Making a deal.
What is one fundamental purpose of terrorism/guerrilla warfare? It is to provoke the opposing government, to provoke repressive measures, repression that will harm and radicalize the population you want to recruit, and thus encourage them to hate that government and join your cause. This plays on human nature in which anger tends to be focused on the most immediate cause of distress: thus, instead of blaming the terrorists for causing the problem to begin with, the subject population harbors animus to the government reacting to the terrorism. Of course, this focus of anger is easier to generate when the terrorists and the relevant subject population are of a different ethnic-racial-cultural background than are most of those running the government. Other strategic considerations exist for terrorism; for example, to make the people lose confidence in the ability of the government to defend them and to provide basic services (which of course includes security) and to “tire out” the government and population so that they will give in to some of the terrorists’ demands. But, again, a major overarching objective is to provoke repression and thus anger the subject population.
This is why, in reaction to Paris, the multiculturalist globalists tell us: “Europe must not turn against its Muslim population, must not shun them, harass them, suspect them, or stop immigration and refugees – because that is what the terrorists want us to do.”
Well, in a sense they are right: that is indeed part of the terrorists’ grand strategy. Their overarching goal is to create their caliphate, their state, and to get as many Muslims as possible to join it. Therefore, their grand strategy includes tactics to radicalize Muslims, and to prevent Muslims, particularly those living in the West, to assimilate into the degenerate Western culture (and make no mistake, the West is degenerate: with bearded men singers dressed as women or transsexual ex-Olympians championed as the icons of the culture, and having gay marriage, transgenderism, feminism, and “Black Lives Matter” as the major social concerns). They want to drive a wedge between native European populations and the immigrant communities, they want to create distrust, disunity, balkanization, and radicalization on both sides. So, yes, the liberals are correct: that is what the terrorists want.
But is any of that bad? Actually, it sounds like a good start, what White racial nationalists want. Of course, we reject and oppose the methods used. Our blood boils in anger to see our folk attacked in Paris (by those our folk welcomed with open arms, coddled, and gave preferences to over themselves), and by the limp-wristed reaction of European elites. Of course we oppose and reject the tactics. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is simply: do we agree or disagree with the objective? Which do we prefer – the attitude of a Hollande or a Merkel that we should embrace the newcomers, assimilate them, let them replace us demographically, and have “unity” with them, OR do we prefer the attitude of the other side, that wants the immigrant communities to segregate themselves from Europeans, to reject Western culture, and, ultimately, to go to the Middle East to fight to establish whatever type of state these radicals want?
This is the tragedy of having globalists in charge. Salterian Universal Nationalists would be able to find common ground with radicals from other civilizations, and strike a Grand Bargain with them.
Thus, a nationalist West would go to Islam, China, Africa, India, Latin America et al. and say:
“We understand that you reject Western cultural and economic hegemony. You don’t want us and our alien ways around. We understand. You don’t want our ships off your coasts, you don’t want our planes and drones and missiles bombarding you, you don’t want to be controlled by the Dollar (or the Euro), you don’t want your young influenced by our cultural and social norms. And you are right to feel this way. Western globalists were wrong and you are right.
Therefore, we agree to leave your lands, to stop Western cultural, economic, social, and military imperialism. We will let you have control over your own lands, your own cultures, and your own destinies. You can form whatever societies and economies you wish, with no interference whatsoever from us. And, yes, we will stop supporting Israel as well.
However, in exchange, we require the same from you: no interference with our lands, our culture, and our destiny. We want you to accept all of your co-ethnics currently living in the West, we will repatriate them all back to you, regardless of their place of birth or citizenship. Let this divorce be final, let us divide up the Earth and its peoples between us. Let the West be the West, let China be China, let Islam be Islam, let Africa be Africa, let Latin America be Latin America, let India be India. To each his own, and for themselves alone.”
Thus, the Grand Bargain: non-interference of the West to the Rest and an end to the cultural conquest of the Rest by the West, coupled with an end to the Rest trying to conquer the West through immigration and demographics.
Sounds fair. The only problem is that we need nationalists in charge of the West to broker this deal. Can it happen and do we have the time?