The following essay by Nick McAvelly was originally published at Patriot’s Corner in a slightly different form.
A Reality Check
by Nick McAvelly
“It is impossible to engage in intellectual discourse with National Socialism because it is not an intellectually defensible program. It is false to speak of a National Socialist philosophy, for if there were such an entity, one would have to try by means of analysis and discussion either to prove its validity or to combat it. In actuality, however, we face a totally different situation. At its very inception this movement depended on the deception and betrayal of one’s fellow man; even at that time it was inwardly corrupt and could support itself only by constant lies.” (The White Rose, 2nd pamphlet.)
“If it were possible for any nation to fathom another people’s bitter experience through a book, how much easier its future fate would become and how many calamities and mistakes it could avoid. But it is very difficult. There always is this fallacious belief: ‘It would not be the same here; here such things are impossible.’ Alas, all the evil of the twentieth century is possible everywhere on earth.” (Solzhenitsyn, A. The Gulag Archipelago, Harvill Press, p. x)
“For the thing I greatly feared has come upon me,
And what I dreaded has happened to me.
I am not at ease, nor am I quiet;
I have no rest, for trouble comes.”
(Job 3:25-26 NKJV)
A multicultural utopia is a theoretical and practical impossibility that can only be defended using fallacies and lies. Each and every time a terrorist attack is carried out by devout Muslims yelling out the takbir, the assertion that all cultural values are compatible is refuted. Yet some people maintain that Islam is a religion of peace and its doctrines and practices are compatible with our own traditional Judeo-Christian heritage, because after all, not all Muslims are terrorists. That may be true, but it is completely irrelevant.
A categorical proposition is a statement which relates members of one group to members of another. It has a subject term and a predicate term, and it can be expressed in the following standard forms: All S are P, No S are P, Some S are P and Some S are not P.
One attribute of categorical propositions is quantity; this refers to whether the proposition makes a claim about every member of the class denoted by the subject term. The propositions ‘All S are P’ and ‘No S are P’ both say something about all members of the class denoted by the subject term S, so those propositions are said to be universal. The propositions ‘Some S are P’ and ‘Some S are not P’ say something about one or more (but not all) members of the class denoted by the subject term S, so those propositions are said to be particular.
Another attribute of categorical propositions is quality. A categorical proposition claims that some or all the members of the class denoted by the subject term are also members of the class denoted by the predicate term, which is affirmative, or that they are not, which is negative. So the propositions ‘All S are P’ and ‘Some S are P’ are affirmative and the propositions ‘No S are P’ and ‘Some S are not P’ are negative.
The four standard form categorical propositions have traditionally been referred to using the first four vowels of the Roman alphabet. The universal affirmative proposition (All S are P) is called an A proposition, the universal negative (No S are P) is an E proposition, the particular affirmative (Some S are P) is an I proposition and the particular negative (Some S are not P) is an O proposition.
The logical relationship between the four standard form categorical propositions can be shown using the square of opposition:
If someone says that not all Muslims are terrorists, they are asserting that, where the subject term is “Muslims” and the predicate term is “terrorists”, the A proposition (All S are P) is false. What are we to make of this?
As we can see from the square of opposition, the A proposition “All Muslims are terrorists” is a contradictory of the O proposition “Some Muslims are not terrorists”. Since they are contradictories, both propositions cannot be true at the same time, and both propositions cannot be false. So if the A proposition “All Muslims are terrorists” is false, then the O proposition “Some Muslims are not terrorists” must be true.
So whenever we hear anyone saying that not all Muslims are terrorists, we need to remember that logically speaking, all they are saying is that some Muslims are not terrorists.
That does not refute the I proposition: Some Muslims are terrorists.
So if you switch on the TV and see Muslims killing an unarmed British soldier on the streets of London, shooting kids outside a school in Toulouse, killing a soldier in Ottawa, or murdering people in their Paris office for drawing some pictures they didn’t like, you can believe your own eyes. People are dying in terrorist attacks all around the world, and Muslims are doing the killing.
After the next Islamic terrorist attack, if anyone tells you that the perpetrators could not have been real Muslims because not all Muslims are terrorists, remember that what they are saying is profoundly irrational. That is to say, they are attempting to deceive you. We can expect nothing less from the traitor class and their lackeys in the old-fashioned media, because like the doctrines of National Socialism, their Weltanschauung is built upon betrayal and deceit. Like the Nazis, the new traitor class can only defend their radical social engineering project by lying about it.
And this irrelevant nonsense about not all Muslims being terrorists is the least of it. The traitor class will do everything in their power to prevent the truth about Islam from being openly discussed. They believe they have the final solution to the question of how people ought to live in this world, and they will not hesitate to sacrifice the reputation, livelihood or health of anyone who threatens that final solution with the truth.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a man whose opinion is worth far more to us today than anything that Cameron, Clegg and Miliband will ever write or say in their entire lives, has told us what the consequences of this will be.
“We have to condemn publicly the very idea that some people have the right to repress others. In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.” (Solzhenitsyn, A. The Gulag Archipelago, Harvill Press, p. 81)
We need to take Solzhenitsyn’s warning seriously. If we do not recognise evil for what it is, and allow politicians to lie to us about the motives of men like Mujahid Abu Hamza and Ismail Ibn Abdullah when they perpetrate evil acts inside the borders of Great Britain, then as Solzhenitsyn told us, we are “ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations”. If the traitor class have their way, no one in the new multicultural Britain will be able to take a stand against evil. For the traitor class, there will only be appeasement and privilege. Young people will come of age believing that hypocrisy and deceit will bring them prosperity. And those of us who understand what is happening to our country will be silenced and forced into obscurity.
As Solzhenitsyn pointed out, “It is going to be uncomfortable, horrible to live in such a country!”