Print this post Print this post

The Atrocities in Brussels

belgium-2016-terrorist-attacks-belgian-flag-in-blood-whos-next-meme-brussels1,070 words

Thanks to the “ragheads” who slaughtered over 30 innocent people in Brussels, I now know why the internet was invented. It was so that multicultural societies wouldn’t fall apart and could subsist. 

You know what I mean. Every time this happens – and it’s always the same thing happening – you have the exact identical response, namely people reposting soulful messages about hate not winning or letting off steam with a few comments along the lines of  “How could our leaders be so stupid?”

And then, of course, there are those sheep-like individuals who simply change their Facebook or Twitter filters to reflect the nominal flag of whichever part of the West has been utilized for the latest atrocity, before returning to their kitten-posting.

The internet’s rise coincides quite well with the escalation of multiculturalism in the last 20 years. It’s easy to understand the synergy. What the internet mainly does is create virtual space, virtual communities, and virtual gestures for the actual spaces, communities, and emotions that have been lost to multiculturalism, the same blight that hollows out the social vacuum and thus facilitates terrorism.

When this kind of event happens, you always have the same emotional trajectory – a sense of something happening and of an emotional group response that we momentarily feel might reach to the highest corridors of power and transcend our impotent atomized condition.

This usually lasts all the way to the first nebulous comments from our leaders that this is just a meaningless attack by a “few bad apples” and that we have to double down on our tolerance or “hate will win.” By then our rage, fear, or concern has been largely dissipated and dissolved in the vent of cyberspace.


When this kind of event takes place, you invariably run into the same narratives – the sensible ones and the stupid ones. Two of the most idiotic are:

  1. The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists so stop blaming all Muslims
  2. Someone is simply using these incidents to divide us

Yes, of course, the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, even though they are disproportionately likely to be terrorists, rapists, welfare parasites, or other societal negatives.

The thinking behind this idea is that, despite these negative behaviors, there are good Muslims who would suffer if we judged them collectively in this manner; and also that judging them in such a manner would increase their tendency towards such behavior.

Whites, of course, can be judged not only collectively but trans-generationally going back hundreds of years. If Muslims might be pushed further into terrorism and child rape by collective judging, isn’t there at least a slight danger of Whites being pushed into Nazism and slave-holding by the same mechanism? But I digress.

The main flaw with this way of thinking is that it ignores the complexity of human individuals and groups, and postulates a simplistic notion of atomized individual creatures who either obey or disobey fixed societal norms. This is a childishly simplistic model of human behavior.

Firstly, it ignores the existence of groups. Supposedly Muslims are only Muslim because they came from Muslim countries. Their identity is simply a designation of origin, and must in no way be seen as determining how they act or interrelate with their own kind or us. To think otherwise, according to this view, is to be racist and to deny them their full potential as individuals in our society,

Secondly, this view ignores the competitive nature of groups – and therefore represents a form of unilateral disarmament by those who subscribe to it.

Given the conditions under which Muslims came to the West, of course, only a tiny minority will resort to radical violence, but how do the rest of the Muslims feel about it? I believe that they have a dual attitude. On the one hand they have no wish to be directly blamed for the actions of others, but they also enjoy the aura of strength and virility that these acts project, and the leverage they gain by being seen as potentially violent and dangerous – something along the lines of “Don’t fuck with us, we’re Muslims.”

Also, many normal Muslims see themselves as the ascendant group in the West, one that is steadily growing in numbers, while viewing Westerners as decadent and declining. But they also occasionally put themselves in our shoes, and think how they would act if the roles were reversed.

Even in our degeneracy they expect some kind of backlash. This might incline some to taqiyyah and keeping their noses down until the numbers favour them, but even such a Muslim has a concept of societal struggle with the indigenous population that must make his attitude to terrorism extremely ambiguous.

“As long as the Kufar remains weak and confused maybe a little terrorism is a good thing,” he may think deep in his heart.

This kind of mindset would certainly explain the surprisingly high support in the Muslim community for suicide bombers, as revealed in polls.


The other trope mentioned above – the notion that someone is committing these acts as a false flag in order to “divide us” – is indeed laughable, not because false flags don’t happen – they do – but because the ancillary supposition of this trope is that we must work hard to overcome these divisions in order to demonstrate to the “evil elites” or secret cabals committing these acts that we cannot be divided by their sinister plans.

This view is simply one part conspiracy theory, one part utopian poppycock. But, of course, you can’t prove that it isn’t a false flag, as such theories are constructed to be unfalsifiable in that any proof to the contrary is claimed to be planted and therefore is merely confirmation of the plot. One is reminded of the Victorian Christian notion that god planted the dinosaur bones merely to test the faith of Darwinists who doubted the Creation.

But if you should run into this opinion, it is relatively easy to deal with. Rather than going along with the notion that we should sing “Kumbaya” with our Muslim brothers, simply point out that nothing plays into the hands of malevolent elites quite as much as an inherently divided society, in which racial and religious divisions can be easily used to set us at each other’s throats. The obvious thing to do in such a case is to dismantle multiculturalism. Brussels is yet more proof of this stronger glowing truth.


If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. The_Brahmin
    Posted March 26, 2016 at 5:21 am | Permalink

    Well done, Colin. Very insightful. You are one of the best writers on the Real Right of the political spectrum.

    How can the European retaliate, Colin? They have wedged themselves in from all the sides – voluntarily. Their senses are dulled with the factory-style education and onslaught of entertainment. Their politics are dulled – kosher left v kosher right as their main choices. They have forgotten their own histories, legends, myths, greatness, everything. What will they rise up to defend?

    White people listen to Beyonce and Beyonce donates to ”Black Lives Matter”. That’s the absurdity of White Civilisation today, the inheritor of the great Aryans who seeded cultures from North Europe to the gangetic plains of India.

    Cameron argues for Turkey in EU, Obama is dancing with a Cuban and Merkel gets fatter and stupider. All these people have been elected and relected by the same people who are being destroyed by the latest semitic aggressive ideology – Islam.

    Will things change with the rise of Donald Trump? Will Europe get its own Donald Trump?

    • Colin Liddell
      Posted March 26, 2016 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

      Thanks for your kind comments, Brahmin.

      Things will change or they will break (and then they’ll change).

  2. Arindam
    Posted March 24, 2016 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    ‘The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists so stop blaming all Muslims’

    I look at it from the opposite angle:

    Had the perpetrators been born into or converted to a religion other than Islam… they would not have committed these jihadi atrocities – and both they, and the people around them would be better off.

  3. Dan O'Connor
    Posted March 24, 2016 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    ” The reason you musn’t shout ” fire ” in a crowded theatre, is because multiculturalism might end up getting crushed in the stampede to get to the fire exists ” –Mark Steyn

  4. Colin Liddell
    Posted March 24, 2016 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    A radical Muslim wants to cut off your head. A moderate Muslim wants a radical Muslim to cut off your head. A White liberal wants a moderate Muslim not to feel bad about wanting a radical Muslim to cut off your head, but because that’s not an issue the White liberal instead wants you to feel guilty about your head being cut off.

    • A Swain
      Posted March 27, 2016 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

      “………. the White liberal instead wants you to feel guilty about your head being cut off.”

      Surely, you mean the White liberal instead wants you to feel guilty about NOT wanting your head to be cut off.

  5. Brás Cubas
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    Allow me to disagree with part of your article. The hegemonic hypothesis among conspiracy/false-flag theorists is that these acts are being allowed to happen (as opposed to perpetrated, which is an unlikelier hypothesis which doesnt’t have majoritary support among these theorists) by Western leaders or organizations with the purpose of uniting people, not dividing them. In particular, what is allegedly being pursued is a strong support for more wars. This is much more plausible, I think, than the division hypothesis.

  6. traxler
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    A radical Muslim wants to cut off your head. A moderate Muslim wants a radical Muslim to cut off your head.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 6:21 am | Permalink

      I’m stealing this for Twitter.

    • Peter Quint
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 10:30 am | Permalink

      “A radical Muslim wants to cut off your head. A moderate Muslim wants a radical Muslim to cut off your head.”

      That is a brilliant observation, you can also substitute, “black,” ” mestizo,” and “oriental,” for “Muslim.”

    • Mr Reynard
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

      A radical Muslim is cutting your head, while a moderate Muslim is holding your legs during the cutting ??

One Trackback

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4


    The Node


    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes


    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance


    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy


    The Path of Cinnabar


    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace


    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above