General David Howell Petraeus is the much-decorated ex-CIA boss who was famously reprimanded for providing classified material to his biographer – who was also his mistress – while he was the head of America’s foremost intelligence agency. Writing in The Washington Post, the must-read newspaper for the ethnomasochistic white liberal class, Petraeus makes the extraordinary claim that the way to defeat ‘Islamist extremism’ – which is the term these people use instead of Islam – is to be a good deal nicer to Muslims. Indeed, echoing Muslim-friendly Barack Obama, Petraeus thinks that the way to defeat these people is to invite more of them to the West, a lot more.
Wherever and whenever a member of the political
elite is lying about Islam, you can expect the stalwart phrase ‘playing into
the hands of the terrorists’ to be dusted down and taken from the cliché shelf.
Petraeus does not disappoint;
“[T]hose who flirt with hate speech against
Muslims should realise they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and
Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash
of civilisations – telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them
and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination
against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.”
Petraeus’s target is primarily Donald Trump, and
we should note that Trump’s mild and entirely sensible suggestion of a
moratorium on Muslim immigration until the United States’s pathetic border
control services can be told to do their jobs properly has been twisted into ‘blanket
discrimination’. Discrimination, which we all of use each and every day and is
an essential ability humans possess to stay alive and healthy, has been
changed, like so many formerly neutral or positive terms, into something
wicked, something that racists on the far Right do, and which decent people
would never indulge in.
Now, it has been strongly suggested that Petraeus,
like the Clintons, is on the payroll of the House of Saud, and that his
statements are just another example of the sort of promotion of brand Islam
that all Western elites practice all the time. Nevertheless, The Washington Post is a widely read and
respected newspaper, not some hole-in-the-wall blog. It is a powerful statement
by virtue of its juxtaposition of power and media outreach.
The thrust of Petraeus’s article is that a clear
and present enemy that has unequivocally stated that it wishes to destroy the
West, and which is clearly supported or at least approved of by a majority of
its co-religionists, should be coddled and simpered to instead of being hit so
hard they won’t know what day it is. It is an extraordinary logical manoeuvre,
one more suited to dog-handling or bee-keeping than the maintenance of law and
order.
The idea that one ethnic or religious group commits
violence because the victims of that violence have provoked them beyond endurance
brings to mind Louis Farrakhan’s comments on Hitler and the Jews;
“You see everybody talk about Hitler exterminating
six million Jews. That’s right. But don’t nobody ever ask what did they do to
Hitler.”
In other words; perhaps these guys riled Hitler so
much they deserved the ovens. Perhaps if they hadn’t annoyed him so much he
wouldn’t have had the tracks laid to Treblinka and made all those orders for
Zyklon-B.
Now, Farrakhan is both the leader of the Nation of
Islam and a notoriously stupid man. In the context of black activism, he makes
the Reverend Al Sharpton look like Goethe. But his comment underlines a fact
that runs through contemporary anti-White strategy; if minorities commit
violent crime, and the victims are white, the victims are at fault.
Here, for example, is British Prime Minister’s
diagnosis of the problem of multiculturalism;
“Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we
have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each
other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve
failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.
[Emphasis added]
This is typical of Western power’s response to the
Muslim Question. Any failings cannot be ascribed to Islam or Muslims, and so
must be the fault of the largely unwilling host nations. It doesn’t seem to
occur to Cameron that no society would be held acceptable by many Muslims
unless it operated under shariah law, and was under the direct control of
Muslims, which is what he seems to want.
But let us return to the notion that we must
pacify Muslims and other minorities by ensuring that we do nothing to anger
them. Colin Flaherty, an American journalist who sprang to prominence for
securing the release of a wrongly accused black man and then began to
investigate black crime and social disruption, sums up the prevailing strategy
when dealing with violent minorities attacking despised majorities – always whites
– with the title of one of his books; Don’t
Make the Black Kids Angry.
The provenance of the title leads us to realise
that this societal appeasement is not going to make any of its associated
problems go away. Flaherty reports as follows;
“For the last five years, black mobs have rampaged
and beaten and destroyed and threatened and defied police dozens… of times at
the upscale Country Club Plaza in Kansas City. They tried everything to fight
it. New mayor. New police chief. They begged parents. Pleaded with
perpetrators.
‘What do you want?’ community activists asked the
members of violent mobs. We want to be left alone, they said.
Finally they tried a curfew – against the advice
of former Mayor and now Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, who told them; ‘All we are
going to do is make a lot of black kids angry.’”
This is precisely what Petraeus is saying with
reference to Muslims; indulge in ‘hate speech’ – by which he means any
criticism of Islam, however innocuous – and all you are going to get is a lot
of angry Muslims.
The first point that this ridiculous attitude
ignores is that much of the Muslim world is perpetually angry. The British talk
about a bad-tempered person as having ‘got out of bed the wrong side’. For much
of Islam, both sides of the bed are the wrong side. There is no right side, and
it’s all the fault of the West for inventing and designing the bed.
The dissident Right in the West, which is growing
against the express wishes of the elites, have realised for some time that Islam
requires criticism in the form of honest description to stop its carcinogenic
spread throughout formerly free continents. People must be free to criticise,
attack, demonise, lampoon, accuse and speak the truth about Islam. All these
various speech acts are, of course, designated as ‘hate speech’ by the elites
and their cronies in the media, the NGOs, the campuses and the public sector,
particularly the police. If these things are hate speech, then we must fight
for the right to hate, even if it makes Muslims angry.