So Europe, Paris; America: What Now?


When is enough enough, and it’s time to just let “God sort it out,” as they say?

There is precedent.

Amongst rolling my eyes all morning at everyone changing their Facebook profile photos to overlay the Tricolore, or The Eiffel Tower bastardized into a “peace” sign, I was looking for something that actually spoke some meaning and distinction to the issue.

Robert Bidinotto delivered:

SO, LET ME SEE. Months ago, after the terrorist attack in Paris on the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, some “liberals” claimed that the victims KINDA provoked it by publishing insulting cartoons of Muhammad. Then there was the terrorist attack in Paris at a kosher deli, targeting Jews — and of course many on the left secretly felt, “Well, you KINDA had to expect the attack on Jews, because Israel, the Jewish state, oppresses Palestinians.”

But now we have ordinary diners, sports fans, and concert-goers targeted by Islamists for mass murder on the streets of the City of Light. What, exactly, did THEY do to provoke their militant Islamist murderers? For example, does anyone care to ask Ron or Rand Paul if ISIS is in France because France is “over there” in Syria or Iraq? No? Then what could have “provoked” them?

Could it possibly be that these innocents were deliberately targeted precisely because their specific activities symbolize and embody the enjoyment of a modern Western lifestyle?

It’s a crucial point that 1) cannot be legitimately denied, and 2) undercuts the whole of the anarcho-left, libertarian-left/right, and lefty-left narrative.

In comments later, Billy Beck advances this point and ads additional distinction.

These animals are acting from flagrantly anti-human metaphysics: even more evil than socialists of all stripes. At least the socialists make a claim to valuing human betterment, even so horrible as they are at it. These vermin are not like that: *all* their values lie beyond death.

They will not be demoralized by their own deaths, that of their families or anyone else. Death itself, is the value to them.

I will keep this as long as it needs to be and simply add that it’s those of both the political and religious right in America that were pretty much right all along: “they hate us for our freedoms.”

This might perhaps wake some people up or reinvigorate others. When this explicitly targets people explicitly out celebrating their lives on a Friday evening in some of the most wholesome activities you can think of—dining out, a sporting match, and a concert—it’s pretty damn tough to assign it to anything other than that they hate that we celebrate life, and not death.

Wake up. This is us or them territory, unless they stop, and I see no sign of that. Face it. The left called this wrong and has been calling it wrong all along. There is no provocation but that we live, and that we love our lives. If that’s a “provocation” that would lead them to murder us, then they need to be dispatched forthwith, lacking all concern for whoever gets caught in the crossfire.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Greg on November 14, 2015 at 15:05

    My first question, would be, if France has/had any involvement in the destabilization of the middle east. I dont know….but I whole heatedly believe in “blowback”. You cant kill people and/or destroy their livelihood and not expect retaliation. Our government created the mess in the middle east. If France or any country helped in any way, then this is expected.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 14, 2015 at 15:57

      I explained the “destabalization.” It is that we live, more or less for our own sakes, and that we more or less love our lives. And owing to global mass communication it’s in their face to an intollerable level and something’s gotta give.

    • sas on November 18, 2015 at 12:42

      It appears this isn’t a simple case of blowback, but a rather deliberate manipulation of the all the necessary conditions that enabled this group to be originate, grow, and multiply:

    • Richard Nikoley on November 18, 2015 at 14:23

      Let me guess without even reading.

      It’s an article about how Neville Chamberlain, in cahoots with a reluctant US, plus a Eurozone intent on punishing Germany with WWI reparations set the stage for Hitler.

      So, fuck the Jews and everyone else and just let them run roughshod.

      Hey, how about this. Why don’t we send ole’ Neville over to have a sit-down chat with Hitler, maybe get some reassurances. Hey, maybe he can even get them in writing!

    • Richard Nikoley on November 14, 2015 at 16:43

      Greg, take the time to read this and then tell me again how this even remotely relates to “destabalization” in terms of economics and markets that westerns are talking about when they say that.

      Wake up. These people literally do not give a shit about any of that.

    • Greg on November 14, 2015 at 17:33

      Wake up to what? By ignoring the very fact that the US governments meddling in the middle east has created these animals? Oh, i wasn’t expecting these kind people to turn out! Yea, its amazing when you murder over 1 million people & counting to protect the petro dollar that it might just make people completely lose their sh1t.
      I bet drone bombings are fun to deal with.
      Point being it was an unexpected consequence. Source of the problem -> US Government. Would never be a problem if US, Britain, Russia, whoever else, just left them the fuck alone.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 14, 2015 at 18:17

      “Wake up to what?”

      Simple. Facts you are either ignorant of, or too stupid to understand.

      You get to choose which judgement you prefer.

      I already provided everything you ought to need to make your choice.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 14, 2015 at 18:51

      “Would never be a problem if US, Britain, Russia, whoever else, just left them the fuck alone.”

      That’s the left narrative alright. It’s wrong. More importantly, it may have been “right” in 1970, 1980, etc.

      You’re ignorant as to why that’s all irrelevant now.

    • Greg on November 14, 2015 at 20:04

      “That’s the left narrative alright.”

      It is?

      “It’s wrong. Irrelevant”

      How the F do you know?

      We’ve turned their world upside down, and then we question how they can do something like Paris. ISIS is bigger and more powerful because of the US role. My guess is recruiting is easier than ever.

      Here’s a question….how is that we americans turn a blind eye to all the killing we’ve done since the Korean war? Are we somewhat more noble because we say we’re trying kill commies and terrorists. We dropped Agent Orange on the vietnamese, but thats not as bad as Paris, right?

    • Richard Nikoley on November 15, 2015 at 02:33

      You are refusing to deal with the issue, Greg.

      You are talking ethics from a western perspective when the issue is metaphysical.

      I’ll be addressing that in my next post, today.

    • Peter on November 14, 2015 at 22:49

      Excellent article Richard.

      I can understand why many people react to something like what has happened and ask the question, why are they doing this, what have we done wrong to them. Many people cannot wrap their head around genuinely bad people existing. They believe surely people can be reasoned with, if we be reasonable with them. They just don’t get that it’s possible for people to have heinous and ridiculous beliefs that will cause them to want to kill you for not holding those beliefs. As a result they grasp for answers to explain it in a way that is logical, that fits the mold of “they’ve only done this to us because we did this to them”.

      Try reasoning with this:

      “Musa Cerantonio, an Australian preacher reported to be one of the Islamic State’s most influential recruiters, believes it is foretold that the caliphate will sack Istanbul before it is beaten back by an army led by the anti-Messiah, whose eventual death – when just a few thousand jihadists remain – will usher in the apocalypse.”

    • Richard Nikoley on November 15, 2015 at 02:39

      Peter, looks like you have read a certain very lengthy article in the Atlantic. At least, that quote is in it.

      That article will form the basis of my next post. The issue isn’t ethical, it’s metaphysical or, to put it another way, we’re dealing with The Walking Dead.

    • Greg on November 15, 2015 at 09:41

      Here’s a quote from our Polish tour guide we used at Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland.
      “It’s not just about what the nazi’s did to the jews.”

      “It’s about, what Man is capable of doing to Man”

      With the right brainwashing and motivation, anything is possible.

    • Wilbur on November 14, 2015 at 19:17

      I am still working on my own point of view regarding the situation. I understand Richard’s and its merits.

      Not that it in any way justifies the senseless violence anywhere, but asking whether France had any role in the destabilization of the Middle East displays a lack of knowledge of the history of the Middle East.

      First, it assumes the region was once stable. John’s post below deals with that with regards to Islam.

      Second, it suggests no knowledge of Sykes-Picot–Picot_Agreement#Consequences_of_the_agreement

      “The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) claims one of the goals of its insurgency is to reverse the effects of the Sykes–Picot Agreement.[41][42][43] “This is not the first border we will break, we will break other borders,” a jihadist from the ISIL warned in the video called End of Sykes-Picot.[44] ISIL’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a July 2014 speech at the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul vowed that “this blessed advance will not stop until we hit the last nail in the coffin of the Sykes–Picot conspiracy”.[45][46]”

      The roots of these problems predate oil as a significant part of the world economy or warfare.

    • Wilbur on November 14, 2015 at 19:30

      Sorry, my link was to the consequences I quoted. Here’s a link to the top part, saying Sykes-Picot was a secret agreement between Britain and France to divide Arabia even before World War I was won.–Picot_Agreement

      History is complicated. I think we are the same animals we always have been, but with more devastating weapons.

    • Jackie D on November 15, 2015 at 14:58

      “With the right brainwashing and motivation, anything is possible.”

      Greg, your posts prove that. Is it the “petro-dollar” that causes ISIS to rape thousands of women and girls, turning them into sex slaves?

    • Richard Nikoley on November 15, 2015 at 21:07

      +1 Jackie.

    • Greg on January 1, 2016 at 16:37

      Hey Jackie, my point being that this wouldnt be a problem if it wasnt for the US gov involvement. But for you two to ignore the US Gov involvement is unbelievable to me.
      You and Richard…are you both saying that our involvement has nothing to do with how big of a problem isis is today? If yes, then i say youre both fools. But hey, who im i to question you two…..after all you’re both on the ground witnessing it, and interviewing the people of the land first hand? Oh wait, you probably read internet articles like i do.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 2, 2016 at 08:27

      Well I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading and research, Greg, and what I’m finding is that there was a time when Muslims weren’t fooling anyone.

      See what Churchill had to say on the matter:

      So no, U.S. meddling didn’t turn 20%+ of Muslims into 7th Century, goat-fucking, virgins-until-rapists males all under a pig-vomit ideology.

      They’re been that way for 1,400 years and counting. The true and pure Muslims.

      “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

      “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

      —Sir Winston Churchill, The River War, 1899 (before he was Sir Winston, obviously…it’s free in the Kindle Store)

      John Quincy Adams:

      “’The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. […]

      ‘The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies.’ — John Quincy Adams

      “In the 7th century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab … spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. … He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as a part of his religion. … The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust, to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.”

      — The annotated “John Quincy Adams: A Bibliography,” compiled by Lynn H. Parsons (Westport, CT, 1993)

      In the context of history, nation states have always jostled and messed with each other, often resulting in wars. This is neither surprising or new.

      U.S. meddling with Japan’s oil supplies isn’t what turned them into an imperial empire bent on conquest and enslavement (as they enslaved and raped millions of Koreans and Chinese). That’s what they were once they gained industrial prowess and fucking with them was a natural consequence.

      I could go on. For instance, the “Crusades” are NOTHING like they have been touted since 9/11.

      Sometimes it pays to do your own research and thinking. And sometimes, you find that everyone had the right idea hundreds of years ago and the knowledge was “lost” because the experience was out of sight, or superseded by other matters.

      Today, we are dealing with a reality: a primitive state that has conquered lands, collects taxes, has erected a “social system,” pays their fighters (well, too), indoctrinates children and recruits miscreants all over the world.

      Everyone is free to sit around, wring hands and “blame America first,” but it ‘aint gonna be me.

  2. Another John on November 14, 2015 at 16:33

    Islam has been at war with the west since Muhamad came out of the Arabian penninsula. People forget that the Middle East was a Greco-Roman christian culture when Islam rolled in and rapidly changed it. For the first few hundred years Islam held the upper hand. Then through most of the later Middle Ages there was a bit of a stalemate. Then the west started getting the upper hand with the Age of Exploration when Portugal and Spain and later England and Holland and France started expanding the world and colonizing. Now the pendulum may be swinging back the other way as the west seems intent on committing suicide while it holds the technological advantage.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 14, 2015 at 16:46

      It won’t go that far, but lots of westerners will die first. Eventually, people are going to connect their penchant for Zombie Acopalyse movies with what’s really going on.

  3. David Beers on November 14, 2015 at 19:58

    Bin Laden addressed this in the early 2000s. He asked, if we hate you for your freedoms, why aren’t we attacking Switzerland (paraphrasing, could be another country)?

    • Richard Nikoley on November 15, 2015 at 02:41

      This isn’t about Bin Laden or Al Qaida by a long shot.

  4. Resurgent on November 14, 2015 at 20:06


    I think it is not so much about ‘they hate our freedoms’.

    Why didn’t they attack some installation of the French army and try and kill some soldiers.?

    They choose soft targets, ordinary people, so that they can have maximum number of casualties and get noticed in the world press.

    Would anyone even care if the headlines read
    “7 ISIS attack French army base – 2 soldiers killed – 6 attackers dead – 1 captured.”

    • Todd on November 15, 2015 at 08:11

      Because that’s a losing strategy. You see, that does nothing to support their permanently stupid dirt-scratching mentality that we’re all infidels in their eyes for a life that seeks joy and pleasure on this earth. And what better way to “score more points” for your 72-virgin fantasy than to wipe out as many heathens as possible?

      As succinctly stated in the original post, you can’t find many more wholesome activities than what these people were murdered for. And these dirt-scratchers don’t give a damn about anything in this life other than paving the way to their 72 virgins.

    • Bret on November 15, 2015 at 08:15

      Their motivation is to conquer as much territory as possible, starting with the Middle East, and subject it to their rigid prescription that they call Islam.

      The “Coalition” of the last decade can be thanked for unleashing them by removing Saddam Hussein, implementing “democracy” in the country (ha, ha, ha ha ha, ha), and thereby creating a power vacuum in an extremely sectarian society rich in oil resources. What exactly did anyone think was going to happen there? (Incidentally, some high-level government officials fully understood this in the early 1990s and then grew retarded shortly afterwards.) That doesn’t mean we deserve violence at their hands…it simply means we are a collective bunch of retards for letting them out.

      We can debate all day long what their motivations are. And, unfortunately, we really are forced to stay in Iraq and its neighboring countries to keep fighting these pieces of shit. But the relevant lesson is that we don’t go toppling governments. Except possibly in absolutely dire circumstances where we have been truly threatened (not by fictitious WMDs and noncompliance with UN inspectors).

    • Richard Nikoley on November 15, 2015 at 09:46

      I said it way back. That whole WMD schtick was arguably the dumbest political move I have seen first hand in my life.

      There was only one way to have done it, absulute domination, submission and lockdown over every square foot of that country, a-la Japan and Germany. Still probably would not have worked, since it presumes dealing with human beings acting on clearly understood values, not self-sacrificial animals.

    • GTR on November 15, 2015 at 16:02

      Population of Iraq is not attractive – what would anybody reasonable want it for? Germans and Japanese on the other were very attractive populations – both West and Soviets wanted them, their talent, their engeneers, their inventions, disciplined workers and soldiers and so on.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 15, 2015 at 21:36

      Yea, I think that makes sense, GTR.

  5. Ed R. on November 15, 2015 at 15:40

    Trump is kind of a pompous ass, but he is absolutely correct in his position. Paris as well as previous mass killings wouldn’t have happened, or at least not to that degree, had the potential victims been armed.

    I read that ISIS is now saying they will attack Russia. That should be fun. Putin isn’t French and damn sure isn’t our candy assed president.

    • pzo on November 15, 2015 at 16:41

      Keep masturbating your Mossberg, Ed.

    • Ed R. on November 15, 2015 at 17:07

      Gladly. Mind if I use you for cover?

    • mucky on November 15, 2015 at 16:45

      Speaking of people currently running for President of the US: let’s not forget the recent takeover of Libya was Hilary Clinton’s gig. She managed a strategy that was not much different than George Bush’s in Iraq. Libya is a big mess now, and full of ISIL operatives. Bengazi attacks were because of US gun running into Syria.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 15, 2015 at 21:19

      “Bengazi attacks were because of US gun running into Syria.”

      Well, Bengazi was a Hilary mess for sure, but like with much and most other, it’s merely a convenient target of opportunity, such that left America tells everyone what we did wrong to cause it.

      You’re talking western ethics when what’s in play is The Walking Dead metaphysics.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 15, 2015 at 21:33

      “Paris as well as previous mass killings wouldn’t have happened, or at least not to that degree, had the potential victims been armed.”

      You know, Ed, you do yourself a disservice when you state imperatives like that that are manifestly untrue. It harms the valid cause for people to be armed.

      But even trained and armed soldiers get ambushed. This had noting to do with people being armed and in fact, it took place in venues where in the West, there is generally no thought of armed deterrence.

      I hate having to defend the idiocy of forced disarmament because someone spouts non-sequitur bullshit about it.

  6. GTR on November 15, 2015 at 15:56

    I believe it’s a mistake to divide islam into two separate parts: fanatics and moderates, and only deal with fanatics. To me it looks like a single system, but with 2 forms:

    1) Active form, that pushes the interest of islam forward by high-return, but also high-risk behavior: fighting, attacking, promoting shariah law.

    2) Passive, semi-dormant form that does low-risk, low-return stuff for islam. And whose role is to let islam survive if the active form’s high-risk realizes, eg. they loose a holy war. Passive form then tells the winners they shouldn’t ban islam “because of moderates”, thus islam survives even when loosing a holy war. Then the passive form provides a demographic reserve of pre-indoctrinated young people, so that the next generation of active form can start some time after defeat.

    Such method gives both efficiency of high-risk operations and safety of low-risk perseverance at the same time. If islam consisted only of fanatics – they could be eliminated via loosing a series of holy wars. If islam constituded of only moderates, then it wouldn’t conquer and submitt, or even monopolize so much territory – would be just another religion out of many in secular countries, perhaps even shrinking without the threats of killing the apostates? Only as a single system with both active and passive forms could it achieve such large political success.

    Unless of course the others affected by islam realize, that it’s not only fanatics, but also moderates that are part of the system, it’s survival mechanism, without which the system as a whole is at high risk of falling. You have to eliminate (via deconversion etc.) the moderates in order to win with fanatics! Otherwise fanatics will be being reconstructed over and over again from the combination of the old texts about holy wars, killing infidels etc. within “holy texts” plus children of moderates, that moderates submitted to religious indoctrination.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 15, 2015 at 21:24

      With valid and truthful information now, the whole game will change, once people realize what they’re dealing with and what they are not.

      Finally, a quite exhaustive account of how, just like Christians and Jews, no matter how fundamental in belief, some fundamental muslims are fine, while others need to be absolutely hunted down and killed, and without regard to who may be in the way.

  7. Richard Nikoley on November 15, 2015 at 20:20

    Alright folks. This one was short.

    It was a warmup for what I really wanted to say, at 5,500 words.

    The Walking Dead And The Metaphysics of ISIS:

    Obviously, one has to have something in mind before even taking on the standard narrative of the left and libertarian left/right.

  8. Mark Amberdow on November 15, 2015 at 23:31


    I’ve been watching your slow descent into madness, and this post and your blatantly racist follow up comments confirm that you’ve truly lost it. Now you’re the defender of western civilization? A man who calls women “cunts?” I think not.

    I used to value your thoughtful insights on nutrition, and managed to patiently read through your mutterings on “bad America, good Mexico.” I had a feeling that all your bullshit would get you vomited up, and sure enough, you couldn’t hack your time in Mexico. So now you do what all mentally unstable hacks do: Turn sharp right.

    Killers are killers and should be brought to justice, but your hatred for 1.2 billion peaceful practitioners of Islam comes through loud and clear. I have many, many mission friends, Richard, and none have ever called a woman a cunt.

    Please do the world a favor and just shut the fuck up. Talk about resistant starch and paleo all you want. Other people? Politics? Religion? Metaphysics?

    Dear God, no.


  9. Guillaume Ponce on November 16, 2015 at 06:59


    I don’t know which “left narrative” your refer to. More precisely, I don’t understand if your alluding to preciselly to the american “left” (that would be democrats, I presume) or the international left or the French left.
    (From a European perspective, you americans don’t really have a left, you just have two brands of more or less moderate right).

    It is difficult for European an American to discuss politics, because the landscapes are so very different. You, Richard, are an unlikely and bizarre political beast from a (continental) European perspective. You’re some kind of an anarchist of the right. In Europe, anarchism is generally considered ultra-left… that’s even what comes left to communism (and I mean real hardcore bolchevik communism, not anything somewhat socialist that you american promptly label “commies”). Right-ararchism is almost an ideological no man’s land in Europe. Even just being an atheist is traditionaly a leftist thing, so you would have a hard time to make people understand your statements in Europe (even more than in the USA).

    As for anything related to Iraq and Syria, just to offer a testimony, in France, there is a growing pro-russian tendency (through not for a majority of the population, yet).

    More and more people feel ashamed that our country (France) is dealing with “allies” like Saudi-Arabia and Qatar. And they feel sorry that we do that because we are following the USA like their puppy pet.
    So more and more French people feel that our natural ally should rather be Russia.

    On the French politic scene, this position is held since a long time by both the ultra-right (Front National of Marine Le Pen) and at least a portion of the ultra-left (Parti de Gauche of Jean-Luc Mélenchon). For those of you who don’t know, Lepen’s Front National is a growing power in France. Reputed commenters say that it is more and more plausible that she could be our next elected president (in 2017).

    The moderate right (Les Républicains, former UMP, former RPR of Nicolas Sarkozy) his traditionaly on the american side. But these last weeks, and even more so since friday, they are slowly converting to the idea that we should ally with Russia and Bashar El Assad to defeat ISIS.

    Only the moderate left (Partie Socilaliste of current president François Holland) is still standing by the “american coalition”, but for how long?

    The growing sentiment is that american foreign policies are a disastrous doublespeak. The USA, on one hand, speak of war on terror, war to Al-Qaeda and islamic fundamentalism. But on the other hand, all their international coalitions comprise Saudi Arabia which IS a fundamentalist islamic state. Al-Qaeda is (historically) the Frankenstein creature of the CIA and the “americano-saudese” coalition… and ISIS is (historically) the Frankenstein creature of Al-Qaeda.

    If you can still read quite some French and are curious of those matters, is a blog growing in popularity. Its main subject is what political scientists call “The New Great Game” and the many attempts, since the end of WW2, of the USA to do anything that they can to prevent the integration of an Eurasian continental power (that would make Russia the center of the world). For the non french speakers out there who want to do their homework and make their own opinion, this is the continuation of the doctrine of Halford Mackinder (1861-1947) and Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943).

    As for your statement that all this mess has nothing to do with western policies and all to do with intrinsic “values” of islamic fundamentalism, I have to both partly disagree and partly agree with you.

    The Middle East was never perfectly stable a region. But it was far less chaotic by the times of Saddam, USSR puppet leaders in Afghanistan or even Khadafi in Lybia. Remember that in the 70s, women could wear skirts in Kabul…
    Religious short sighted boneheads already existed (Mulsim Brothers appeared in Egypt in 1928). But they could not develop to such an extent has is seen today with military strong and quite autoritarian SECULAR powers of the likes of Saddam and El Assad.

    The chaos set in the region by the “americano-saudese” coalition made it possible to more and more crazy doG fanatics (first Al-Qaeda, then ISIS) to grow in power.

    But know, it doesn’t matter anymore if all this is a fictional “leftist” narrative as you say or the plain reality. Those dickheads are irrecoverable for reason and the only sane thing that we can do is to destroy them. But that means hitting, hard, for real and everyone of them. Russia seems more on its way to do this than the USA, as they also target Al-Nusra (aka Al-Qaeda in Syria) that happen to be our “allies” against the secular power of El Assad… how comes.

    The only ones they cannot hit hard as they deserve is the Saudese… because they have a treaty with the USA and that would mean WW3 between the two biggest nuclear powers of the planet. For those of you who don’t know it, it is the Quincy Agreement (

    Best regards form a fellow atheist from France, but it would probably mean “a commie” for you (most of Charlie Hebdo killed drawers were commies too). You steel have my sympathy.

    • Jackie D on November 16, 2015 at 07:29

      “From a European perspective, you americans don’t really have a left, you just have two brands of more or less moderate right”

      That’s not a “European” perspective: It’s a delusion. I know dozens and dozens of Europeans who see this more clearly than you do – and not all of them are ancaps or libertarians.

    • Guillaume Ponce on November 16, 2015 at 08:24

      Well, I’ll try another way.

      1) Apart from The Great Britain with Conservative and Labour, it is unusual in Europe for a country to have only two political parties.

      That is true at least for France and for Germany.

      2) Our many political parties cover a wider political spectrum, from left to right, than what you have with your Republicans and Democrats.

      In France, your Republicans would span from Front National (you could label it the French Tea Party) to Les Républicains (formerly UMP, formerly RPR). Your Democrats would span from the left-end of Les Républicains to UDI (centrists) and, maybe, the very right end of our Partie Socialiste.

      Since WW2 and the Pétain/Vichy regime, nazi-like ultra right is forbidden by law in France (and in Germany, obviously with the denazification process conducted by allies after 1945). But some countries, like Greece, have them.

      On the left side, we do still have bolchevik / Trotskist parties. And we also have parties not reaching as far in left territory but labeling themselves as “true left”, by opposition to Partie Socialiste of president Holland which was elected on a political program slightly more left than what has been applied after his election (demagogy). And in both France and Germany, we have Greens that are more left than your Democrats and that actually have an impact in elections.

      I was not trying to say that a political system is better than another, more legitimate, more representative, more accurate, more democratic, more efficient or anything like that. I was just trying to portray the landscape difference to introduce the idea that what is “left” and what is not isn’t felt exactly the same on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

      As an exemple, on this blog, I have read Obama labeled “a commie” for his heathcare system. I am not trying to condemn this opinion or anything. I’m just trying to make you understand that the typical European, even one who would label himself right, would find this statement very exagerated.

      In France, social security, a mandatory public healthcare system going way farther than Obamacare, was done after WW2 by the goverment of general De Gaulle. In France, anyone labeling him “a commie” would be mocked (even more by rightists than by leftist, as he his like a sacred cow for some of them).

      Again, I’m not trying to tell which side is “deluded” or what. I’m pointing a cultural difference.

      You can tell me that’s a delusion if you want. I’m just telling that in this case, there are so many deluded Europeans that you have to take it in account to understand how they feel about foreign policies.

    • Jackie D on November 16, 2015 at 08:41

      Guillaume, I read your original statement as an attempt to present a fact as you see it, through a European lens. Perhaps that was an error on my part? If you’re saying most Europeans see it this way, well, maybe. But I don’t think a majority viewpoint defines the entire continent’s viewpoint.

      I lived in Europe for a decade, and what became increasingly annoying was how – particularly in the UK – the parties have become almost impossible to differentiate. Cameron’s Tories banging on about climate change, enforced “equality,” etc. – Thatcher is rolling in her grave. It’s disgusting.

      But as Richard says, these distinctions are pretty meaningless. Either individual autonomy is sacrosanct to you or it isn’t, and unfortunately the vast majority of the planet doesn’t value liberty nearly as much as they believe they do. If individual autonomy – the right to live free from aggression – is a value one subscribes to, there is no logical way to be anything but an anarchist. The “left-anarchists” have no time for individual autonomy, as evidenced year after year in the May Day riots where they destroy private property and enact violence as some kind of honorable act.

      Basically, most people are human garbage when you look at their basic values. Sad but true.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 16, 2015 at 10:28

      “In France, social security, a mandatory public healthcare system going way farther than Obamacare, was done after WW2 by the goverment of general De Gaulle. In France, anyone labeling him “a commie” would be mocked (even more by rightists than by leftist, as he his like a sacred cow for some of them).”

      Social Security in the US began by law with The Social Security Act, in 1935, signed by FDR. Taxes have been collected for the socialist, commie, ponzie scheme, since 1937.

      One time, lump sum payments were made to elderly “beneficiaries” in the same month that the tax was initially collected and regular monthly “benefits” were being shelled out by the young since 1940.

      “In France, anyone labeling him “a commie” would be mocked”

      To be mocked by ignorant moron children screaming for free stuff at the expense of others accomplishes two things.

      1) It exposes them as children just stomping their feet for mommy to buy them the candy whilst shopping.

      2) Gives me a huge ear-to-ear smile.

      This constitutes the second time in a single thread—the first being Mark Amberdow’s comment—where I’ve been reminded of a phone conversation with Mark Sisson years back, in the midst of “cuntgate.”

      He relayed to me how he tried to explain to Evelyn in a phone conversation that “Richard literally does not care what you think.”

      Mark is one of the few people in terms of Paleo and blog readers who truly understand my essence. There’s no way I could engage the way I engage with any concern for what others “think.”

      And those scare quotes are literal. When folks make a valid point of thought with me, they know it. Mostly, I’m very rarely impressed.

      (Nice integrations, Jackie D)

    • Richard Nikoley on November 16, 2015 at 08:17

      Hey Guillaume:

      “You’re some kind of an anarchist of the right.”

      Nope, just a plain old anarchist. However, I do make a distinction regarding that in my subsequent post I put up last night. Check it out.

      I’m well aware of all the different nuance that exists in Europe. Basically, they make meaningless distinctions over various things socialist.

      Really, there is only socialism and individualism. Everything exists somewhere on that spectrum. Anarchism, given that it’s kinda like atheism applied to politics (the study of human interaction) is extreme individualism. Communism is extreme socialism. Everything else is in-between.

      I know of no Euro anarchists (I know I’m treading on No True Scotsman fallacy ground here) and guys like Prodhon certainly don’t fit the bill, nor the syndicalists. For that matter, neither do the ararcho-capitalists, a label I used long ago.

      To me, it became like when people call atheism a religion. It’s just anarchism. Atheism is like a religion is like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. Similarly, all these variants of socialism is basically still just statism, including versions of so-called anarchy.

      American Libertarians (the political party) suffer the same problem. It’s a veritable contradiction in terms.

      Anyway, I’m rambling at this point.

      Good work with that bombing mission last night. I posted to Facebook when I heard the news: Bon chance, mes copains.

    • Guillaume Ponce on November 16, 2015 at 09:43

      So it’s really a matter of vocabulary; or what words SHOULD mean vs what distorted meaning history has tainted them with and how they are perceived by populations.

      The problem is that people use the same words with different meanings.

      I never thougth of anachy as “atheism applied to politics”. In French, that would be “apolitisme”; “anarchy” clearly designing an (ultra-left) ideology of some kind for most people here.

      But I can find a page for it in the French Wikipedia (, but no equivalent in English Wikipedia.

      I had this debate when I was a student in Lyon with a co-student that labeled himself “an anarchist” (like in “Fédération des anarchistes de France”, which is total nonsense to me).

      As a good anarchist(TM), he also strongly labelled himself “left-wing”. But when I told him that I saw anarchy (like you) as the ultimate degree of individualism, he was quite upset. In France, individualism is strongly labelled “right” (left valuing terms like “solidarity” in its lighter degrees (socialism) or “collectivism” for stronger flavors (communism)).

      That’s a limit of simplist labels like “left” and “right”. Moderate right (Adams, capitalism…) is more individualist than moderate or ultra left. But ultra-right (nazism) is totalitarism as much as was Staline’s USSR, so it breaks the linearity of the scale.

      I’ll read your subsequent post tonight in France (will be afternoon for you).

      Thanks. Altought I don’t always totally agree with your political statement (cultural shock), they are always food for thougth for me.

  10. kayumochi on November 16, 2015 at 07:29

    Has anyone noted
    Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s response on Facebook to the attacks in Paris ? As usual, insightful in a way no one else is.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 16, 2015 at 07:41

      Yep, I agree and have said as much going way back, that Saudi Arabia is basically the root source of this.

      In terms of using violence, I’d prefer to see something such as capturing all oil wells in the region. After all, they were originally explored by western countries and companies.

      On the other hand, see The Atlantic piece behind my latest post. It should be very clear that ISIS is not open to persuasion of any kind. Nassim is correctly noting the religious indoctrination aspect, but still from a perspective on our ethics, derived from our metaphysics of life and love of it. It’s inapplicable to ISIS. The values they seek and act for are all beyond death. They are The Walking Dead.

  11. Palva on November 16, 2015 at 10:55

    The middle East is a cesspool, and the West has helped create it, or at least, has attracted hatred from ISIS. ISIS would not have cared for ‘us’ if we had not been bombing Muslim countries for decades and subduing them just for oil. We should just get the fuck out of there and let them figure it out on their own.

    The only other way of dealing with this is the scorched earth approach and nuke the shit out of it until not even a lizard survives in the dry desserts. May George Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 16, 2015 at 15:14


      There is no point in talking about what caused it. It is.

      It is a The Walking Dead deal now, and just like in the great TV series, everyone eventually comes to realize the reality of the now.

      You are not dealing with people as you understand them. And you don’t have to take my word for it. How about take their word?

      Palva, you, like so many billions of others, operate under a delusion that you (western civ) have something to offer them. You do. Your death or complete and utter subdugation as a Christian slave paying a specifc tax.

      Or, you can continue to be wrong, just like most everyone is wrong, because being wrong on facts and analysis corresponds with Western narratives about how this is really all our fault.

      Read it, for fuck’s sake, already.

  12. Dave Narby on November 17, 2015 at 05:14


    Sorry, your post immediately reminded me of this song:

    …Because your “argument” seems to boil down to “Our death cult’s bigger than your death cult.”.

  13. Richard Nikoley on November 17, 2015 at 08:27

    Please pay attention and try to keep up, Dave.

    You are conflating ethical systems based on separate metaphysics; one of life, they other of beyond death.

Leave a Comment

Follow by Email8k