Jacksonianism and the Mesopotamian Question

Lawrence Murray
Atlantic Centurion
November 30, 2015

In the wake of the horrific but ultimately predictable 13-Nov-15 Muslim terror attacks against France, their connection to the Islamic State and the Syrian Civil War, and the ongoing migrant crisis/Afro-Islamic colonization of Europe, there is a sense that something has to be done about the conflict. Mainstream Western politicians want to put Iraq and Syria back together into their prewar borders and convert them to social democracies. They cannot conceive of other outcomes like partition, containment or reversion to nationalist rule. To meet this end, we must bomb the Islamic State (and try to force out Assad), train ‘moderate’ rebels, have a standoff with the Russians and ultimately invade two countries. What could go wrong?

Our current policy is pretty ineffective, a kind of Wilsonian zealotry that engages in robust context denial. We’re somehow going to convert multi-ethnic and Muslim-sectarian Syria and Iraq into West Germany and Japan whether they want it or not, by arming our favorite faction and deposing the de jure strongman government—needed to keep Diversity™ in check—while also fighting terrorism. Has sponsoring rebels ever really worked though? We couldn’t get our handpicked goys to topple Fidel Castro during the Bay of Pigs invasion and that was in our own backyard. Mesopotamia is half a world away and governed by millennarian totalitarians who make Castro look like Ron Paul. And it’s worth remembering that no Arab country has a cut-and-paste Western secular liberal democracy in place. How is that supposed to happen, and after seeing what happened to Libya without Gaddafi, how could anyone conclude we need to do the same thing to Assad? The MENA neighborhood includes absolute monarchies (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Qatar), military dictatorships (e.g. Egypt), anarcho-Islamist governments (Islamic State, Libya) and electoral terrorist political parties in power (Hamas in the Palestinian territories). I wonder if it has anything to do with race, religion and culture. No, that can’t be right; it’s the Current Year® and all human populations are equally capable of being Swedish.

But returning to the question at hand, what should be done about the Islamic State? How should the West settle the Mesopotamian Question? In theory, we could simply end civilization—or what masquerades as civilization—between the Tigris and the Euphrates with several well-placed ((((atomic weapons)))). That would be pretty evil though, especially since it wouldn’t make us any safer. In fact, it might make a billion people want to attack us. So that’s off the table, though technically speaking it isn’t (which is the joy of nuclear warfare).

I think the United States and Europe need to adopt a kind of Racial Jacksonianism as a foreign policy. Are the actions our governments taking in Syria and Iraq going to benefit our nations, and if not, shouldn’t we be suspicious of the powers who want said actions? Recall that a nation is not the same as a state or a country, despite the contemporary muddling of those terms in American English. A nation is a people with a shared genetic heritage, history, language, culture etc. A state is not a people; it is an institution run by persons. Maybe Washington would like two new clients in the Middle East to sell weapons to, build bases in, deter from attacking Israel and encircle Iran with, but does Anglo-America get anything out of this? Does making Europe into a continent of refugees benefit White people? Does ‘invade the world, invite the world’ seem like a sane foreign policy?

Ironically, our interventionist foreign policy has crippled our ability to intervene. France can’t even fight the Islamic State without being attacked by native-born Muslims. The only reason we can is because our country doesn’t have as many of them. Similarly, the main reason we can’t dump Israel is because of the monetary influence of the jewish minority on our politics—a country’s foreign policy is dangerously compromised by hosting sizable foreign populations. We recently released an Israeli spy from prison instead of killing it. Those saying we need to actively fight the Islamic State but welcome Muslim migration, refugee or not, are sowing the seeds of Paris in every city. It could take a year or ten but we can be certain there will be another terror attack. In the nth year of the Syrian Civil War, it’s time to consider other options.

It is obvious to anyone without cuck blinders that devout Muslims make war upon the infidel (or support it) and that their religion as it is currently interpreted—and has been interpreted for centuries—glorifies violence in the name of a metaphysical being. There is no peace with this; it is endless war until one side is destroyed or sufficiently halted in their tracks. And we can do the halting. Some xenoskepticism is a rational response when some members of a tribe want to kill you. But hey, NAxALT!

We don’t have to support Islamists against Assad and back the weakest horse in a three- or four-way war. We don’t have to invade the Islamic State and send home our doomed collaborators like we do in every one of these botched wars we have to fight with one hand tied behind our back. We don’t have to let in millions of Syrians and other bandwagon colonists. If anything, if we truly believe in containing terrorism more than replicating our government in other countries (and we should, since that’s infinitely more practical and beneficial to our security), we should be helping Assad and Russia fight Islamists. They have a more natural geopolitical interest in that part of world, given that they live there. Let them have this.

Supporting Assad gives us the best odds of stopping at least one pipeline of the Afro-Islamic Völkerwanderung and is the most minimally invasive action that serves our racial interests. Maybe we could pass a Kebab Removal Act too while we’re at it. And besides, what ((((kind of person)))) do you have to be to wish Western secular liberal democracy on someone? If autocracy brings peace and stability to the Arabs, who am I to disrupt it? Now, politely leave us alone as well or we’ll flatten your cities.