By ilana mercer
“HEY, it’s me, Salah Abdeslam. Did you see the attacks across Paris? Bismillah, may we have many more like them. Brothers Brahim Abdeslam, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, myself and others pulled it off. I’m still in Paris. I need a ride back to Brussels. Come get me.”
After executing 130 people in Paris, Nov. 13, and maiming many more, Abdeslam called his compadres in Belgium to ask for a lift home. I can’t vouch for the precise wording of the telephonic exchange between Salah Abdeslam and his contacts in Belgium. But the call took place, as BBC News reported. And it must have been quite a relaxed one, circumstances considered.
Still on the lam, Abdeslam knows he has nothing to fear. The French authorities were on heightened alert. The Kufar’s telephones had all been tapped. Yet Salah’s faith in the French fools was unshaken for a reason.
Without court orders, as The Guardian tells it, François Hollande’s socialist government taps phones and emails, hacks computers, installs “secret cameras and recording devices in private homes”; infects French Internet and phone service providers with “complex algorithms” designed to “alert the authorities to suspicious behavior.”
Yet it all—the French Surveillance State—amounts to naught.
Like gun laws, spy laws oppress only law-abiding, harmless individuals.
As in all western democracies, France’s Big Brother surveillance apparatus is as useless as it is oppressive.
France’s “protectors” knew nothing of the conversations taking place under their noses.
Duly, Marine Le Pen would be summoned to appear in Court for “inciting religious hatred against Muslims,” in October. Leader Le Pen, who loves her countrymen and would never harm them, was in court for saying “France for the French.”
Yes, Salah knew all too well—still knows—that offensive speech French authorities would diligently prosecute, all the more so when uttered by a “white supremacist.” But a suspicious looking swarthy supremacist like himself, hellbent on killing his hosts, would not so much as be stopped for an inquisitive chat.
Not on returning from one of many round trips to Syria and back, to Turkey and back, to Morocco and back. And not on returning to the scene of the crime.
Megyn Kelly, whose professional conduct is utterly unbecoming—it’s becoming more like Bawbawa Walter’s journalistic porn by the day—took up an entire segment of her Fox News extravaganza to kibitz about the un-Islamic lifestyle of the architect of the attacks. OMG! Abdelhamid Abaaoud had been swilling whiskey in Paris’ Saint-Denis district, in contravention of Islamic law, moaned Imam Kelly.
The real “breaking news” story Kelly missed.
Abaaoud was thus relaxing and celebrating a day after the successful attacks.
Shortly after the attacks, Abaaoud had managed to return undisturbed to the scene of the crime to mill about among the moronic French gendarmes and survey his handiwork with them.
The “breaking news” here, Ms. Kelly, is the criminally negligent, worse-than-shoddy French police work.
Where were the roadblocks? Where was the rational profiling at the roadblocks? Where was the basic police procedure that used to see cops stop and politely question loiterers at a crime scene?
Nowhere!
Thus did Paris’ chief gendarme order the city’s peaceful Jews to cancel public Hanukkah celebrations. Better that, than to stop a North-African looking chap for a chat.
Jews may be removing themselves from Paris’ Public Square, but not Jihadis. Rest assured: With the help of their political and constabulary enablers, Jihadis are already surveying the city for more soft targets, just like the Parisian headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper, whose writers were exterminated in January.
France is no civilized outpost; it is paradise on earth for Muhammad’s martyrs; it’s hell on earth for their dhimmis.
Why, just the other day a Jewish teacher was stabbed in Marseilles by purported ISIS supporters. And a local businessman was beheaded near the city of Grenoble by two of Muhammad’s acolytes, celebrating Ramadan with an act of Islamic conquest. These French Muhammadans brazenly impaled the poor man’s severed head on a fence.
Other than the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, nobody employs more un-vetted Muslims than the French. According to The Australian, at least “57 workers with access to runways and aircraft were on [a French] intelligence watchlist as potential Islamist extremists.”
One of the assailants at Bataclan, Omar Ismail Mostefai—mercifully, he blew himself to smithereens likely because he knew the gendarmes would take pity on him and slow down his journey to Gehenna—was fingered back “in 2010 as a suspected Islamic radical. Since then, Mostefai appears to have been able to travel to Syria; he may have also spent time in Algeria.”
Another Bataclan alumnus, Samy Amimour, a 28-year-old Frenchman, also partook in France’s generous, frequent-flyer terrorist tours. He scuttled to commune with ISIS in Syria without being kept out of France, or deported for good to ISIS Land.
A BBC News headline asked: “Paris attacks: Is bashing Belgium justified?”
An unqualified yes is the answer—provided blame is apportioned between France, Germany, The Netherlands and other European countries, which all keep the revolving door in operation, so that their Muslim youngsters may circumambulate from Europe to ISIS Land and back again.
When the butcher aforementioned, Brahim Abdeslam, commenced his pilgrimage to Syria, the Turks were sharp enough and responsible to send him packing back to Brussels, where he was wanted, but not a Wanted Man.
The best I kept for last: Salah Abdeslam was stopped by police “in his car,” not once, but “three times in the hours following the attacks, on the last occasion near the Belgian border” (BBC News). Abdeslam and two fellow travelers were waved by, because they did not resemble Marine Le Pen.
The little man in charge of France responded in Syria to the presence of ISIS in France. Hollande’s lunacy excited neoconservatives stateside no end. That’s because the inmates are running the American and European asylum, where The People are the real refugees.
Patriots who promise no more than to make the West safe for its people again; the gilded traitor elite threatens with court orders served upon them by Jihadis.
Marine Le Pen’s Front National, the Freedom Party of Austria, and Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (to be joined, indubitably, by Donald Trump) are outsiders in their homelands. But in France, it’s business as usual for the barbarians.
ILANA Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer based in the United States. She pens WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, “Return to Reason.” Ilana’s latest book is “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Her website is www.IlanaMercer.com. She blogs at www.barelyablog.com.
I disagree with the premise of the piece. The inmates are not running the asylum. The actions of our rulers are entirely rational, on their own terms. Mass immigration from the Third World is happening mostly by design and is the result of capitalism and overseas military attrition by the West against the Third World.
If I am going to cheer anybody on, it will be the Moslem ‘terrorists’, who are only doing the dirty work we should be doing. As I see it, these Moslems are anti-heroes, certainly not villains. I see them more in the romantic mould of Robin Hood-type outlaws. I support them, not our governments. The only argument I have with these so-called ‘terrorists’ is that they are selecting the wrong targets, and as such, do their own cause, and the rest of us, no favours. Every ‘innocent’ death [admittedly, noone is purely innocent really, except young children] is just ammunition for our gangster governments, who then have their plausible moral pretext for inflicting further violence in what has become a vicious cycle.
It’s time for a new social order. Less capitalism. More socialism, of the right kind. More looking after your own people, which is what an economy is, or should be, for; less of this master-slave ethic that has come to dominate Western political economy under the influence of a certain ethnic group who will remain unnamed. I won’t give you the name for this type of system, but it has the words ‘socialist’ and ‘nationalist’ in it, and I’m sure you can figure it out on your own.
The Libertarian Alliance does not condone or promote any terrorist actions. Please desist from making such comments in future.
Which just serves to prove my point, made elsewhere, that Westerners have double standards when it comes to political violence.
You think it is perfectly acceptable to publish an article [see link below] promoting violent revenge against Syrian civilians, in which the author uses that time-worn juridical phrase, ‘retribution’ – a word used by sophists and defenders of the indefensible everywhere – as if Western governments should be considered judge and jury in matters of criminal law, a law unto themselves if you will, without the intervention of any independent court system:
http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/12/02/strike-raqqa-by-all-means/
Not that I object in any way to the linked article being published, and some good points are made in it, but it seems that it is acceptable to inflict state terrorism on Third Worlders, or to advocate this. However, should anyone have the nerve to suggest that what we do to others should be done to us, well that’s just not on.
Bombing, killing, and maiming Third World peasants is perfectly ethical, even moral, and is called ‘retribution’. But it really is just not the done thing for the Third World ‘savages’ to reply with their own violence against us. It’s just not cricket, old boy.
So, to summarise, Sean Gabb and the Libertarian Alliance think that promoting or defending Western state terrorism is perfectly fine.
But if the Moslems want to take revenge, that’s entirely unacceptable.
That is the ‘moral’ equation in the West. Hypocrisy expressed in double standards and dressed in the clothes of lacquered moral rectitude.
My position is, if anything, more morally consistent. I believe that innocent people should not be attacked, and that if so-called ‘terrorists’ want to attack the West, they should select deserving targets. The author of the linked article, in contrast, thinks that a bombing campaign that will almost certainly kill innocents is absolutely fine. He calls it ‘retribution’ in an effort to give his views the imprimatur of respectability, and you and the Libertarian Alliance seem to think this is fine too, or at least, it’s OK to hold such views. This is hardly surprising – these double standards are typical of Western intellectuals.
What it serves to prove is that society and its morals are basically just a front. There are no serious morals. We just live in a bandit society in which what is considered broadly expedient is justified in moral and ethical language. Am I supposed to be impressed with your haughty little intervention in this thread? You object to my comments to look good in front of your sycophants. It’s all for show, as is almost-everything that goes on in Western societies and its ‘politics’.
I am not interested in looking good. I am asking you to desist from certain lines of comment that seem likely to get those who run this Blog into various kinds of trouble.
We believe in unlimited freedom of speech, but do not feel under any obligation to allow it here. In the same way, I believe that consenting adults should have the right to hold violent sex parties. This does not mean that I would be happy if a house guest tried running one in my living room.
I therefore ask you again to desist from the lines of comment that I have mentioned.
The analogy of violent sex parties doesn’t quite work here, because most Syrians, I imagine, don’t get a perverse sexual thrill out of seeing their homes reduced to rubble and their children turned into charcoal carcasses. You see, you forget, in your inimitable Western way, that there are two sides to this.
My point is that on the one hand you allow publication of an article that condones state violence against innocent people in the name of ‘retribution’, yet on the other hand you disapprove of anyone suggesting that there ought to be moral consistency.
So really, my point is proved. You think it’s quite spiffing if it is done to somebody else, but as soon as the gun barrel is turned in your direction, then it’s a different matter. That’s really not on. At least I can approach this matter with some objectivity and tell it how it is.
By the way, I’m also quite proud of the fact that my original comment above has 8 downvotes. Is that a record for this site? I see no shame in it anyway, given the subject matter.
If you want to accuse people of inconsistency, or even hypocrisy, be our guest. But do not write in support of illegal actions. The reason we are sensitive about this is that it is currently against the law. We support Anjem Choudary’s right to break this law. We do not wish to stand trial beside him.
Come on, any other organisation would have blocked you at once from posting. All we currently ask is that you obey our rules.