Refugees, Terror & Institutional Liberalism: How the West is killing Itself

Certainly, make-shift walls of barbed wire have already been erected all across the old continent – as if the people of Europe somehow do not recall the total failure of a particularly infamous barrier that came crumbling down 26 years ago (for better or for worse). Of course the great difference here is that back then – even in the frenzy that developed among the throngs of Germans who eventually pummeled the Berlin Wall into dust – there were still two orderly societies of Germans that had been living on either side of the wall for decades.

Today, however, no such orderly society exists behind the barbed wire fences that have sprung up across Europe. There is only desperation and hatred in the eyes of those in the camps – the direct result of countless years of militarily enforced Western chauvinism abroad and institutional liberalism within the West itself. To be sure, Western chauvinism and aggression abroad (i.e. in non-Western countries) is itself the direct result of the domestic institutional liberalism thatexists within all Western nations. This institutional liberalism is exceptionalist or supremacist by its very nature – and so, in that sense, it is very much like Western institutional racism. Another good descriptive for such a bigoted system would be “liberal totalitarianism.” One must therefore understand that the wretched conditions the refugees find themselves in, as well as the huge demographic crisis affecting average Europeans, are both linked directly to institutional liberal chauvinism.

Now there is a continent-wide situation developing where refugee camps, like the so-called “jungle” in Calais, are rapidly expanding beyond full capacity, spilling over into neighboring areas populated by fearful European natives. This is a recipe for disaster willfully created by the Western governments themselves. To compound the problem, there are a growing number of local governments in Germany – such as those in Hamburg, Nieheim and Olpe (North Rhine-Westphalia), and Braunsbedra (Saxony-Anhalt) – which have beenconfiscating the property of private citizens and evicting people from their homes in order to housemore refugees. As a consequence of such insane policies there seems to be a sudden increase in popular support for a number of far-right and far-left parties across Europe. And indeed this is a logical outcome.

However, what is conspicuously absent from the incessant political rhetoric surrounding the refugee crisis is the recognition of the fact that institutional liberalism is the root-cause of the problem. Moreover, institutional liberalism (on both the domestic and foreign levels) is the fundamental reason why the entire Western world seems destined to self-destruct in the near future. With the exception of paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan (in the United States) – who long foretold of the impending “death of the West” if current policies are not drastically changed – and of course also excluding the adherents of the marginalized Third Position who, like Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), still tend to speak in terms of the “decline of the West,” there are no political factions within the West drawing attention to the institutional liberal chauvinist policies which have already ruined nations like Iraq, Libya and Syria, and yet also continue to destroy the Western nations socially, culturally and economically from within.

Not even the neo-Nazi or fascist fringe groups (themselves, ironically, the ideological spawn of nineteenth century liberal nationalism) – not even they are putting the blame squarely where it belongs. Instead they merely produce or parrot the same old hateful rhetoric against Islam as a whole, or against foreigners as a whole, or against this or that Western politician. Of course the latter of which (politicians) are all mere puppets of larger transnational liberal institutions which have their origin in the United States and Western Europe. These liberal institutions include but are not limited to:consortiums (e.g. the Bilderberg Group), media corporations (e.g. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.), think tanks (e.g. Council on Foreign Relations), NGOs (e.g. George Soros’s Open Society Foundations), Wall Street and the Federal Reserve, global Freemasonry, multinational energy and oilfield service companies(e.g. ExxonMobil and Halliburton), arms industries (e.g. Lockheed Martin), etc., etc. All of these economic, cultural, social, political, and military-industrial institutions work together synergistically within the greater liberal matrix to produce mutually beneficial results for themselves – i.e. the liberal Atlanticist elites and their political lackeys. The Bilderberg Group is perhaps the greatest and most powerful example of a liberal super-elite, which combines within itself all of the most influential of the above types of institutions, thereby yielding the greatest results. Nevertheless, all of these institutions – and the liberal elites guiding them – completely outweigh whatever clout one might think a particular Western politician or group of politicians might theoretically possess, let alone whatever “power” the totally oppressed refugees are said to have (a typical claim among fascists).

So make no mistake, it is liberalism – institutional liberalism – which is ultimately behind the West’s many domestic and foreign policy blunders. From the fanatical promotion of multiculturalism and related “politically correct” social norms to the genocidal destruction of countries like Vietnam and Iraq, and the wanton bombing of others like Serbia, Libya and (until Russia stepped in) Assad’s Syria.

To those who insist on the belief that it is only the neoconservative elements within the Western power elite that are responsible for such acts, you are wrong. Were the principal manipulators of Lyndon Johnson (the ravager of Vietnam) neoconservatives? Were the chief handlers of Bill Clinton (the tormentor of Serbia) neoconservatives? And even though there is indeed a considerable minority of neocon hacks working within the current administration, are the majority of the elites pulling Obama’s strings “neoconservatives”? No. The abovenamed U.S. presidents have all carried out domestic and foreign policies which are specifically liberal in origin – all on behalf of the liberal elite “powers behind the throne.” Only some of these policies coincide with neoconservatism as it is understood in its purest form via the works, speeches and political careers of such leading neocon figures as Irving and William Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Norman and John Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al. Essentially, neoconservatives tend to be socially conservative, economically liberal, ardently pro-Israel, and “hawkish” when it comes to military and geopolitical affairs.

So, to be honest, neoconservatism is only one moderately well-defined sect or microcosm within the entire macrocosm of liberalism (the first political theory). To put it another way, neoconservatism is only one strain of the ever-adapting liberal virus – a strain which developed long ago out of the most liberal left-wing (Trotskyite) form of Marxism (the second political theory). In order to survive the Cold War within the capitalist nations, the virus began moving further and further right on the political spectrum. For now, it suffices to say that liberalism (taken as a whole) is the greater disease to be reckoned with – it must be attacked, beaten back and defeated on all fronts precisely because liberalism, itself, attacks on all fronts (ethnic, cultural, political, social, economic, etc.) and by any means possible. When liberalism is finally destroyed, neoconservatism shall also be wiped out – along with a host of other liberally derived disorders. To be sure, liberalism is the chief ideology (or radical stimulus) responsible for the spread of terrorism to all four corners of the earth.

And if we are going to look at the ongoing problem of terrorism, then we must do so critically. Indeed, we must treat the severe illness of terrorism the same way a doctor would treat a critically ill patient. If we do that, we must then recognize some facts – especially in the wake of the downing of Metrojet Flight 9268 over Sinai and the recent attacks in Beirut and Paris. Specifically, we must recognize the fact that the current chaos in the Middle East and the rise of the Islamic State is the direct result of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and more recently the result of French and Anglo-American support given to the so-called “moderate rebels” in Syria. We must also recognize the fact that the 2011 NATO attack on Libya caused that country to become a veritable den of Islamic State (IS) activity.

France, in particular, has been at war with Syria (i.e. the Assad government) for quite some time. We must remember that in addition to all of the arms and funds the French government has provided to the terrorist groups that became ISIS/ISIL (in flagrant violation of international law), France is also the only Western nation to officially cease its recognition of the Assad government – a government which just so happens to be the legitimate UN-recognized government of Syria. The French government chose, for propagandistic reasons, to instead recognize some completely absurd (if not altogether fictitious) opposition council. So for a number of years now, a situation has been allowed to develop where the institutionally liberal French Republic has done all it could to delegitimize Assad and, at the same, assist in the U.S.-led creation of the current false-flag “Islamist Enemy” which has now been unleashed on French soil. It could therefore be said that the French government, as the epitome of liberal Western policy, is finally cutting its own throat – just as the broader West is doing the same.

It should also be stressed that over the past couple of months, France has not only been fighting against the legitimate government of Syria, but it has de facto been at war with the Russian Federation, which (alongside Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah) has been fighting the real war against Salafi jihadist terrorism or what can rightly be considered the great Western “Frankenstein” – the quintessential symbol of Western decadence. So in a sense, France, in its opposition to Russia (at least prior to the Paris attacks), is comparable to a dying hospital patient who is fighting her physician – a physician who happens to have the cure for her own self-inflicted illness. This is a cure which does not include France’s continued drug-like dependence on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, trading arms for oil. Hopefully the reader will already understand that when it comes to Islamism or Wahhabism or Salafi jihadism (whatever one wishes to call the extremist interpretation of Sunni Islam), all roads lead to the Saudi regime. Indeed, the Saudis are 100 percent responsible for the funding of the most radical mosques all over the world.

This leads directly to another point: in order to effectively fight and defeat terrorism (both at home and abroad), it is totally necessary for Western governments to first defeat and eradicate their own “home grown” liberalism. For example, those who committed the November 13th attacks were themselves from Paris and Brussels – they themselves benefitted from their own domestic liberal societies. Hardly symbols of respectable Islam, they are instead paradigmatic symbols (and symptoms) of the grotesque postmodern civilization they grew up in. In the same way, foreign (non-Western born) jihadists are not to be regarded as representatives of Islam in the Muslim world, but are instead mere symptoms of Western foreign policy – in fact they are extensions of Western foreign policy.

The ongoing refugee crisis in Europe has only fanned the flames of recruitment for terrorist activity all across the world. It does not take a proverbial “rocket scientist” to understand that this is a self-inflicted crisis created by the liberal Western Beast itself. And so now the two most pressing existential problems for Europe have converged: terrorism and mass migration. Of course France, in particular, remains an extremely vulnerable target for any kind of future terrorism that could potentially camouflage itself within the ranks of the refugees. There are a number of very obvious reasons for this, some of which include France’s long standing open border policy, its fundamentally open cosmopolitan society, and of course the large number of its native citizens and foreign-born residents who are adherents of Salafism.

On this last point, it should be known that the well-respected polling agency ICM conducted a poll in 2014 which found that up to 15 percent of the total population of France supports ISIS, and among 18 to 24 year olds that number spikes up to approximately 25 percent. To say these scientific, impartial findings are alarming is certainly an understatement. However they are definitely believable when one considers the fact that, on the domestic front, the French media have consistently demonized Bashar al-Assad for years. At the same time, French media haveglorified all of Assad’s opponents, which include both the Islamists and the so-called “moderates” (who do not exist). Thus it is totally understandable why so many impressionable young people are attracted to the message of the radical jihadists. By extension, it is also easy to understand why the entire political class in France, with the exception of the National Front, still clings to the irrational belief that the main enemy in French politics is the nationalist right.

To conclude, the recent attacks in Paris and the ongoing refugee crisis affecting all Europe amount to nothing more than karmic blowback for all of the thoroughly liberal foreign and domestic policies which the governments of France and other Western countries have promoted for generations. Solving the refugee problem requires putting an end to terrorism at home and abroad. And putting an end to terrorism means that the people of France and the broader West should immediately begin to reassess the institutional liberalism which dominates their lives and the lives of others all around the globe (hence Globalism). In other words they must at least begin to investigate all of the negative ramifications of institutional liberalism at the local, national and international levels. France and the other Western countries that created ISIS/ISIL and were responsible for starting (and then fanning the flames of)the civil war in Syria must then swallow their misplaced pride and totally reverse the course they are on – they must make a complete 180-degree turn morally and politically, and then perhaps culturally, socially, and economically as well. They must either support or join Russia’s international coalition against terrorism. Anything less than this much needed change in both worldview and policy will surely bring about the irreversible DEATH of the West in the not too distant future.

But will the West be able to swallow its narcissistic pride? That is the question.