Monday, 23 May 2011
The MajorityRights website has news of a novel about a nationalist terrorist group. This is an interesting concept. I have often wondered what the effect on politics would be if nationalist/counterjihadist/anti-European genocide terrorist groups emerged. Enoch Powell once spoke of the "gearing effect" of terrorism:

“The experience of the last decade and more, all round the world, shows that acts of violence, however apparently irrational or inappropriate their targets, precipitate a frenzied search on the part of the society attacked to discover and remedy more and more grievances, real or imaginary, among those from whom the violence is supposed to emanate or on whose behalf it is supposed to be exercised. Those commanding a position of political leverage would then be superhuman if they could refrain from pointing to the acts of terrorism and, while condemning them, declaring that further and faster concessions and grants of privilege are the only means to avoid such acts being repeated on a rising scale. We know that those who thus argue will always find a ready hearing. This is what produces the gearing effect of terrorism in the contemporary world, yielding huge results from acts of violence perpetrated by minimal numbers. It is not, I repeat again and again, that the mass of a particular population are violently or criminally disposed. Far from it; that population soon becomes itself the prisoner of the violence and machinations of an infinitely small minority among it. Just a few thugs, a few shots, a few bombs at the right place and time and that is enough for disproportionate consequences to follow.”

The speech seems particularly prescient as it was delivered in 1977, before jihadist terrorism had emerged as a significant factor in the west. Would Counterjihad terrorism lead politicians to seek accommodation with Europeans who feel that their civilisation is under attack in the same way that Muslim terrorism has led them to appease Muslim sensibilities? Or would they instead go for even harsher repression?

It strikes me that the emergence of counterjihadist/nationalist/pro-European terrorism is probably inevitable in the end. In essence, politics could be regarded as a form of substitute warfare. When people have strong differences of opinion about the way their country should be governed, there are two ways those differences can be resolved: talking or fighting. Of course talking is preferable; but there are now so many laws restricting free speech in Europe that it is no longer possible to have an honest discussion about the gravest threat European civilisation has ever faced: the growth in the size of the Mohammedan demographic which ultimately portends civil war, the end of democracy and the dissolution of our way of life. Moreover, these restrictions on free expression are increasing as are the encroachments of the Muslim "enemies within". A pressure of public anger is building up that will inevitably find expression somehow; if it is banned from the sphere of public discourse, it will go underground and eventually erupt in some more ferocious form. If it does, it will be those who banned free speech who are responsible.

Counterjihad terrorism would, of course, be counterjihad in the most literal sense of the term. It would mean adopting some of the methods of the Muslims to pursue opposite ends.


Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews