Four years have passed since I travelled to Europe; the length of a presidential term in which much can change. Indeed, much has changed in my own political views–along with many on the dissident right.
Let us take a brief trip down memory lane, into the political environment of December 2015.
Tony Abbott had been removed as Prime Minister by Malcolm Turnbull in September 2015. The resulting demoralisation among conventional conservatives, including myself, led many to divert their attention towards the Trump phenomenon.
In Europe Angela Merkel admitted 1.2 million Syrian refugees into Germany, who consequently flowed across into neighbouring EU member states. Initially lauded as a benevolent gesture, these migrants terrorised Europeans on arrival, causing public cynicism to ferment against Merkel and her globalist clique.
Most notably, the November 13 Paris terror attacks that killed 138 people, hardened public attitudes towards Syrian refugees and Muslim immigration writ large. Concerns over the issue of Syrian refugees pervaded the news cycle; at a time that Europe was commemorating 70 years since the close of World War Two.
This was the context in which I visited Berlin, on a Top Deck tour.
On the first morning, I went on a standard sightseeing tour of the city’s main attractions. This included the Reichstag, Brandenburg Gate, Checkpoint Charlie; and of course, World War Two related locations: the Fuhrerbunker, the Holocaust memorial, the Holocaust information centre, the Jewish museum, etc.
My sightseeing tour guide was, rather predictably, a (German-based) English progressive. She took every possible opportunity to vociferously denounce Adolf Hitler and the Germany of 1933 to 1945. When pressed further–at this time I was quite undiscerning in picking political debates–she criticised Israel from a left-wing perspective and warned hostility to Syrian refugees could easily “lead to another Holocaust.”
By this, my tour guide echoed a litany of mainstream media propaganda–coming from Politico, the Washington Post, the New York Times–comparing plans to ban Syrian refugees, to the rejection of boats carrying Jewish-German refugees prior to World War Two. So this narrative continues, the West must learn from its history by embracing Syrian refugees and humanitarianism; or else, risk descending into a dark European nationalism which has another ‘Holocaust’ as its natural conclusion.
At the time, my views could best be described as liberal and anti-Islamic.
I therefore could only muster superficial counter-offensives to this assault on immigration restrictionism, that juxtaposed Jewish and Syrian refugees. Pointing to their lack of a homeland, tiny global population and severe political disenfranchisement in Germany–these factors all rendered Jews of the 1930’s distinctly more vulnerable than contemporary Syrian refugees. Or so my argument went.
Following this pushback, we resolved to “agree to disagree” shortly before the sightseeing tour ended. Upon this closing of formalities, the day had sparked more questions than it had answered.
As at that very night in December 2015, these questions were:
- Why was moral responsibility for World War Two exclusively beared by Germany? Why does the topography of Berlin foist an onerous, enduring guilt upon the German people, for something that happened 70 years ago? After all, it wasn’t as if Japan or the Soviet Union conducted itself with much regard to morality in World War Two. Despite this, neither the cities of Tokyo nor Moscow show any culpability for the crimes of World War Two. So why the one-sided, unfair standard for Germany?
- Why were Jewish refugees of the 1930’s being so cavalierly compared with modern Syrian refugees? Besides contextual distinctions, the diametrically opposing nature of Jewish and Islamic interests–evidenced through Muslim anti-Semitism–meant it was bizarre to imply a shared plight. In the world of Islamic, Jewish and Western relations, Jews and the West were natural allies. This judicious connection was evidenced through Israel: a country embattled by radical Islam; that sourced many supporters from conservative circles in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia alike. Why were progressives misunderstanding this dynamic, drawing false equivalences between the Muslim and Jewish disposition?
These queries remained unanswered after leaving Europe and continued to simmer away. They challenged the very core of counter-jihad ideology, which I had prior perceived as the only principled alternative to left-wing ideas and the centre-right.
Answering questions to oneself is never easy, taking years; but I now feel sufficiently versed to settle them.
So, to my first question pertaining to German guilt.
As stated above, the shame hoisted upon Germans is wildly disproportionate–it takes a whole world to make a world war. However, this shame is connoted to the Third Reich for it captures what the elites fear most: White identity and traditionalism.
Human suffering by itself does not bother the elites, demonstrated in their apathy towards events and trends that do not threaten their immediate interests. For example, Leftist intellectuals spent years defending communism during Stalin’s perpetual, boundless reign of terror–and faced no economic or social sanctions as a result. Relevantly for present day horrors, how many mainstream journalists are desperate to uncover truths touched on by recent revelations of a global pedophilia elite, widespread satanic rituals and child sacrifice? Of course, none.
Given European nationalism poses a marked threat to ruling elites, by demonising the Third Reich, they can inoculate themselves against the emergence of anything ideologically adjacent to or vaguely approaching it.
As for my second question on Jewish-Islamic interests, evidently, Jewish influence finds expressions extending beyond centre-right affinities for Israel. The names of journalists who equated Syrian refugees with Jewish refugees–at Politico, the Washington Post and the New York Times–unequivocally points to this: Daniel (((Victor))), Ishaan (((Tharoor))), Josh (((Zeitz))).
Here is a photo of Daniel Victor, in case any doubt remained as to his ethnicity:
By supporting Syrian refugees, these Jews furthered their shared interest with the Muslim world. Which exists in disloyalty towards European civilisation so to advance its eventual extirpation.
True, Muslim antagonism towards Jews is a common feature of their relations. Yet the full picture reveals that Jews consider European nationalism to be a graver threat than Islam–which they consciously act upon.
Take Israel, which was unapologetically–and admirably, I might add–declared by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to be the “Jewish state.” Israel’s status as a final refuge for Jews, holds despite the country existing in a sea of Muslims and playing host to millions of Palestinian Muslims.
Jews feel safer in this environment, as opposed to Europe. For in the latter, there prevails a latent capacity for European nationalism that more critically threatens Jewish interests.
As Greg Johnson put in New Right vs Old Right, the logic of this Jewish view proceeds:
Given Jewish fear of European anti-Semitism, it follows, that Jews would actually feel safer in Europe if its indigenous population were diluted with non-Europeans, including Muslims. This hypothesis is, moreover, completely consistent with the politics supported by the leading Jewish organisations, which oppose European nationalism while supporting multiculturalism and Muslim immigration into Europe.
If Jews can make it such that European nationalism is impractical for demographic reasons, or widely seen as immoral, their interests are accordingly advanced.
In an alternative sense, the open endorsement of policies that destroy host countries could menace Jewish interests, by provoking an anti-Semitic backlash. That withstanding, as Greg Johnson explained, Jews have “no breaks” in exercising their duplicitous group strategy within Western countries.
This means we can safely assume that Jewish subversion will persist unabated, until a radical paradigm shift takes effect.