed with immediate effect to allow designated people in the Jewish communities and institutions to own weapons for the essential protection of their communities, as well as receiving the necessary training to protect their members from potential terror attacks.
As well as arguing that police “are not doing enough,” Margolin claims “We need more. The best solution is to have at least two police officers at each Jewish institution, 24 hours a day.” He added that he wants “as many people within the Jewish community as possible” carrying weapons. Margolin, advances the new narrative that the Charlie Hebdo attacks are all about anti-Semitism, and argues that “we need to recognize the warning signs of anti-Semitism, racism, and intolerance that once again threaten Europe and our European ideals.” Our European ideals? Margolin’s hypocrisy is nauseating.

Troops protecting Jews in the Netherlands
Troops protecting Jews in the Netherlands
A final offshoot of the renewed Jewish drive for security, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo affair, is that European police, unlike the European peoples, will become more numerously and heavily armed. It has been reported that Scotland Yard said it was increasing the deployment of officers allowed to carry firearms in Britain. The image of the unarmed, friendly “bobby” will soon be replaced with that of a heavily armed marksman enforcing the country’s increasingly draconian thought-crime laws. French law enforcement officials are now demanding heavier weapons, protective gear and a bolstered intelligence apparatus. An official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing talks, said automatic weapons and heavier bulletproof vests were on the table.

An unarmed European population swamped by hostile immigrants, some of whom will continue to bomb, maim and murder in the name of their fanatical religion. An unarmed European population unable to overcome or remove the harmful influence of a small but energetic elite, possibly armed but at the very least enjoying the protection of a suite of gagging laws and a heavily armed police force. An unarmed European population stripped of all pride in its past, and all hope for its future. And thus the culmination of the process which began following the Enlightenment with Jewish admission to citizenship,  slowly evolving to the gradual diminution of the citizenship of non-Jews and the ascendance of Jews to privileged protected status throughout the West.

[1] “The Jews of England in the Thirteenth Century,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 15:1 (1902), 5-22 (p.14).

Decoding Jew-Worship and Blasphemy

via Age of Treason

Listen Now

Picking up where we left off last week’s discussion of the attack on Charlie Hebdo.

That discussion was specifically focused on jews getting on their jewsmedia soapboxes to pontificate and moralize about the virtues of “free speech”, while at the same distinguishing and arguing in favor of punishing “hate speech”, with jews literally and figuratively defining what “hate” means, cloaking their concern for their own particularist interests in disingenuous universalist language.

“We’ve” got to ban “hate” because that’s what’s best for “us”.

It’s a sleight of words, a moral and linguistic fraud. Like many frauds, it’s not complicated once you see the trick.

What jews want said they label “free speech”. What jews don’t want said they label “hate speech”. It’s that simple.

Jews use their power, their money, their media, their positions of authority in politics, academia and in law, to foist their collective views, values, and interests on everyone else. When doing this they claim a right to “free speech”. But when they hear or see something they don’t like, they argue instead that it is “hate speech” and should be banned.

Some jews are more harsh, some more loose in making their argument either way. But the general consensus on what jews don’t like most of all is telling. The most common element of so-called “hate speech” is race. The hatiest hate of all hateful things is “racism”. And the most hateful kind of “racism” is “anti-semitism”.

As the saying goes, anti-”racism” is a code word for anti-White. There are other code words. Words like “diversity”, “discrimination”, “intolerance”. Calling it “code” is simpler than describing the specific trick that’s being played, the particularism-disguised-as-universalism fraud. But you can see who’s behind it, who’s driving it, in the close, peculiar relationship between the terms “racism” and “anti-semitism”.

This report was published a week before the Hebdo attack. French president vows to fight racism and anti-Semitism:
French President Francois Hollande has used his New Year’s Eve television speech to say that the fight against racism and anti-Semitism will be his national cause for 2015.
The president of France’s New Year’s resolution was not to protect the French, but the jews and muslims, the alien interlopers in France. Protect them from who? From the native French.

This is just one timely reminder of the general rule about “racism” and “anti-semitism”. On the one hand, Whites merely speaking in defense of Whites, even without mentioning any other group, is regarded as “racism”. On the other hand, jews speaking in defense of jews is not regarded as “racism”. They’re just combatting “anti-semitism”.

Even when jews explicitly criticize Whites, as a race, it isn’t called “racism”, it’s called “whiteness studies”.

Jews are “white”, we’re told, because saying they’re not is worse than “racist”, it’s “anti-semitic”.

This power jews have over the meanings of words is almost magical. Substitute White for jew in some form of political expression and “satire” instantly transmutes into “hate”.

But this isn’t magic. It’s money. It’s media. It’s politicking. It’s also the knock-on effect of jew-worship, a consequence of jews not just being simply unopposed, but of actually being aided and abetted by others, the non-jew jew-worshippers who police and punish heretics on the jews’ behalf, expressly in their defense.

I’m using the word worship in a looser sense than usual, but not lightly.

Recognition and encouragement of this jew-worship was evident in the free speech/hate speech heebdo I talked about last time. Blasphemy was a recurring theme in that heebdo. Beside defining “hate”, jews define what is or isn’t blasphemy. The epitome of “hate speech” is blasphemy againt jews.

The mulatto comedian Dieudonné was arrested in France last week. Commenting at the Daily Stormer, Armor wrote:
The pretext is that he said he felt like he was Charlie Coulibaly (link). Coulibaly is the Blackman who was killed the other day after killing a black policewoman as well as four people in a Jewish supermarket in Paris.
Being black, with the relative immunity to charges of “racism” this confers, was not enough to protect Dieudonné. Whatever the official charge turns out to be, Dieudonné’s crime in the eyes of jew-worshippers is irreverence for the jews.

Armor also linked and translated a snippet of what the Prime Minister of France, Manuel Valls, had to say in response to criticism of the arrest:
“Justice must be implacable towards those preachers of hatred,” he pleaded. Manuel Valls refused the comparisons that have been made here and there, under the pretext of freedom of expression, between Dieudonné’s polemical shows and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons.
“There is a fundamental difference between freedom of impertinence -blasphemy is not mentioned in our law, and never will be-, and anti-Semitism, racism, advocacy of terrorism, revisionism, which are criminal offenses that justice will probably have to punish even more severely”, he said.
Another example that English readers were more likely to have run across came from hyper-jew Jonathan Chait, less than 24 hours after the attack. The punchline of Charlie Hebdo and the Right to Commit Blasphemy is in his conclusion:
The Muslim radical argues that the ban on blasphemy is morally right and should be followed; the Western liberal insists it is morally wrong but should be followed. Theoretical distinctions aside, both positions yield an identical outcome.
The right to blaspheme religion is one of the most elemental exercises of political liberalism. One cannot defend the right without defending the practice.
That identical outcome is “free speech, not hate speech, jews define hate”. All the heebdo isn’t intended to change that. And it isn’t going to change that. Almost all of it is offered in defense of the status quo, where the ongoing shift in political and legal attitudes is toward this conception of “hate speech”, not away from it.

Many others chattered about blasphemy, agreeing, as Chait put it, that “the right to blaspheme religion” is elemental. But if that’s true, why is it the subject of so much debate? What is all the arguing really about?

flippityfloppity, commenting at my blog, took a stab at making sense of it:
so blasphemy is an attack on religion which is ok and protected by free speech. antisemitism is hate speech which is an attack on persons so its not ok, not protected and should not be tolerated.
My argument is that the arguing is about the meaning of blasphemy. It’s word games. Again. Empirically, irreverence for the jews is the only thing the jewsmedia and the current governments of Western countries actually regard as blasphemy. Blasphemy against anyone or anything else can be seen as either “free speech” or “hate speech”, depending on what consensus the jews come to about whether it’s good or bad for the jews.

Martin Luther King, Jr. -- Hero of the Suburbs

via Amerika

Why would anyone ever say, especially in a pained voice, “Can’t we all just get along?”

All of us getting along means acceptance of whatever. It means that there is no evolution, no searching for a better answer. In practice, it means that we all retreat to our homes and ignore each other as well as ignoring what happens to our society. If it gets worse, that is not our fault.

People who ask why we cannot all get along are seeking this kind of bourgeois individualism. They want the freedom to ignore the consequences of their actions and their inaction, so that if they contribute to mass destruction of society, they can look back and say “But I was fair to everyone, and I guaranteed that we all had rights.” Yes, rights to ignore that our fate is bound together and that what determines this is not the freedom of individuals, but the health of societies.

Martin Luther King, Jr. is a hero to many and is taught in every school, government office, and corporate diversity lecture. He is regarded as the origin of profundity on this matter. The reason he is praised is that he took the complex issue of national identity and boiled it down to “Just treat everyone equally,” which fits with the leftist narrative which has been gaining momentum over the past few hundred years. Leftism is popular not because it works, because obviously it brings decay wherever it goes, but because it gives people permission and justification to reduce their lives to uninterrupted self-expression.

In his view, we do not need to look deeply into the health of society as a whole. We do not need to consult the validity of its design or whether its values are good. We just need to be, like good hipsters at a craft beer bar, “nice” to each other. Treat everyone equally and let everyone be part of society. Do not impose standards on them. In fact, impose the anti-standard that says that any inclusive rule is acceptable, and any rule that can make anyone look bad is bad.

This appealed to people in the suburbs. They could keep doing what they were doing and stop thinking. They had only to treat everyone equally and society would magically turn out just fine. Shopping would not be interrupted, nor would meaningless but profitable jobs, nor would the pursuit of individual drama in the evenings and on the weekends. Their egos faced no impediment from Martin Luther King, Jr., who in fact gave them a new way to feel superior to others. Instead of being holier than thou they could be “nicer than thou” and achieve praise for upholding the dogma of our time.

Like the “Je Suis Charlie” trend after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, the King cult is based upon easy answers. Everyone just follow this one rule. Like equality, rules are applied universally to all and are easily understood. They break society apart from being an organic whole into a mass herd of individuals who have nothing but self-interest in mind, and thus form a collective to enforce that self-interest. And no one is thinking about the future of society as a whole, or the question of its design, merely assuming that it will always keep on being what it was in perpetuity as we wish it would so our egos have a blank canvas upon which to paint.

This is the Dunning-Kruger effect as policy: what people understand the most easily becomes the highest value of the land. It is what one might expect from mob rule or democracy. Those who insist this system can work generally do so in the belief that they can manipulate it to their ends, with consideration of the effect on the health of the society itself as a distant secondary if not absent consideration. Martin Luther King, Jr. just gives it validity and lets the suburban empty heads go back to oblivion with a minor modification, instead of questioning their direction and how a change might impact the uninterrupted pursuit of self-expression.

A Sheepdog without a Flock

via Radix Journal

A country unfamiliar with war just made a film about the deadliest sniper in U.S. history a record breaker.

Pulling in over $100 million its opening week, American Sniper looks poised to become a cultural phenomenon in a nation weary of foreign interventions and where military experience is few and far between. It hasn’t only been a success among average Americans. It’s earned six Oscar nominations, with spots for Best Picture and Best Director.

This created an uproar in light of the Martin Luther King biopic Selma not receiving enough nominations to placate racism accusations against Hollywood. Because we all know the film industry is a hotbed of White supremacy. This fact led many to condemn Sniper as a production that celebrates murder, and that it was, in the opinion of a White Daily Beast writer, “bland, macho, and…white.” In addition, the film has earned scorn from a few Hollywood figures who’ve described it as celebrating a “coward” and that it resembles the fictional Nazi propaganda film shown in Inglorious Basterds.

However, the tastes of Middle America differ from that of effeminate men employed at left-wing outlets and far more Americans have flocked to see the “macho White” movie over the latest iteration of civil rights porn. Though the critics are right about American Sniper. It is a film about a man who kills people and enjoys his grim task. It is bursting with machismo and the values of conservative White America. There’s no major characters who are White, and the only non-Whites in the movie are the bad guys and a few token minority SEALs. Like most of the work of director Clint Eastwood, this is a film with a heavy dose of heartland appeal that makes many dwellers in urban centers hold their nose.

However, this is not Dinesh D’Souza’s Imagine America without Navy SEALS, and it’s not a jingoistic work. The story of Chris Kyle is truly what lead actor and producer Bradley Cooper says it is—a character study. That character, though, happens to be a conservative White warrior, which naturally results in a film with a patriotic bent. But there’s something more here when vital questions like “What am I fighting for?” and “Why are we here?” never pop up in the movie. The larger context of the Iraq War is never hinted at and there’s hardly any depiction of the greater America Kyle came back to.

In many ways, Sniper is the American war film for the post-patriotic era. While the film fits in with the larger trend of patriotic films released recently—such as Lone Survivor and Unbroken--it differentiates itself through the total focus on the main character and barely touches on patriotic themes. It’s less hokey than those two films as well. It is worth nothing tough that Kyle, the man outside “The Legend”, made up stories about himself in his civilian life. It’s pretty clear he did not gun down two men trying to rob him at a gas station. He probably didn’t snipe looters in New Orleans during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It is also legally a fact that Kyle didn’t sucker punch Jesse Ventura because of an insult directed at the military. But these events are never brought up in the movie.

Instead, we get a story (with some dramatic license, of course) of his war exploits and the legend he represents.

The Story

The film features a relatively straightforward plot that oscillates between Kyle’s experiences in Iraq and his struggles with adjusting to life back in the states. Kyle served four tours before hanging up his rifle in 2009.

American Sniper begins at the scene featured in the film’s trailer. Kyle has a young boy holding what appears to be a grenade in his crosshairs. His superiors tell him it’s his call whether to pull the trigger. His lookout tells him they’ll “fry him” if he’s wrong and the kid is not a threat. What does Kyle do? The audience has to wait until later on to find out as we are quickly transported to his rural upbringing in Texas. As a child, he demonstrates superior marksmanship and a warrior spirit early on.

A quintessential scene is a lecture a young Kyle receives from his father about the three types of people in the world. According to his dad, the three types are: sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. The sheep are those who live in comfort and are unable to protect themselves from the dangers of the world. The wolves are those who prey on the sheep. Then, there are the sheepdogs who exist to confront the wolves to protect the sheep. Sheepdogs are decent folk who have the capacity for violence that wolves have, but channel their violence for good.

This scene interpolates Kyle’s younger brother getting pummeled by a large bully on the playground before the young Chris attacks the bully and dominates him. The father concludes his speech by slamming his belt on the table, declaring: “I don’t raise wolves.” Kyle explains he was only defending his weaker brother from a stronger aggressor. This prompts the question of whether he finished the job of making sure the bully got the message. “I finished the job.”

Flash forward several years, and now Kyle and his little brother work as bull riders. He comes home one night to find his live-in girlfriend with another man. To demonstrate that he’s an alpha male, Kyle manhandles the homewrecker and calmly tells his girlfriend to leave—without deigning to listen to her whining for attention. He then settles down to a beer and TV, when he is caught by news footage of the 1998 embassy bombings. Taken aback, he exclaims, “Look what they did to us!’

This begins his path to the Navy SEALs and his completion of the grueling training program. After finishing training, he meets his future wife in a bar, starting with a conversation about his chosen profession. She’s skeptical of SEALs as she considers them as self-centered douchebags. Kyle, dumbfounded, asks how he is selfish if he is willing to lay down his life for “our country and our freedom.” He wins her over with his Texan charm and they soon move in together.

But a TV report once again changes his life as Kyle and his not-yet wife watch 9/11 unfold before their eyes. He knows he’s going to war and he gets the call during his wedding.

Once in Iraq, we’re brought to the opening scene of the film where America’s soon-to-be-deadliest sniper has to choose whether to shoot the child with the grenade. He pulls the trigger as the boy began running to a Marine convoy. His mother rushes up to grab the grenade and attempts to complete her son’s task. She becomes Kyle’s second kill. And thus, the beginning of “The Legend.”

Kyle’s storyline in Iraq mostly involves his pursuit of an Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader dubbed “The Butcher” and an ongoing struggle with his Islamist sniper counterpart, Mustafa. The Butcher is not a complex character and is intended to remind the audience of the brutality committed by America’s enemies in Iraq. From torturing children to murdering religious leaders, the Butcher presents a picture of the evil enemy typical for patriotic war films. He’s even dressed like a film villain with his all-black dress and sinister scowl.

Mustafa, on the other hand, is a more interesting character. An Olympic rifle champion, the Syrian-born sniper has an implied depth to his actions that his brutal comrade, the Butcher, does not possess. He’s a skilled killer and a legend has grown around his exploits, similar to Kyle’s. Mustafa makes the equal foe for the SEAL sniper and grows into his primary obsession in continuing to venture into dangerous terrain. But we never get a more probing treatment of the counterpart outside of his matches with his American foe.

In spite of this film centering around the exploits of a sniper with nearly 200 confirmed kills, the protagonist seems completely unfazed by the execution of his targets. American Sniper only features two scenes where he displays any doubt in pulling the trigger, and both of them involve young children. The men he kills have no effect on him. It’s possibly true that what Kyle did enjoy killing and had no sympathy for the Iraqis. While the movie doesn’t show him taking any satisfaction in killing, outside of the pleasure of knowing he’s doing a good job of protecting fellow soldiers, the film does show a contempt for the Iraqis themselves. There are no good Iraqis shown in the film, except for the translator—who’s only shown when they need to interrogate a shady Arab.

But Kyle, who likely had some form of post-traumatic stress disorder, is deeply affected by the war and develops inner demons. Those stirrings of guilt aren’t caused by the killing of “bad guys,” it’s fueled by the comrades that fell before his eyes. His time at home, mostly detailing tense interactions with his family and his struggle to adjust to domesticity, is overshadowed by the men he feels he let down. The fallen comrades are what drives his hunt for Mustafa and to continue signing up for tours. This war experience alienates him from home life and there’s a brief scene where he decries the American public’s apathy towards the war. He laments that no one cares that men are dying over there and Americans are too concerned with their own petty interests. But that’s a brief diversion, and we never return to a deeper exploration of the disconnect between Kyle’s experience and that of the rest of America. Regardless, the legendary sniper is depicted as humble about his actions overseas and this plays out in a scene where a fellow veteran approaches him at an auto shop to thank him for saving his life. Kyle appears uncomfortable with the hero tag and is initially reluctant to act as a guide to vets struggling with life outside of war.

Eventually, Kyle realizes he’s finished with active duty and returns stateside. A PTSD episode at an all-American barbecue forces him to check in with the VA. While receiving help himself, he finds a purpose in mentoring his fellow veterans—feeling he gets to remain a hero even in civilian life. The film ends with an idyllic scene of family life in the Kyle household before he embarks on the fateful shooting trip with a PTSD-stricken veteran who takes his life. The end credits show Kyle’s real-life funeral procession where an entire interstate was shut down to allow it to pass through, with thousands of Texans coming out to wave flags and show off their patriotism. His funeral was held at a football stadium and drew seven thousand attendees. The intended effect was for audiences to depart the film in somber audience, reflecting on the life that was Chris Kyle.

The Hollow Sheepdog

American Sniper might’ve won the hearts of red-state America, but that certainly doesn’t make it a piece of nationalist cinema. This is the real reason that Seth Rogen’s now infamous comparison with fake Nazi propaganda is off-base. Inglorious Basterds’s “Stolz der Nation” was a work of triumph and pride (no surprise given its name), as was the propaganda it’s based off of. The men the German sniper kills in that movie are clearly enemies of the nation, and the hero himself is a living embodiment of his country. His struggles are his country’s struggles. His triumphs are his country’s triumphs. His actions are his country’s actions. There’s a direct link to the German soldier and his people, and like the propaganda it satirizes, it’s supposed to inculcate the spirit of national struggle. American Sniper conveys none of these things.

Unlike patriotic war films of the past, such as Patton, Sniper does not portray Kyle as a living embodiment of the nation. He is simply a man who snipes fellow men—that’s it. Patton, on the other hand, was about a quintessential American. He was a rough-around-the-edges fighter who did what was necessary for his country. He was a hero, and the example he set was what America apparently needed in the dark days of Vietnam. The story of General Patton extends beyond his immediate experiences and connects him with the country as a whole.

In contrast, the story of Chris Kyle remains a character study and doesn’t extend past his own experiences. The men he kills will not come across as enemies to the audience, but as threats to the soldiers deployed nearby—no more. The reason Kyle gives for killing is not—except for the brief moment flirting with his future wife—for “our freedom”, but for his immediate comrades. He always justifies the people he shot with the understanding that he saved Marines, not Americans in the abstract or his country.

The scenes that that carry the strongest emotions are the ones that convey the turbulence within the soldier. The ones that fall completely flat are when he reflects on his larger mission. Watching the embassy bombings and Kyle’s outrage seems hokey. It’s unconvincing to a viewer that this event would’ve driven Kyle to sign up (and we are right, because this is not what drove him to sign up in reality). The shock he has watching 9/11 also carries the same type of false emotion, as does his declaration that he would lay down his life for “our freedom.”

To the American of 2015, these statements are hard to swallow. Considering these sentiments drove this country into the failure that was Iraq, they carry a weight of skepticism for many. It’s particularly rich that the events that prompted Kyle’s anger occurred to people that he had absolutely no connection to. From the New Yorkers who would’ve viewed him as white trash to the Africans killed in the embassy bombings, these are people he share nothing with—except for some vague connection to America. That’s a strong reason why this film doesn’t dwell on the larger context of why he fights—it would make his actions seem worthless in the grand scheme of things. The viewer only sees the individual that is “The Legend” and the narrow view of America from the perspective of a rural Texan. To Kyle and many Middle Americans, “their” country is what surrounds them. It’s White, it’s conservative, and it’s good.

They can’t understand that most of America resembles nothing like their world and it increasingly hates their version. They can’t understand a country that would be more grief-stricken by the suicide of an attention-seeking transsexual teen than that of the greatest sniper in U.S. history. They still view the military as a bastion of tradition in a sea of liberalism, when it really is just as infected by modern America as any other institution. Otherwise, they wouldn’t give out high honors for nannying social media.

Kyle is only a single individual and his actions are not for God or country—they’re for himself and those around him. However, Kyle in the film, doesn’t believe this and a tense dialogue with a comrade illustrates this dissonance. One of his closest friends confides to Kyle that he has lost hope in any purpose for the mission and can’t understand the reasons why they’re here. Kyle, obstinate, replies without any doubt that they are fighting for their faith and nation. That doesn’t convince his comrade and the audience comes away with the opinion that the skeptical soldier is right.

In the end, Kyle faces the tragedy of being a sheepdog without a flock. The lecture given to him by his father, which is popular among military circles, imagines a world where there’s clearly defined good and evil, and the good sheep are always at risk of becoming prey. This kind of worldview was exploited to justify the Bush doctrine and our action in Iraq was viewed as sheepdogs in the form of the U.S. military coming to the rescue of the sheep in Mesopotamia, in addition to protecting the sheep back home. Instead, the war was a grand experiment in political theory that brought misery and death to the Iraqis and had nothing to do with protecting Americans stateside. But Kyle was able to convince himself that he was still a sheepdog over there and was doing what was necessary to defend those incapable of defending themselves. This mindset fails to hold up when he tries to maintain his status back home. His made up stories of gunning down would-be criminals and Katrina marauders reveal a man who was trying to be a sheepdog domestically. The problem is that sheepdogs are not wanted stateside and we punish those who use deadly force against the worst in our society. Just take a look at Ferguson.

He can only be a hero overseas for a cause he can’t really comprehend, and a cause the public now scoffs at. The America he fought for is radically different from what his imagining of America. It’s Detroit, it’s Wall Street, it’s Hollywood, it’s gay marriage, it’s affirmative action, it’s materialism, it’s nihilism, and it’s barely a country. Only a small part of it is the heartland, and that’s an ever decreasing fragment. The reason why we can’t make a movie about Kyle as a living embodiment of the U.S. is because he’s not, nor can anyone from the heartland be. This is a nation with no shared set of values, culture, or history. We are all just here glued to our own lives, as Kyle bemoaned to his wife. And few veterans have the happy story of The Legend, many have the story of the man who killed him. Broken souls returning to a soulless country, filled with anguish over what they had to go through for a nation that’s no longer theirs. How can anyone be a living embodiment of a country that only exists in the imaginations of a few?

This is why American Sniper is the war film for the post-patriotic age. It’s about a sheepdog without a flock, a hero without a country.