Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Happy 9/11 Day!

17 years. Aesop remembers:

We (you, me, Western civilization, etc.) haven’t delivered to them the Third Punic War level of recompense they richly deserve, because reasons. Mostly bullshit ones, at that.

It’s too much.
Hey, fuckwit, they wiped out international air travel for months, vaporized billions in the economy of every nation in the world, including the ones least able to absorb that, not just ours in the U.S., engendering a decade-plus series of wars and thousands to tens of thousands of casualties, that really hasn’t stopped since they started circa the 7th Century, and won’t until we end the problem, by ending the problem children.

Sorry if that unvarnished reality spoils your breakfast, but shit happens.

It’s mean.
Really, dipshit? Meaner than destroying the lives of thousands of strangers in the service of your child-molesting leader, and his fanatical devotion to an imaginary death-cult deity?

Meaner than setting buildings on fire, and subjecting thousands of strangers to slow torture by fire, smoke, and worst of all, the time to contemplate the full hopelessness of their situation, such that they’d rather, in hundreds of cases, try flying from the 80th floor of a skyscraper rather than burn to death, or wait to be crushed under hundreds of tons of smoking rubble, screaming all the way to the impact at the bottom?

Okay, you win. I hereby concede that justice demands that every fanatical follower of theirs, including their bomb-toting children, should only be lit on fire, and kicked out of an aircraft at altitude, to scream in unspeakable agony the entire way until impact. Call it Hammurabi 2.0.

Happy now?

That’s not who we are.
You got a mouse in your pocket, soy-boi?

Who we are is a disgrace. Who we should be, are the guys who nuked Mecca and Medina, same day, then slaughtered everything left after that, in a feat worthy of Genghis Khan, and then introduced endangered species to graze there in perpetuity, so as to have enough lions and crocodiles handy to feed any stragglers to for the next few centuries.

Remember 9/11??

You must be joking.

The half-assed, half-witted, half-stepping pseudo-response to 9/11 has ensured that every day is 9/11.

Yep. It’s all gone pretty much exactly as Glenn predicted on the very day itself; there’s a reason that he and I both re-run his dismally prophetic post every damned year. To wit:

TOM CLANCY WAS RIGHT: (Reposted from earlier today) And we’re living one of his scenarios right now. Not much is known for sure, but it’s obvious that the United States is the target of a major terrorist assault. There’s a lot of bloviation on the cable news channels, most of which will turn out to be wrong or misleading later. Here, for your consideration, are a few points to be taken from past experience:

The Fog of War: Nobody knows much right now. Many things that we think we know are likely to be wrong.

Overreaction is the Terrorist’s Friend: Even in major cases like this, the terrorist’s real weapon is fear and hysteria. Overreacting will play into their hands.

It’s Not Just Terrorists Who Take Advantage: Someone will propose new “Antiterrorism” legislation. It will be full of things off of bureaucrats’ wish lists. They will be things that wouldn’t have prevented these attacks even if they had been in place yesterday. Many of them will be civil-liberties disasters. Some of them will actually promote the kind of ill-feeling that breeds terrorism. That’s what happened in 1996. Let’s not let it happen again.

Only One Antiterrorism Method Works: That’s punishing those behind it. The actual terrorists are hard to reach. But terrorism of this scale is always backed by governments. If they’re punished severely — and that means severely, not a bombed aspirin-factory but something that puts those behind it in the crosshairs — this kind of thing won’t happen again. That was the lesson of the Libyan bombing.

“Increased Security” Won’t Work. When you try to defend everything, you defend nothing. Airport security is a joke because it’s spread so thin that it can’t possibly stop people who are really serious. You can’t prevent terrorism by defensive measures; at most you can stop a few amateurs who can barely function. Note that the increased measures after TWA 800 (which wasn’t terrorism anyway, we’re told) didn’t prevent what appear to be coordinated hijackings. (Archie Bunker’s plan, in which each passenger is issued a gun on embarking, would have worked better). Deterrence works here, just as everywhere else. But you have to be serious about it.

For now, the terrorists have won. They’ve shut down the U.S. government, more or less. They’ve shut down air travel. They’re all over TV. But whether they really win depends on how we deal with this; hysterically, or like angry — but measured — adults.

As he says: “SADLY, my predictions made on 9/11/01 turned out to be pretty accurate.” Only “pretty accurate”? My God, there’s not ONE WORD in it that misses. It’s a marker of Glenn’s genius—and it IS genius, pure and simple—that he could see so clearly on a day and in a moment that the rest of us were shocked and horrified damned near out of our wits.

And he just keeps on keepin’ on, too. Day after day, month after month, year after year, he hammers out nothing but pure quality. Reynolds says more—and says it better—with his characteristic short, pithy bursts of inspiration than many of us can in a thousand words. His occasional longer posts are if anything even better. His work in the wake of the 9/11 attacks inspired a great many of us OG bloggers to take it up too; he continues to be both an inspiration and an example, showing us how the thing is properly done. Guess it’s no accident that he teaches for a living.

There’s a reason they call him the Blogfather. It still applies, with bells on. The coveted Instalanche is still a much-sought-after symbol of blogging success, proof positive of having finally churned something out that was worthy of serious note. Hats off to ya, Glenn, on this day of days; long may you wave, whether America at large remembers how and why it all came to be or not.

Update! The monkey speaks his mind.

September 11th 2001 was a singular event in American history, and one that should be respected, not used as a facile and inflammatory analogy for other events. “This silly and culturally unimportant event is like 9/11” should be stricken from the style guides of every columnist and pundit and assorted ass-hat who chooses to trivialize the murder of 3,000 Americans. And part of me suspects that the construction is purposeful, to shrink the attacks down to a forgettable size, to make them just another bump in the road to the new world order that so many enemies of America desire.

Too much of our current recognition of the attacks are a maudlin paean to loss, rather than a cold and brutal reminder that we are in a war for our very existence. Perhaps “9/11” should be more closely aligned with “Remember Pearl Harbor,” with its martial connotations and call to arms.

This date evokes in me a cold fury, that we were attacked, that we have not yet brought the full weight of our culture and might to bear on those who would destroy us.

Which is EXACTLY why this blog is named what it is.

Yes Mr. Schlichter, we are still killing them, and we are not beaten. But a renewed attention to our martial spirit is in order. I am confident that our armed forces are up to the task, especially with the cataclysmic shift in the oval office, but the focus is still on surgical strikes and guarding the delicate sensibilities of the soft and effeminate West, at the expense of American blood. Too many Americans have died because of this attitude, and it is long past the time at which we move to a real war footing. The lives of Americans must be considered more valuable, and must be preserved. If that means that more civilians in far-off lands are killed as a result of actions against our enemies, then so be it. It is time to take to heart the phrase, “America First,” not as the isolationist organization that collapsed just days after Pearl Harbor, or as a KKK slogan (which is just what the media wants), but as a reminder that we have the right and obligation to defend our national interests against all attacks, and to place the well-being of Americans above all others.

Problem being, that would first require acknowledging a basic fact that way too many of us are damned skittish about facing: that we were attacked in the name of Islam, by primordial savages using our own modern technology against us in perfect accord with the unholy scriptures of their vile pseudo-religion.

9/11 was wrought not by any phantasmagorical “perversion” of Islam, contrary to the convenient dodge deployed by people in the West enthralled by the wishful thinking that posits the existence of a great mass of “moderate Muslims”…somewhere. Which is not to say that there are no “moderate Muslims” out there at all; there are. It’s just that they’re known to their stricter, more rigid brethren as “apostates.” Which, according to Muslim scripture itself, is entirely correct.

Until we can bring ourselves to confront the ugly truth about Islam—a monstrous, oppressive belief system responsible for mind-boggling acts of savagery and murder throughout the entire world—we will never be either safe or secure, and any “war” we fight against “terrorism” will be costly, never-ending, and bootless. Period fucking dot.

Share

Antisemitic Jews

A few of the other distasteful groups some on the alt-right choose to align themselves with: Joo-hatin’ libtards, self-hating Jewish libtards, and…guess who.

Anti-Israel activist Peter Beinart had spent years arguing that Hamas was a potentially moderate organization. Then when he was questioned at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport, he played victim. 

But as Caroline Glick notes, there was every reason for Israeli authorities to question Beinart’s visit, because the anti-Israel BDS activist had participated in anti-Israel protests in Israel. Beinart was not, despite his claims, detained. He was asked about his participation in that protest by the Center for Jewish Nonviolence. The Center, despite its name, is used by Jewish Voice for Peace members, a BDS hate group, which also, despite its name, advocates for and supports terrorists who attack Israel. 

JVP members are on the banned list. Beinart had participated in a protest organized by a group that it used as a vehicle. So it’s completely normal that he was asked about it just as visitors to this country are asked about their membership in prohibited organizations such as the Nazi, Communist and other totalitarian parties. The BDS blacklist that bigots like Beinart rave about is no different than the United States blacklist on anyone who “has used a position of prominence to endorse terrorism.” 

That’s the BDS movement. 

JVP declared that it was proud to host Rasmea Odeh. Odeh had been convicted of a supermarket bombing in Israel that killed Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner: two Hebrew University students. It called the terrorist an “inspiration” and used the hashtag, #HonorRasmea. That’s using “a position of prominence to endorse terrorism” which gets you banned from both the United States and Israel. 

Beinart writes for The Forward, a paper notorious for attacks on Israel and Jews that veer into the anti-Semitic. Typically anti-Semitic Forward headlines include, “3 Jewish Moguls Among Eight Who Own as Much as Half the Human Race” and “Why We Should Applaud The Politician Who Said Jews Control The Weather.” 

Did I neglect to mention yet another of those distasteful groups above: the absolutely batshit insane? Consider the oversight hereby corrected, then. But wait, there’s more…and worse.

Jewish power, Karl Marx, whose bearded visage still sneers from The Forward’s old building, claimed, is self-interest. That self-interest has corrupted Jews. And Jewish self-interest has corrupted the world. Only socialism, enlightened global altruism, can redeem the world from the corruption of the Jews. 

Behind the special pleading, the foaming outrage, the laughable invocations of Jewish tradition and morality, Beinart, Eisner, The Forward and Jewish Voice for Peace are working off the same Marxist critique of Jews. Israel’s crime and that of its Jewish supporters, they contend, is that its self-interest has corrupted Jewish morality. The only way to redeem the Jews is to destroy Jewish self-interest. 

To destroy Israel. 

Only by abandoning their self-interest, their power, even their survival, can they atone for what Marxist anti-Semites, from their great bearded master on down, see as the ‘original sin’ of the Jews.

Peter Beinart, The Forward and JVP aren’t putting forward bold new ideas. Their Jewish sources are not, as they claim, the prophets of Israel or the Kotzker Rebbe, but the original prototype of the anti-Jewish Jew. Their prophet is the pathological anti-Semite who raved, “What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.” 

Over a century and a half later, Marxist criticism of the Jews has made few innovations, replacing Judaism with Israel, and to a lesser degree, money with power. Leftist anti-Zionism is so hard to distinguish from anti-Semitism because its roots are still in the same anti-Semitic Marxist sewer. 

The Anti-Jewish Jews preach the salvific powers of the left to redeem the selfishness of the Jews. Only the left can save Jews from Jewish power. Only the left can redeem Jews from clinging to their guns, bible, and land by destroying Israel.

Boy, the irony is strong with these ones, ain’t it?

Yeah, I ain’t gonna be joining the chorus of “JOOZ DID IT!” conspiracy theorists, Right, Left, or Confutated, thanks. I don’t care how vociferously they preach their frothy gospel, here at this websty or anyplace else. Try peddling it someplace else, guys; there’s no market for it here.

Share

The real, the bad, and the scary

Steyn on Fukuyama.

“The fears that mass migration has stoked about cultural change” is a coy way of sidling up to the way I put it in America Alone – that culture trumps economics. Pakistanis came to Yorkshire because the mills needed workers. The mills closed anyway, but the workers stayed, and built their mosques and madrassahs. Today, as I mentioned on Tucker’s show a few weeks back, automation (and predictions that it will eliminate 30 per cent of all jobs) ends any economic rationale for mass immigration. That leaves little else to justify it except virtue-signaling. Which is more than enough, judging by the hysteria that greets anybody who seriously questions demographically transformative immigration policies. Fukuyama isn’t quite ready to concede the cultural point to Huntington, and attempts instead to sidestep it…

He has half a point here. Yes, many young western Muslims, the children and grandchildren of comparatively assimilated immigrants, choose a global Islamic “identity” for themselves. Likewise, many secular westerners choose one of the exciting and ever multiplying array of sexual “identities”. But it seems to me that both these phenomena are at least partly responses to the assault we have waged on our own culture and civilization this past half-century. Who wants to identify with a culture that reviles its own past, that blames itself for everything, that demolishes its statuary and denounces its greatest figures and insists that, while multiculturalism posits the equal value of all cultures, if you have to pick a villain pick the culture that built the modern world? In the void of modern western identity, people look elsewhere: Some find the new one-size-fits-all Islam, others find “intersexuality”.

In the end, however, one of these is real, and the other isn’t. And in those societies where the one butts up against the other (Denmark, say) the one that is real will one day steamroller the other. 

The one that considers its culture worth bothering to defend will always win, however ass-backwards, primitive, and immiserating it may be in every conceivable way. In any clash between ruthless savagery and enervated, effete, weak-kneed modernity, the way to bet couldn’t be more obvious.

Share

THAT’S how you do it

Fixing the unfixable.

On July 1, the New York Times ran a long article by Ellen Barry and Martin Selsoe Sorensen headlined “In Denmark, Harsh New Laws for Immigrant ‘Ghettos.’” How harsh? Henceforth, starting at the age of one, children living in designated “ghettos” – in other words, “low-income and heavily Muslim enclaves” – have to spend at least 25 hours a week receiving instruction in Danish values, “including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language.” Parents who refuse to obey may lose their welfare payments.

Given the proven failure (over decades) of innumerable Muslim immigrants in Denmark to learn Danish, find jobs, and otherwise integrate into Danish society – not to mention the tendency of young people who’ve grown up in those “enclaves” to join gangs, commit violence, and express open hostility to native Danes and their culture – these laws sound eminently reasonable. In fact, anyone aware of the scale of the problem might well pronounce them tame and insufficient. But not the Times. Barry and Sorensen describe the new laws not as a responsible attempt to prevent the kind of social and economic collapse looming in next-door Sweden, and to preserve a free, safe, and solvent Denmark for future generations of ethnic Danes and the descendants of immigrants, but rather as a “tough” and “sinister” expression of the Danish government’s “ire.”

One law that the Times writers single out for disdain “would impose a four-year prison sentence on immigrant parents who force their children to make extended visits to their country of origin…in that way damaging their ‘schooling, language and well-being.’” Barry and Sorensen plainly find this law unspeakably severe. One wonders if they know what they’re talking about. The fact is that countless Muslim parents in Europe send their kids “back home” for years at a time – it’s called “dumping” – so that they can attend Koran schools, soak up Islamic codes of conduct, and (most important) be shielded from such abhorrent Western phenomena as individual liberty and sexual equality.

As it happens, this practice has been studied extensively. It represents a profound danger to the children involved – girls especially – as well as to the Western countries to which they eventually return. In her 2001 book But the Greatest of These Is Freedom: The Consequences of Immigration in Europe (2011), Hege Storhaug of Norway’s Human Rights Service explained that “girls are sent abroad so that they won’t be able to live on equal terms with males and enjoy the right to choose their own spouses”; some of them, moreover, “are sent abroad at puberty to be prepared for marriage – to be prepared, that is, to be good wives who live up to the demands and standards set by men in their families’ homeland.” Is a four-year prison sentence too tough a penalty for parents who do such things to their children? No, especially when you consider that Danish prisons could be mistaken for luxury hotels while the madrassas in which these people enroll their kids look like, well, prisons – and the marriages (usually cousin marriages) into which those girls end up being forced are, in all but name, prison sentences.

Barry and Sorensen interviewed two critics of the new laws – a pair of Muslim sisters whom they depict as model citizens and describe as being fluent in Danish (but who are also, bemusingly, on welfare). “Danish politics is just about Muslims now,” one of the sisters complained. “I don’t know when they will be satisfied with us.” Gee, maybe when you stop bleeding the Danish treasury dry? Maybe when the 30,000 or so members of your “community” across Europe who belong to Islamic terrorist cells stop plotting murderous mayhem? Sister #2 griped that “her daughter was being taught so much about Christmas in kindergarten that she came home begging for presents from Santa Claus.” Sounds like a salutary change from what’s happening elsewhere in Western Europe, where, as part of nefarious propaganda campaigns, non-Muslim kids are routinely taken on school trips to mosques, shown how to put on a hijab, and taught to recite the shahada – all of which the Times and newspapers like it routinely celebrate. “Nobody should tell me,” Sister #2 added, “whether or how my daughter should go to preschool….I’d rather lose my benefits than submit to force.” Fine. Get a job.

Heh. Tell ’em, Daniel.

It’s a sad, telling indicator of how far into supine, cringing defenselessness multi-culti “liberalism” has dragged the West that anybody would regard this move as anything but a perfectly reasonable attempt at preserving their own country and culture from those actively trying to destroy it. We, and the Danes, can only hope it isn’t already too late. Greenfield has plenty more, of which you’ll want to read the all.

Share

“I’ve got a lot to say, but nothing to you”

Britain reluctantly springs a political prisoner from the gulag.



The hope of the British authorities that this “troublesome priest” would be murdered in prison remains thankfully unfulfilled. Ace throws a little water on the celebration by noting that Robinson’s reprieve is likely temporary:

Ezra Lavant says the world is a little freer today, but is it? The governments now in open revolt against their own people have made their point — defy us, and we will send men with guns to throw you in jail and maybe get murdered.

I think that message will be heard much louder than the message that they freed Tommy Robinson after unjustly imprisoning him.

And this isn’t necessarily the end of it: While the contempt charge was tossed out for judicial errors, the state may, and likely will, seek to re-try him. Robinson is only out on bail awaiting this new trial. He hasn’t been declared innocent, nor have the underlying charges been declared null and void.

True as that no doubt is, in blighted Old Blighty these days you have to enjoy what small victories you get. I’m glad Robinson is out, and I’m glad that he’s okay for now. He’s one of the good guys, and I wish him nothing but the best.

Share

The Muslim exemption

Are you living in a Muslim-enslaved country? If your answer is “no,” just how sure are you about that?

It’s the scene every Friday at the cafeteria of Valley Park Middle School in Toronto. That’s not a private academy, it’s a public school funded by taxpayers. And yet, oddly enough, what’s going on is a prayer service – oh, relax, it’s not Anglican or anything improper like that; it’s Muslim Friday prayers, and the Toronto District School Board says don’t worry, it’s just for convenience: They put the cafeteria at the local imams’ disposal because otherwise the kids would have to troop off to the local mosque and then they’d be late for Lesbian History class or whatever subject is scheduled for Friday afternoon.

The picture is taken from the back of the cafeteria. In the distance are the boys. They’re male, so they get to sit up front at prayers. Behind them are the girls. They’re female, so they have to sit behind the boys because they’re second-class citizens – not in the whole of Canada, not formally, not yet, but in the cafeteria of a middle school run by the Toronto District School Board they most certainly are.

And the third row? The ones with their backs to us in the foreground of the picture? Well, let the Star’s caption writer explain:

At Valley Park Middle School, Muslim students participate in the Friday prayer service. Menstruating girls, at the very back, do not take part.

Oh. As Kathy Shaidle says:

Yep, that’s part of the caption of the Toronto Star photo.

Yes, the country is Canada and the year is 2011.

Just so. Not some exotic photojournalism essay from an upcountry village in Krappistan. But a typical Friday at a middle school in the largest city in Canada. I forget which brand of tampon used to advertise itself with the pitch “Now with new [whatever] you can go horse-riding, water-ski-ing, ballet dancing, whatever you want to do”, but perhaps they can just add the tag: “But not participate in Friday prayers at an Ontario public school.”

Some Canadians will look at this picture and react as Miss Shaidle did, or Tasha Kheiriddin in The National Post:

Is this the Middle Ages? Have I stumbled into a time warp, where “unclean” women must be prevented from “defiling” other persons? It’s bad enough that the girls at Valley Park have to enter the cafeteria from the back, while the boys enter from the front, but does the entire school have the right to know they are menstruating?

But a lot of Canadians will glance at the picture and think, “Aw, diversity, ain’t it a beautiful thing?” – no different from the Sikh Mountie in Prince William’s escort. And even if they read the caption and get to the bit about a Toronto public school separating menstruating girls from the rest of the student body and feel their multiculti pieties wobbling just a bit, they can no longer quite articulate on what basis they’re supposed to object to it. Indeed, thanks to the likes of Ontario “Human Rights” Commission chief commissar Barbara Hall, the very words in which they might object to it have been all but criminalized.

Islam understands the reality of Commissar Hall’s “social justice”: You give ’em an inch, and they’ll take the rest. Following a 1988 cease-and-desist court judgment against the Lord’s Prayer in public school, the Ontario Education Act forbids “any person to conduct religious exercises or to provide instruction that includes religious indoctrination in a particular religion or religious belief in a school.” That seems clear enough. If somebody at Valley Park stood up in the cafeteria and started in with “Our Father, which art in Heaven”, the full weight of the School Board would come crashing down on them. Fortunately, Valley Park is 80-90 per cent Muslim, so there are no takers for the Lord’s Prayer. And, when it comes to the prayers they do want to say, the local Islamic enforcers go ahead secure in the knowledge that the diversity pansies aren’t going to do a thing about it.

Which is why eventually the sane people are going to rise up against those pansies and overthrow their pussy-ass PC tyranny. Trouble is, by the time they do, it’s going to be too late…if it ain’t already, that is.

Share

The radical Muslim wants to chop your head off; the “moderate” Muslim wants the radical Muslim to chop your head off

No taming ’em.

More than 95 per cent of deradicalisation programmes are ineffective, according to a study commissioned by the Home Office that raises questions about the government’s Prevent programme. The study revealed failures in the approach to deradicalisation in schools, youth centres, sports clubs and English-language classes.

The Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), the so-called nudge unit formerly part of the Cabinet Office, examined 33 deradicalisation programmes across the country designed to safeguard vulnerable people from far-right and religious extremist threats. The Times understands that most were funded by or fell under the label of Prevent.

The study found that only two programmes were effective and that some projects were counterproductive. Some participants said that they restricted their freedom of speech. Until the BIT study, the 33 projects claimed a success rate of more than 90 per cent because they evaluated themselves.

On Monday Sajid Javid, the home secretary, reaffirmed his support for Prevent. He said that he recognised criticism of the programme but added that “misapprehensions around Prevent are often based on distortions” and “I absolutely support it”.

By an odd coinkydink, this is another behind-the-paywall article linked by Walsh, commented on thusly:

One of the great fallacies of Western Europe’s multicultural fantasy is that the children of imported Musselmen will become less Muslim and that, eventually, their offspring will become more like their nominally Christian but in fact entirely secular hosts. Accordingly, the British and others now dealing with the consequences of their willfully ahistorical blindness regarding the true nature of Islam, have assumed that “radical” Muslims are the exception rather than the rule, and so have treated them as aberrational.

This, however, flies in the face of no less an expert on Islam than Turkey’s would-be caliph, Recep Erdogan, who famously denied that any such thing as “radical” Islam exists — because, to be a Believer, is to believe in the faith in its entirety. The idea of “cafeteria” Muslims, he has said, is totally wrong…

What no one is facing up to is one simple fact: that without a large Muslim population in the UK, none of these extraordinary efforts would be necessary, and the enormous sums of money expended on surveilling and reprogramming Muslims could well have been spent on something that would have benefitted the real British people. But such is the potency of the “diversity” delusion, which shows no signs of diminishing in the soon-to-be-late country of Merry Olde England.

As I’ve said many times, it’s too late for them. The Muslim-invader virus is too deeply embedded in the soil of Old Blighty to ever be uprooted; as with the rest of Europe, what they never managed to take with a millenium’s worth of attempts at conquest they’ve now achieved via infiltration. We can only hope it isn’t too late for America as well.

Share

Desaparicido

Hey, remember when this sort of thing happened mainly in Third World commie dictatorships? Oh wait

The arrest of British free speech activist Tommy Robinson has sent shockwaves across the Anglosphere. The United Kingdom, once dedicated to the values of freedom, has taken a path toward authoritarian government and away from freedom. The once great nation, which created the Magna Carta and once commanded an empire, is now the land of tyranny. Unless the British people love their freedom enough and fight this injustice in fierce fashion, it will remain a land silenced by intimidation and fear.

Robinson, a former member of the English Defense League whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is being unfairly persecuted by the U.K. government.  Robinson’s “crime” was that he yelled questions outside Leeds Crown Court and named the alleged defendants, like any other reporter. So what? The state broadcaster, the BBC, and the mainstream media had already named them. Why was he arrested, and why were they not arrested?

If gangs of white men had spent decades torturing and raping little Muslim girls and a justly outraged Muslim reporter were covering the case, in a similar manner as Robinson, would he be arrested?

We all know that the answer is “no,” and we know why. The U.K. is so invested in its politically correct multiculturalism diversity project that it has applied a different treatment of Muslims under the law, which accepts the diversity of legal systems and places the country on a path toward ruin.

Americans should be highly concerned over this case, because the same type of “hate speech laws” used against British citizens are currently being advocated in the U.S. Senate, by Marco Rubio (R), Kamala Harris (D), Susan Collins (R), and Dianne Feinstein (D) and a long list of others. Hillary Clinton pushed the same laws in 2012 and 2015 and 2017. Three similar unconstitutional laws aimed at our First Amendment rights were advanced in our Congress, after being drafted by Emgage USA and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, two Islamic organizations and defenders of designated terrorist organizations and their supporters, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism. The passage of any such anti-freedom of speech bill would place our country on Britain’s same ruinous path.

I only wish I could say I find any of that surprising. With just this one grotesque crime against liberty and decency, the Brits have moved themselves from “pitiable” right into the “despicable” column. There could not be a more revolting statement than the one the British government has just made with this outrage: that they much prefer tolerating and protecting Muslim child-rape gangs to safeguarding freedom of speech. But I can’t say I’m much surprised by that either; as noted, we have no shortage of Moonbat Lefties (and gutless RINO sellouts, sadly enough) right here in the States who feel the same way about it.

The very idea of “hate speech” laws is an abomination which of right ought to be intolerable in even a half-free country. Once-Great Britain is well and truly finished; it will soon begin to live up to its “Old Blighty” nickname in ways its benighted subjects never imagined. I don’t pity them; they deserve their ignoble fate, having earned it many times over. But there’s a small, guttering spark yet flickering in some of them:

In a land that once could proudly state, “The sun never sets on the British Empire,” the torch of freedom has been extinguished. It’s a land divided by diversity that has now descended into the darkness of tyranny.

If the globalists in both American parties and the U.S. State Department have their way, America will be next.

Tommy Robinson represents a large segment of Britain’s people, with over 500,000 signatures on a petition already to “Free Tommy.” The people sent a clear message on Saturday, May 26, 2018, that they have had enough, as thousands of British people stopped traffic, chanted, and pressed the gates of 10 Downing Street and threw bottles at machine gun-toting policemen. Their anger hung thick in the air, because they want Robinson, at the very least, to be released from prison and allowed to get back to his life and enjoy the same protection and human rights and dignity as Anjem Choudary, the terrorist-supporter, was afforded by the authorities. Short of this, the summer in Britain will turn out to be a season of riots and civil strife, awaiting the spark that moves the good and decent Brits – of a long ancestry dating to 1066 and William the Conqueror – to fight furiously to make their land free once more.

Well, possibly, I guess, and I wish those folks well. But I have little expectation of any such thing, and none at all that it might be successful. They can anticipate neither succor nor sympathy from these shores; we face a grim enough struggle ourselves, with victory by no means assured.

Share

Highly useful idiots

It’s almost enough to make one look forward to the coming Muslim conquest.

At the 2018 Middle East Dialogue conferenceat Washington DC’s Whittemore House last month, George Mason University Professor Darrell Norman Burrell whitewashed Islamism and exaggerated Islam’s role in American culture. His “Islamophobia” lecture reflected the gathering’s sometimes ahistorical radical chic that political commentator Mark Bruzonsky captured succinctly in earlier remarks. Together, their willful distortions of reality offered a microcosm of systemic moral and intellectual problems besetting Middle East studies.

Declaring Hamas leaders are “more dignified, more thoughtful, more aware of history” than popularly perceived, Bruzonsky also claimed that “Jewish Zionist ideology…is the real reason we don’t have peace.” Recalling his meeting with Hamas leaders Abu Marzook and Ahmed Yousef, he noted bitterly that it took place before the “Israeli lobby got Hamas declared a terrorist organization.” Burrell himself could have written Bruzonsky’s outlandish conclusion: “The problem is not Palestinian rejectionism; the problem is Jewish and American rejectionism.” 

During his talk, Burrell lamented the “prejudice, hatred of Islam and Muslims,” conflating Islam, an idea, with individuals facing prejudice. He cited survey statistics demonstrating that many “Americans believe Islam is at odds with American values” without analyzing the merit of such beliefs. One LifeWay Research survey “challenged” him with four in ten protestant pastors who “agree that Islam is dangerous and promotes violence.” These ministers should “really try to seek wisdom and understand,” Burrell insisted.

He goes on like that, cluelessness piled upon ignorance piled upon outright lies, until one is left wondering just how it is that puling Western shitwits like this guy can fail to perceive that, as with Marxism’s original useful idiots, they’ll be among the first to be put up against the wall and shot should the Big Takeover ever actually occur. Just serves to prove the truth of the old saw about clouds and silver linings.

Share

Once a traitor…

Leopards Liberals don’t change their spots.

Many people — including the president of the United States — want to know if Kerry’s actions constitute a violation of the Logan Act. It’s a question I’m frequently asked about Kennedy. The short answer, in both cases, is that I’m not the source to provide the answer. Congress is. The Democratic Congress in the 1980s didn’t hesitate to launch criminal proceedings against President Ronald Reagan and his staff (many of them fine men of great integrity) in a militant pursuit for impeachment over “Iran-Contra.” Liberal Democrats did so while turning a blind eye as their leader — House Speaker Jim Wright — buddied up to Sandinista dictator Daniel Ortega in his own negotiations.

And Wright wasn’t secretary of state, just as John Kerry wasn’t secretary of state when he conferred with Iranian officials in secret meetings in New York. In what the Boston Globe described as a “rare move” of “unusual shadow diplomacy,” Kerry met with the Iranian foreign minister (among other high-level foreign officials) “to discuss ways of preserving the pact limiting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It was the second time in about two months that the two had met to strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating during the Obama administration, according to a person briefed on the meetings.”

That’s the very deal that President Trump was working to cancel just as Kerry was working to save it.

And that’s hardly the only Kerry outrage. No, this is old-hat. I’d like to remind all of Kerry’s affront decades ago. The date was April 22, 1971, 47 years to almost the exact day that Kerry met with the Iranians.

Follows, the complete story of the last time John Heinz-Kerry committed high treason against the United States of America. Of course, there’s a Soviet angle behind it. Heinz-Kerry ought to be damned grateful that treason is no longer an offense this country bothers much about anymore. If it was, he’d have surely swung for it a long time ago.

Then again, though, it might almost have been worth letting him slide on that whole betraying-his-country thing just to see his hilarious “reporting for duty” skit, featuring what would have to be one of the most feeble excuses for a “salute” ever perpetrated by a veteran in public, at DemSocCon 2004. I swear, it looked more like one of Benny Hill’s end-of-show gags than anything else.


Benny_Hill.jpg

Nothing whatsoever against Hill, of course. At least he was being funny on purpose.

Share

Culture war

It’s ON in Bavaria.

Bavaria has ordered Christian crosses to be hung at the entrance of all of its regional government buildings, it has emerged.

The German state’s government said the crosses should not be seen as religious symbols, but are meant to reflect the southern state’s ‘cultural identity and Christian-western influence’.

But the move has already drawn a furious reaction from opposition politicians and one prominent cleric accused the regional government of hypocrisy ahead of an election. 

The south-eastern state was on the frontline of 2015’s migrant crisis, when over a million people fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia arrived in Germany, fueling support for the AfD.

Even clerics were critical of the plan. ‘Many see as a provocation and a hypocrisy the way you speak about Christianity,’ wrote Burkhard Hose, a priest who ministers to the students of Wuerzburg University, in an open letter to Soeder.

‘Stop this misuse of Christianity and its symbols as a supposed bulwark against Islam,’ he added.  

Oh yeah? Got any better ideas for bulwarks against Islam, then? Or are you good with just rolling over and letting them get on with the conquest and sack?

And to think, some people wonder why Christianity is dying in the West. With weak-kneed, namby-pamby clerics like this to defend, uphold, and preserve the faith, it’s something of a miracle it didn’t fade away altogether years ago. The AfD, referred to as you’d expect in the article as a “far right” party, has a more legitimate gripe about the symbolic move:

But the AfD, which campaigns against Muslim immigration, dismissed the cross proposal as ‘the usual gesture politics’.

‘The Christian Cross is being turned into an election accessory, while the conservatives refuse to protect our basic values with real actions,’ the AfD’s co-leader Alice Weidel said in a statement on Wednesday.

Well, I dunno. “Real actions” are called for sure enough, and long past due. But in Europe as in America, you’ll have to be content with baby steps at first, guys…and just pray it isn’t already too late. PRO TIP: it is.

Via DuToit, who also presents this very-much-related item:

A Swedish woman in her 40s was brutally raped by an Afghan teenager while another migrant man molested her, a court has heard.

Anwar Hassani and Fardi Hesari, both 18, met the victim outside a hotel bar in Ljungby, southern Sweden, in the early hours of Boxing Day last year.

The victim later told police she took an interest in the teenagers, having been told they were migrants from Afganistan.

She explained that she had been a member of a Facebook group which campaigns against the deportation of migrants from Sweden.

Fucking moron. As Kim says: you’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh hysterically at this story.

Share

The real thing

Steyn insists on accuracy and precision. He has a point.

As the purveyor of a family-friendly website, I have been reluctant to join in the popularization of the epithet “cuck” – as in “cuckold”, as in “cuckservatives”, etc. Yes, yes, as a practical matter, most mainstream conservatives are hopeless squishes who haven’t conserved a single thing and for whom, as I complained to John Oakley in Toronto the other day, no hill is ever the hill to die on. But cuck-talk’s not my bag, and, as a Chaucer fan, I dislike the way it advances the cyber-porn fetishist’s re-definition of “cuckold” – a man who is not only aware of his wife’s infidelity but turned on by it – as opposed to its ancient meaning, of an oblivious fool of a husband who discovers too late he’s now grown cuckold’s horns.

Nevertheless, I think we should make an exception to our general “cuck”-free-zone rule for the case of contemporary Britain, which is literally descending into the United Cuckdom – that is to say, an entire nation that sits back and accepts that its women are to be preyed upon. Eight days ago The Sunday Mirror reported on “Britain’s ‘worst ever’ child grooming scandal”. The headline editor’s sub-quotes are most prudent: This is the “worst ever” at the time of writing, but who knows what’ll come along next week?

When the child-sex crimes of lifelong BBC presenter Jimmy Savile were posthumously exposed, Commander Spindler of the Metropolitan Police piously announced:

Jimmy Savile groomed a nation.

But Savile’s old enablers at the Beeb and Spindler’s colleagues in the British constabulary are also grooming a nation. They’re grooming Britons to accept that the serial mass gang-rape of English girls is just a social phenomenon, part of the natural order – regrettable perhaps, but nothing to be done about it; and thus the mountain of human debris is merely a small price to pay for the benefits of vibrant diversity. Which means the real problem is these ghastly types boorish enough to draw attention to the sacrifice of English maidenhood to the volcano gods of multiculturalism.

And still the police and the social workers and the politicians and the media roll up their windows and drive away.

Oh, they can get worked up over ancient disc-jockeys who copped a feel on “Top of the Pops” in 1973 and thereby committed what the illiterate coppers call “historic” sexual abuse. But, in the face of truly “historic”, truly unprecedented sexual abuse of thousands of English girls day in, day out, year after year, all they can manage is a fatalistic shrug. “Cuckolds” in the contemporary sense is a good word for the British state’s attitude to what’s happening. So is “wittols”, the 16th century neologism for those who are aware that they’re being cuckolded and go along with it. It seems reasonable to assume that the mass sexual exploitation of young girls is occurring in every English town with even a modest (as in Rotherham) “Asian” population, boundlessly cocksure and assertive, and a feeble British officialdom too cowed and appeasing to resist. The real word for what is happening is evil – for a society that will not defend its youngest and most vulnerable girls is surely capable of rationalizing many more wicked accommodations in the years ahead.

Profoundly pathetic—and so far beyond contemptible that there really is no word for it.

Share

Last call for everything

Steyn notes a pathetic passing.

Last call for Sir John A Macdonald: The establishment at top right is a small trivial example of a profound sickness. Sir John’s Public House is a Scottish pub in Kingston, Ontario located in the building where Canada’s first Prime Minister once had his law office. On Tuesday, the publican changed the name and replaced the signs. It is no longer “Sir John’s Public House”, merely “The Public House”:

“Some of our customers and some of the native organizations in the Kingston area said that they could no longer do business with us. They said that it was no longer a safe place for them, and that the name ‘Sir John’s’ just brought back too many unhappy memories for their communities,” Fortier said.

What sort of ninny goes to a Scots pub looking for “a safe place”? I had an agreeable lunch there a couple of years back when passing through Kingston, but can’t say I’d be minded to return now it’s joined the ranks of the culturally craven. Instead of “The Public House”, why not something catchier like “Omar Khadr’s Public House”?

Why not something more realistic, like Khaled’s Dar Al Harb (no alcohol allowed)? But then we get down to cases, from a much less depressing era:

Pub names, unlike those of most other retail outlets, are explicitly intended to be a) distinctive and b) rooted in history. I don’t just mean all the familiar English ones like the George & Dragon and the Saracen’s Head, which are assuredly on the way out as Islamophobia-hate-crimes-in-waiting, but I’m also thinking of rarer coinages like the Hielan Jessie on the Gallowgate in Glasgow, named for Jessie Brown, wife of a corporal in the 17th Highland Regiment, who in the Indian Mutiny, after her husband was killed, rallied his surviving comrades to fight on by claiming to hear the approaching bagpipes of the 78th Highlanders. As a predecessor of mine at The Spectator reported in 1857:

Suddenly I was aroused by a wild unearthly scream close to my ear; my companion stood upright beside me, her arms raised and her head bent forward in the attitude of listening. A look of intense delight broke over her coun- tenance, she grasped my hand, drew me towards her and exclaimed ‘Dinna ye hear ‘it? Ay, I’m no dreamin’, it’s the slogan o’ the Highlanders! We’re saved!’ Then flinging herself on her knees she thanked God with passionate fervour.

Isn’t that a bit triggering for all those descendants of mutinous sepoys now running Glasgow corner shops?

The owner of Sir John’s Public House is like a lot of Canadians. He thinks it’s easy and painless to surrender the past. He doesn’t realize that, when you surrender the past, you’re also surrendering the future.

Or, to pare it down to its barest skin: when you surrender either, you’re…surrendering.

Share

Demographic doomsday

Okay, I found this somewhat bleakly comical.

To reprise an old line of mine from America Alone, the future belongs to those who show up for it. And, if those showing up in America, Britain, Sweden, Austria are dramatically different from the entire history of those polities, then the future will be something of a crap shoot. For example, this story from my old friends at The Spectator – “Is IQ Falling Across the West?”

According to Flynn’s latest findings, the Nordic nations are projected to see national intelligence scores drop by a total of seven points by 2025.

You don’t say. How’d that come about? After all, not so long ago everyone was gung-ho about 20th century upswings in IQ. Alas, Professor Timothy Bates is mystified:

What becomes of this optimism if it turns out that IQs are now falling across the developed world..? Something has happened in the last decade or so that has put progress into reverse in some countries and failed gifted children in others. We need to find out why and what to do to make sure its upward trajectory is restored.

“Something” has “happened”, eh? In 1900 Sweden’s foreign-born population was 0.07 per cent – or 35, 627, of whom all but 300 were from Europe or North America. By 2010 Sweden’s foreign-born population was just under 15 per cent – or 1.33 million, of whom two-thirds were born outside the EU. In 2015, they admitted so many Muslim “refugees” that in the space of a single year they overtook China’s “one child”-policy sex imbalance (119 boys for every 100 girls) and in their late-teen cohort now have 123 boys for every 100 girls. In the space of a century, from 1950 to 2050, Sweden will have gone from an homogeneous ethnic state with barely any visible minority population to a land in which ethnic Swedes will themselves be the minority.

You can’t really do that sort of thing without upending everything – and I mean everything.

According to a 2007 study by the Rockwool Foundation, after ten years in the Danish school system, two-thirds of students with an Arabic background remain functionally illiterate. In Bradford, Yorkshire, 75 per cent of Pakistani Britons are married to their first cousins, many of whom are themselves the children of first cousins. In the new west, why even bother worrying about IQ? Professor Bates says he wants to get to the bottom of the “why” and the “what”. But as I wrote eleven years ago in America Alone:

Stick a pin almost anywhere in the map, near or far: The “who” is the best indicator of the what-where-when-why.

Which is why a gay bathhouse got nixed in Luton: The mosque has more muscle.

In Eurabia, the mosque has ALL the muscle, and can nix whatever it damned well pleases. And if the weak, decadent, and pusillanimous Old Europeans upon whom the sun is so rapidly setting find that a bit, umm, awkward, well, tough for them. As Abdul well knows: what the heck are THEY gonna do about it, anyway?

Share

Pressure

More on Jerusalem, the rightful capital of the Jewish state of Israel.

Trump’s move applied pressure to the PLO’s Palestinian Authority in exactly the way that the left had wanted pressure to be applied to Israel. He did to the PLO, what Obama had been doing to Israel by covertly backing the PA’s statehood moves.

The double standard is that pressuring Israel in this way is deemed a very good thing because the Jews are somehow the obstacles to peace. While pressuring the PLO is a terrible thing because that will destroy the cause of peace.

Why is pressuring Israel a good thing and pressuring Islamic terrorists a bad thing?

That’s the bias that needs addressing.

Because the Left looooves them some Moslem savages and loathes the only functioning, civilized democracy in the Middle East, that’s why.

Update! Of course, the Deep State is still gonna Deep State:

The United States still will not formally recognize Jerusalem as being located in Israel on official documents, maps, and passports, despite President Donald Trump’s announcement earlier this week that America is formally recognizing the holy city as Israel’s capital, according to State Department officials who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon about the matter.

Despite Trump’s declaration, which was formally codified on Wednesday into U.S. policy, the State Department is taking a more nuanced position on the matter, drawing some ire in Congress among pro-Israel lawmakers who accuse the State Department of undermining Trump’s efforts.

State Department officials this week had difficulty stating as fact that Jerusalem is located within Israel, instead trying to parse the issue as still subject to diplomatic negotiations.

It’s a two-fer for them: they get to make an empty, futile gesture towards thwarting Trump, and they also get to thumb their noses at Israel into the bargain. And being Progtards and all, they don’t care in the least how their self-defeating foolishness makes them look:

State Department officials who spoke to the Free Beacon about the situation said that while it supports Trump’s declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, it is not yet at the point where it will list Jerusalem as part of Israel on passports, maps, and official documents. This means that official documents, such as passports, will not, at this point, list “Jerusalem, Israel” as a place that exists.

As always, their argument really isn’t with Trump or any other sane, sensible person. Their argument is with reality.

Updated update! Oh, THIS is gonna leave a mark.

As the chicken-hearted, yellow-bellied, lily-livered, gutless and spineless leaders of Western Civilization from Western Europe to New Zealand now shake and tremble in the face of a simple truth that they all know — that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel — we may expect to hear the meme interminably day-and-night, until the next television or movie icon’s pants fall, that “This decision now threatens the Middle East ‘Peace Process.’” For the last fifty years, someone in a European capital and in the U.S. State Department has uttered that sentence at least once weekly. If Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston divorce, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Megyn Kelly ever gets ratings on NBC, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Hillary Clinton admits that she knowingly spoliated those emails and that they had nothing to do with yoga, yogurt, or Chelsea’s wedding, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Netflix raises its prices again, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie divorce, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Eli Manning does not start for the New York Giants, or if Colin Kaepernick does start anywhere, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Bill Clinton admits that he raped Juanita Broaddrick, it will endanger the Middle East peace process.

So, while other experts debate the meme, let us share a secret: There is no Middle East “peace process” and there has not been a “Middle East peace process” for decades. It is a sham

Couldn’t have said it better myself. More inconvenient truth:

Arafat and his cronies, chief among them Mahmoud Abbas, the current Palestinian Authority dictator who now is entering the thirteenth year of his four-year elected term in office, never wanted a final agreement that would recognize the permanent existence of a non-Muslim, Jewish-majority country in the Middle East. There never was a “Middle East Peace Process.” Rather, it was a “Piece Process”: Fool one American President to get us a piece of the Sinai, the next to get us a piece of the Golan Heights, the next to get a piece of Gaza. There never was a “Peace Process” — and, if one simply pauses to contemplate the reality of the terrain and the demography, the painful conclusion is that a “Two-State Solution” is best when not contemplated. Consider:

Before June 1967, an Arab Muslim polity (Egypt) held Gaza, an Arab Muslim polity (Syria) held the Golan Heights, and an Arab Muslim polity (Jordan) held Judea and Samaria (misnomered the “West Bank”). Yet in 1964, three years before June 1967, the Arab world created the “Palestine Liberation Organization” (PLO). Which “Palestine” did that “organization” set about to “liberate” in 1964? Not Gaza, Golan, and Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”). Jordanian Olympic athletes were not attacked for “occupying the West Bank.” Nor were Egyptian school children for “occupying Gaza.” Nor Syrian civilians for “occupying the Golan.” Rather, all PLO terror attacks, from the PLO’s 1964 founding through June 1967, aimed within pre-June 1967 IsraelThat is what the PLO was organized to liberate: the “Palestine” that is Israel. Not Gaza, Golan, nor Judea and Samaria.

Bingo. If the “Palestinians” were anything other than implacably opposed to the idea of peaceful coexistence with Israel, they could’ve had it long, long ago. Instead, they cling to the same old dream they always have cherished: the destruction of Israel, and the genocide of the Jews. It’s the same dream they were promised by their Arab “brethren,” none of whom are in the least amenable to offering up a chunk of their own ample land for a “Palestinian” state, when the modern state of Israel was established. Fischer is correct: there is no “peace process.” It’s a sham, a subterfuge, and a very, very bad joke, and it has never been—nor will it ever be—anything more.

Share

Under siege

One will win, and the other…will lose.

Students at a major Catholic university are upset at the school’s emphasis on Christmas, saying they wish other religious holidays would receive equal attention on campus.

Gee, wonder which students THOSE would be.

At Loyola University Chicago, Muslim students told The Loyola Phoenix that they wish Muslim holidays would receive the same attention as Christian holidays, despite Muslims accounting for less than five percent of the student population.

Imagine my surprise.

In fact, Catholics comprise 60 percent of the 2016 freshman class, though the school does not specify the number of students who are Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or other Christian denominations, merely noting that 40 percent have a religious affiliation other than Catholic.

According to the Phoenix, there are approximately 800 Muslim students at the university, which accounts for less than five percent of the university’s 16,673 students.

Sajid Ahmed, prayer coordinator for the Muslim Student Association (MSA), told the Phoenix that Eid al-Fitr, the Muslim holiday celebrating the end of Ramadan, is “a bit dampened” at Loyola.

As it damned well ought to be.

“At home it’d be a big family thing, dress up and go to the mosque. We’d spend the day together and celebrate…compared to that, college Eid has been less,” Ahmed said.

If you find that so troubling, then what the fucking fuck are you doing at a Christian, Western college, Mohammed Al Camelhumper? You want to see Muslim holiday celebrations taking precedence over Christian ones—and don’t kid yourselves folks, that is EXACTLY what this little immivader wants—then shag your ass right on back home where you belong.

But remember when I said one would win and the other would lose? Well, here’s your first clue on which way it’s probably going to go long-term:

However, Bryan Goodwin, associate director of the student complex, noted that Loyola already takes steps to make its festivities more inclusive, such as displaying banners that say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” and expressed willingness to recognize any religious holiday upon request.

And that right there is the sort of rock-ribbed, ringing defense of the most revered of Christian holidays that’s going to see Western Christians conquered, subjugated, and eventually forgotten before they can tearfully bleat, “Can’t we all just get along?”

(Via Insty)

Share

“Can’t Kill Enough to Win?”

Well, can we at least TRY?

Those given the awful task of combat must be able to act with the necessary savagery and purposefulness to destroy those acting as, or in direct support of, Islamic terrorists worldwide. In 2008, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Admiral Michael Mullen said, “We can’t kill our way to victory.” Ever since, many have parroted his words. But what if Admiral Mullen was wrong? The United States has been at war with radical Islamists four times longer than it was with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II. And those previous enemies were far more competent and aggressive than the terrorists. It is time to kill a lot more of them.

Okay, we’re off to one hell of a good start as far as I’m concerned. But there’s a problem right out of the gate here—a big one—and I suspect a good many if not most of you can already guess what it is.

In addition to the overabundance of ill-trained lawyers in the force, leaders are giving too much credence to people and organizations (such as Amnesty International) with distorted views of how wars ought to be fought rather than how they truly are. For instance, the concept of proportionality under international law has nothing to do with making war a “fair fight” or using “minimum force.” Sadly, however, such human rights law language has crept into U.S. military standing rules of engagement (SROE), despite warnings from sage counsel such as international and operational law expert W. Hays Parks.

In the mid-1990s, a small cadre of combat-experienced officers began to militate against overly restrictive rules of engagement and tactical directives. They advocated that if U.S. military forces must fight in such environments these warriors should at least have the same protections that U.S. constitutional law provides police officers in the United States. This still has not happened. Sixteen years and thousands of U.S. military lives have been lost, and the military still is plagued with obtuse rules of engagement and soul-crushing investigations into every action.

While the United States may not be following the full-on nation-centric strategy of Alfred Thayer Mahan to fight terrorists today, it ought to use the military primarily to forward its national interests. And that ought not be a strange or unsavory concept to any U.S. warrior or citizen.

The military’s leadership has a responsibility to push back hard when told to do anything that would dilute the fundamental responsibility to win wars. For the past two decades, the U.S. military has put more effort into combating climate change and training to prevent sexual harassment than it has into training warriors to kill the enemy.

I wrote a post the other day lamenting the sad state of the “most powerful military in the world,” which Aesop responded to at length in the comments. It’s worth examining the arguments he makes out front here a bit, I think:

We now have an army and navy nearly as small as what we had on hand around the Great Depression.

And the armed might we wielded as recently as 1990 was barely a patch on the machine we dismantled in 1946, after doing the heavy lifting to win two world wars.

That’s what happens when you cut defense spending precipitously, plow the money into stock bubbles, housing welfare, etc., and in the process crash the economy hard twice.

And between the two bubbles, we squandered a serviceable but barely adequate military on adventurism and asinine you-break-it, you-bought-it “nation building” in two of the most illiterate and utterly worthless sh*tholes on the face of the earth. We traded a family cow’s worth of military power for the magic beans of Middle Eastern democracy, and we don’t even have a beanstalk to show for it afterwards. Just a dead giant.

But we burned out the troops, burned up their airplanes, wore out their weapons, and mothballed our rusted navy, because affirmative-action generals like Colon Powell never read Alfred Thayer Mahan.

What you see now is what happens when you entrust leadership to idiots, in an organization dedicated to the Peter Principle as a promotion tool.

Militaries cost money and brains, and both Congress and the Pentagon have been short on both for decades. And there’s no easy fix for that, either place.

This is all perfectly true, sure enough. But it seems to me that the biggest problem of all is the American people, or all too many of them at least. They seem to lack the will to commit to backing their military forces all the way to complete victory; they’re soft, coddled, and insulated from the realities not just of war, but of military service itself. The concept of what victory in war might even amount to is foreign to them, and it’s near certain that the sacrifice, the real price, of victory is too.

In fact, most Americans are almost completely isolated from their military, from the soldiers themselves; a historically low percentage of the populace is personally acquainted with someone in uniform, or even with someone else who is. The idea of putting on a uniform and picking up a rifle for a hitch in service themselves seems wholly alien to them, and ludicrous. One might as well suggest that they grow gills and flippers and swim the Atlantic without coming up for air. Y’know, tomorrow morning.

As has been pointed out here before by other commenters, this state of affairs goes beyond lamentable and crosses handily over into being outright dangerous. Naturally, it’s not true of everyone; I suspect that this alienation is most prevalent by far in the big-city enclaves of the Left, and the college campuses that breed and nurture Progressivist drones by the thousands. I’d guess it would be a lot less so out in the great heartland of the country, the South generally, and the towns surrounding military bases. Such locales generally have a great respect and a high regard for their soldiery, and became far less circumspect about expressing those sympathies openly once 9/11 sort of granted permission to harbor them again.

All of which indirectly brings me to the problem I mentioned up top, which is with this statement: “…destroy those acting as, or in direct support of, Islamic terrorists worldwide.” That’s fine as far as it goes, and would amount to at least a good start if nothing more. But what of the millions upon millions of Moslems who are supportive of jihad without openly declaring it; who believe in the supremacy of sharia law, but who aren’t necessarily willing to commit acts of terrorism or offer material support themselves beyond, say, financial contributions to their local “moderate” mosque, from whence the money make its circuitous way into the hands of the jihadists who depend on it?

These are the “moderates” touted endlessly by our media and politicians, but according to poll after poll after poll, their beliefs aren’t anything most of us would label “moderate.” While they may not constitute a clear majority of Moslem “immigrants” just yet, they are nonetheless legion. And they have deliberately been seeded throughout the West in unsuspecting communities who are carefully kept in the dark as to the nature of their beliefs and activities, and are oblivious to the threat posed by them.

None of which even begins to address the additional problem of “refugees” from the Middle East, who ain’t necessarily coming because they dig them some freedom, tolerance, and democracy, bub (been a good, long while since I saw any of that “Democracy, whiskey, sexy!” signage being waved around by anybody at all, I’ll say that much). We aren’t told how many of them there are; that’s something our rulers don’t think we ought to know. It’s doubtful anybody, in government or out, knows where they all wind up. The government is probably way more meticulous about tracking YOUR whereabouts than they are theirs.

So considering all that, how much chance do you think there is of our ever making effective war on Moslem terrorism, and of truly winning such a war? How would we even go about such a thing? The ideas presented in the first linked piece above are good ones; I’m wholeheartedly in favor of all of ’em, and plenty more besides. But I bet Hell will freeze over good and damned solid before we ever see a one of ’em done.

Share

It’s complicated

Not.

Australia’s “marriage equality” campaign triumphed in this month’s referendum under the slogan “Let’s Get It Done”. In other words, it’s inevitable, so why waste another five years arguing about it? Let’s get it done, and over, and move on to transgender bathrooms or whatever’s next.

In fact, social progress is less gay than bi: It swings both ways. After the vote, many of our Aussie readers wrote to draw my attention to the fact that the areas most fiercely opposed to the joys of same-sex marriage were not the dusty rural backwaters but the western half of Sydney. In Blaxland, for example, 73.9 per cent voted against “marriage equality”.

How could that be? In The Sydney Morning Herald, Western Sydney University professor Andy Marks decided to examine the question:

What makes their attitude so different to that of the rest of the nation? Census data goes some way to addressing that question.

Marriage rates in Blaxland are higher but so is the proportion of couples separated.

Okay. So a lot of marriage in the area. Anything else?

The proportion of the electorate’s residents enrolled in university or tertiary education is higher than the NSW and national average but the level of qualification attained lags, slightly.

Gotcha. Slightly reduced rate of university degrees. Fascinating. What else?

Linguistically, the difference is similarly pointed with 25.5 per cent of the electorate’s households speaking “English only” at home contrasting with NSW and Australian averages of over 68 per cent.

Interesting. Do all these married, moderately under-qualified non-anglophones have any other distinguishing characteristics? Say, the number of cars parked in the driveway?

Household income levels are low as are rates of home and motor vehicle ownership. Unemployment is well above state and national levels.

At which point Professor Marks gives up and says something about “an incredibly complex debate” before signing off and going back to his day job.

Can you spot the missing word, boys and girls? It begins with “Mus-” and ends with “-lim”. Officially, one in three residents of Blaxland are Muslim – which you might think is a more relevant statistic than, say, low rates of motor vehicle ownership. But no. The trick with “engaging in an incredibly complex debate” is to eschew the word “Muslim” in favor of words like “complicated”. 

Until the Left’s disastrous installation of an unassimilable Moslem horde into Western nations whose standards they both despise collides with the Moslem hatred and intolerance of homosexuals…and the whole self-contradictory mess blows up in the Left’s face yet again, quite literally this time. It’s an ugly alliance of convenience that’s going to become mighty inconvenient before very much longer.

You’d think that people who piously profess their reverence for “sustainability” in other contexts would be a bit more cognizant of the minefield they’re so obliviously traipsing through here—of the inherent unsustainability of juxtaposing modern permissiveness with primordial savages irreversibly hostile to that permissiveness, and convinced of the righteousness of doing violence against it. “Coexist”? Not a chance in Hell; they’ll have no part of it, thanks, and will happily bring Hell itself to your very doorstep rather than submit to it.

The Moslem infiltration and ultimate conquest of the West, engineered and sustained by Leftist morons, is going to backfire horribly on all of us. It would be hilarious if it were just Leftist nitwits harmed by it, and no more than just. Unfortunately, we’ll all end up bleeding—again, quite literally—for their multiculti folly this time around.

Share

An obscured history, an inconvenient truth

For those who may be unaware of it: right from the beginning, Islam was a “religion” of blood, slaughter, rapine, usurpation, and conquest. Those aren’t aberrations, errors, or “perversions of a great religion,” as ignorant, weak-minded Western fools would have it. They’re the whole damned point.

To understand the violent history of “Allahu Akbar”, let’s climb into a time machine and go back to the year 628 and to a place that will one day be known as Saudi Arabia. It’s hot out here in the desert. Temperatures from the spring to the fall routinely cross the hundred degree mark and keep going.

We’re in Khaybar. It’s a desert oasis maintained by the Jews. If being in 109 degree heat has got you down, you stop by the oasis, and have a cool drink of water and some dates. Then you keep going. Out here trade runs through the desert and the oasis is a gas station. If you want to choke off major trade routes, you go after an oasis. And that’s what a cult leader whose followers today terrorize the world by attacking its travel routes, airline hijackings, pirates preying on ships, train and bus bombs, was doing.

Muslims call what happened next, the “Battle of Khaybar”. Like most Muslim battles, it was a treacherous ambush and a massacre. And it helps explain why there are no Jews in Saudi Arabia today. Nor do Muslims regret this act of ethnic cleansing. Instead they celebrate it. Muslims still threaten Jews by chanting, “Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahud.” “Remember Khaybar, Jews, Mohammed’s Army Will Return.”

And “Allahu Akbar?”

That’s what Mohammed shouted as he realized that his surprise attack had been successful. “Allahu-Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed.” He boasted that any nation attacked by Muslims would suffer a similar fate. And then he “had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives”. Mohammed also picked up his own sex slave. “Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet.” Safiya’s husband had been murdered. Like their ISIS successors, the Prophet of Islam’s band of killers and rapists took the women as slaves.

That’s where “Allahu Akbar” originated. And that’s why Muslims still shout it at terrorist attacks.

For those still stubbornly confused about the nature of Islam, the word itself assuredly does NOT translate as “peace,” but submission. More inconvenient truth:

The Islamic mission is to make Islam supreme over all other religions (Koran 9:33). If Muslims aren’t striving to defeat other religions, then “Allahu Akbar” rings hollow. Islam does not primarily offer an internal religious experience that transforms the believer, but an external collective experience that transforms the world. Jihad, the acts of terror we see on the news, are that religious experience. 

“Allahu Akbar” is the supremacist core of Islam. Mohammed offered a religious experience that merged desert banditry and conquest, whose sacraments were the murder of the enemies of Islam and the rapes of their wives and daughters. The horrifying Islamic rituals of ethnic cleansing, rape and torture demonstrated that, “Allahu Akbar”. That Allah was greater than the dead men and raped women.

When ISIS Jihadists rape children or when an ISIS Muslim sympathizer runs over people in New York, Berlin or Nice, it’s a prayer of praise to Allah. And the prayer is, “Allahu Akbar.” 

The more non-Muslims are killed, abused and enslaved, the more the truth of Islam and the supremacy of Allah are proven with the screams of the wounded, the dying and the families of the dead. 

This is Islam. This is what it was in 628. That’s what it is today.

And it’s what it forever will remain, until is either vanquished…or victorious.

Share

The Great Treason

Liberalism delenda est.

The press conference that NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and NY Governor Andrew Cuomo held after the ISIS-directed mass murder by “Diversity Scratch-Off” winner Sayfullo Saipov was a master class in inculcating a gullible urban herd to helplessness, passivity, insane misattribution of danger, and un-American government dependence in response to murderous jihad.

There’s a Southern saying for hypocrites like Bill de Blasio: he’s slimier than a bowl of boiled okra. The mayor began with a phony request to be allowed “to be frank” and, with a mask-like expression, stated the obvious: “It was an act of terror.” He used the word “terror” once, and never said “Islamic,” “ISIS,” “terrorist,” “terrorism,” or “war,” but he employed the vague, minimizing terms “tragedy” and “loss” for the rest of his remarks. Cue the firm resolve face: “We know that this action was intended to break our spirit.” No, Billy, your words are intended to break our spirit; Saipov intended the glory of killing as many infidels as possible.

De Blasio continued, “But we also know New Yorkers are strong. New Yorkers are resilient. Our spirit will never be moved by an act of violence, an act meant to intimidate us.” Remaining unmoved when religious fanatics are slaughtering you is not resilience; it is mental illness. His face reset again as he regurgitated the cynical cliché about worthless watchfulness, termed vigilance. “Be vigilant, Live by ‘If you see something, say something.'”

And then get your ass sued into penury for Hate Crimes and Bigotry and Disrespecting One Of The World’s Great Religions and whatever else the Badthink Gestapo can come up with. Thus:

Under de Blasio’s direction, and the demands of the vile Linda Sarsour, the informed, skilled vigilance of the NYPD was stopped, and the responsibility to say something was diffused among diversity-addled shleppers terrified of being labeled Islamophobic. In 2014, de Blasio shut down the Demographics Unit, which secretly surveilled places suspected of fostering weaponized Islamism. By “be vigilant,” de Blasio means that New Yorkers should live in helpless trepidation everywhere, all the time. And if they focus attention on the relevant demographic, young Islamic males, then they are bigots.

Cuomo seized on one of the benefits of terrorism: a reason to strengthen the power of the police state over law-abiding citizens. “We will be vigilant. More police everywhere. You’ll see them in airports. You’ll see them in tunnels. It is not because there’s any evidence of any ongoing threat; it is just out of vigilance and caution.”

Cuomo then articulated the fundamental principle of the Great Treason: there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. He said, “And the truth is New York is an international symbol of freedom and democracy. That’s what we are and we are proud of it. That also makes us a target for those people who oppose those concepts.” You see, Saipov was involved in a political protest against Jeffersonian democracy, not in Islamic terrorism. That’s because, according to the likes of de Blasio and Cuomo, there is no affirmative ideology of Islamic terrorism from the Quran or a mosque or ISIS, or even the dreadful shadow that may pass over the human heart, blocking out Light.

Cuomo concluded, “We’ve lived with this before, we’ve felt the pain before, we feel the pain today, but we go forward together, and we go forward stronger than ever.” He closed with “Don’t let them change us or deter us in any manner, shape, or form.”

In other words, change nothing; do nothing.

Ah, but as Steyn keeps pointing out, the fools and knaves charged with defending the nation have already changed us, with their bollards, their blockades, their useless TSA harassment, their militarized-police presence on every street corner, their rapidly-metastasizing Surveillance State snooping on our every move. All of which has gotten us precisely this: terrorist attacks on this country have gone from a couple of major incidents over the course of a decade (1993-2001) to a regular, bi-monthly occurrence, with no end in sight.

This is neither progress nor victory. The shock we all felt on the morning of 9/11/01 has been supplanted by a feeble resignation, acquiescence, and a deep-seated sense of futility and helplessness as we wait for each successive blow to fall on us with passive dread. There’s a certain sense of grim, workaday routine to it all now. This isn’t “resilience”; it’s acceptance, which for all intents and purposes is synonymous with surrender.

The hell of it is, WE aren’t the problem. Violent, uncivilizable Moslem immivaders are. As such, the feckless shitwits we’re pleased to misnomer “leaders” ought to be demanding that THEY change, not us, and either abandon their commitment to a vicious, anti-human ideology that demands atrocity against the infidel—or be forcibly contained within the borders of their hellish shitrapies, by every means available to us up to and including relentless, merciless, total war against them.

A people possessed of any shred of self-respect and righteous will would be less focused on mourning their dead than on avenging them. Until we stiffen our spines enough to make that transition, all the piss-soaked blather about our “courage” and “strength” from our contemptible Ruling Class betrayers is nothing more than whistling past the graveyard, and will not forestall even one attack against us.

Share

Blood on their hands?

You betcha.

Sayfullo Saipov moved his being and the truck it was in over the bodies of New Yorkers leaving tire tracks over corpses. The Manhattan attack, like every Islamic attack before it, could have been stopped. But the NYPD’s hands had been tied. And the left had done the tying. It defended every Islamic terrorist that the NYPD had arrested. And prevented the NYPD from investigating mosques and radicalization.

Now it has what it really wanted. Dead Americans. And it has their blood on its manicured fingers.

The Uzbeki Islamic terrorist had listed an address in Paterson, New Jersey. The NYPD had come under attack for conducting surveillance in New Jersey. One of the targets was a mosque in Paterson. The Uzbeki Muslim terrorist also links back to Florida. The media has largely ignored or tried to cover up the string of Islamic terrorist attacks linked to Florida, from the Pulse Massacre in Orlando, to the latest Islamic terrorist plot to bomb the Dolphin Mall on Black Friday.

Sayfullo Saipov had come here in 2010. In that short amount of time he managed to amass criminal records in Pennsylvania and Missouri for traffic offenses. After stints in at least three other states, he went on a killing spree that took eight lives and wounded as well as traumatized countless others.

Dem leaders in New York are already rolling out the standard messages urging everyone to go back to life as usual. Mayor Bill de Blasio called the attack “cowardly”. But the attack wasn’t cowardly. It was vicious and murderous. It’s Bill de Blasio and the other politicians who crippled the NYPD because they were afraid of political pressure from Linda Sarsour and CAIR who are the real cowards.

They are cowards with blood on their hands.

The New York media’s first response after the attack was to try and blame road rage. Before long, you will see it running the standardized “Muslims fear backlash” stories that are a staple of every effort to sweep the latest Islamic terrorist attack under the rug along with the blood and the bodies.

Islamic terrorists like Sayfullo Saipov are able to do what they do because they have a long list of collaborators like the ACLU, Democrat politicians, Federal judges and the mainstream media.

Well, hey, defending ourselves properly against jihadist immivaders is apparently “not who we are.”

Share

Liberal media covers itself in its usual “glory”

Or shit, take your pick.

I’ll get to that point in just a sec, but first I want to address something from the Chuck Schemer squirm below, which the liberal media outlets are gleefully quoting as if it were the Gettysburg Address or something—specifically, this part:

Schumer also snuck in his own counter-punch, pointing out that Trump’s budget proposal had cut back on anti-terrorism funding, and he called on Trump to seek more money for those programs.

Now, leaving aside that it’s only a proposal at this point and therefore could have had NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the actions of the terrorist Schemer so willfully imported into this country, can these people truly believe that every single problem we face—EVERY SINGLE ONE—is solvable only by having the government spend more money on it? And can they possibly be unaware that, if we start sanely restricting immigration as we should have long ago, it wouldn’t be necessary to throw bucketloads of government money at the problem in the first place? Not to even mention militarizing our police; building a surveillance state in direct contravention of our battered Constitution; subjecting ourselves to demeaning, intrusive, and ineffectual Security Theater; scarifying our public spaces with barricades, bollards, and AR15-toting military-style guards in Kevlar and full battle rattle—in sum, transforming the very warp and woof of American life into something more closely resembling Beirut circa 1983 or so?

Never mind; don’t answer that, lest the answer inspire us to start stringing these feckless cocksuckers up from lampposts. With sincere apologies for the insult to any and all honest, sane, and intelligent suckers of cock everywhere, mind.

Anyways, in the post below I quoted from a Limbaugh diatribe that goes on to address another irksome liberal-media issue, namely the constant use of the “lone wolf” meme to deflect and distract from what’s really going on here. Along with their recent penchant for going out of their way to identify Moslem immivaders who’ve been here less than eight or ten years as “homegrown” or “domestic” terrorists who were doing just fine until suddenly and mysteriously finding themselves radicalized from within the US or whatever other nation they spent those eight or ten years plotting to attack, it’s a particularly silly subterfuge, capable of deceiving only the thickest among us. To wit:

The whole point is, this guy has backup. He’s got an entire community or neighborhood that gives him moral support, that buttresses him! He’s not a lone wolf and a coward. That’s the whole point of the Diversity Visa Program. It’s the whole point of the necessity being to vet for Sharia supremacists and prevent them from getting in.

He’s got a network of people who think exactly like he does, who inspire him, motivate him, encourage him. He’s exactly not a lone wolf! That’s the whole point. He may have been the only guy in the commission of this crime, but he’s not alone, and he’s not rogue. That’s what they want you to believe so that you don’t think you’re in danger. “It’s a one off. These things happen!”

Precisely so. And sure enough, the inevitable drip-drip-drip of information contradicting the liberal head-in-the-sand version of (un)reality is already starting:

Federal authorities announced Wednesday they are no longer searching for a second Uzbek national who may have been connected with Tuesday’s terror attack in Lower Manhattan.

The FBI announced Wednesday there were seeking information about 32-year-old Mukhammadzoir Kadirov, who they believed may have played a role in the incident, as reported by the The New York Times.

The FBI is no longer seeking information on Kadirov, according to Reuters. Authorities say they found the man, the FBI announced during a Wednesday press conference.

Okay, well and good, right? Sure, except…

Saipov was connected to suspects under investigations for terror-related activities, police officials also announced Wednesday. 

Hmm. “Suspects,” plural, is it? “Investigations,” with an “s”? My oh my.

This guy, and every other damned “lone wolf” Moslem terrorist, has an entire global network of support behind him. He can travel to any country in the Middle East any time he likes and be welcomed in the neighborhoods and mosques of Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh, Khartoum, Dubai, Doha, or Sanna’a as a brother-in-arms and a hero, because that’s exactly what he is to them. He can get money and materiel from any number of governments or independent organizations via those same mosques; he can feed his psychotic depravity by immersing himself in books, leaflets, and websites innumerable.

Should he ever waver momentarily in his dedication to jihad, his commitment can be quickly bolstered by watching a few Dark Web murder videos or visiting those same mosques, or just talking it over with his like-minded neighbors. There’s a reason they tend to congregate in Moslem-only enclaves seeded in the outskirts of urban areas throughout the West, you know; they’re keepin’ the faith, baby, and as with the hippie communes in the 60s from whose denizens the phrase originated, that’s always been easier to do in a group. Should he require marksmanship and/or tactical training at some point, there are between 22 and 35 Moslem terrorist training camps right here in the good ol’ US of A where he can feel right at home again, cleansing himself of unholy influences and brushing up on his infidel-smiting skills.

And…”domestic terrorist” my chapped ass. These swine are about as American as playing polo on horseback with the head of a goat for a ball, or shunning and killing dogs as “unclean,” or stoning women for the crime of having been gang-raped, or…well, you get the picture. I like falafel and hummus and dates just fine and all, don’t get me wrong. But hot dogs and apple pie they ain’t, any more than the Muslim call to prayer is the equal American-tradition-wise of church bells ringing on Sunday morning or a Fourth of July parade. Unlike liberal media boll weevils, you’ll never hear me try to claim that they are.

In other words, they aren’t American at all. They never will be, because they don’t wish to be. They come here not because of their admiration and respect for us, their desire to enjoy the blessings and benefits of living in Western society. They come here to destroy it, to undermine it, to conquer and vanquish it; to absorb it into the global Caliphate, and to kill as many of those who would dare to resist or defy them and their bloodthirsty, demonic false God as they possibly can.

The “lone wolf/domestic terrorist” narrative is horseshit on stilts, as is the notion of the peaceable, tolerant “moderate Muslim” (himself damned near chimerical) suddenly waking up one fine morning in his peaceful suburban home to find himself “radicalized” by incomprehensible forces, as if he’d caught a bad flu bug from off a restroom doorhandle. They’re all nothing more than polite, comforting fictions liberals tell themselves for two reasons: to reassure themselves that their ass-backwards ideology can somehow be made to work at long last, particularly as pertains to multiculti diversity achieving not an explosive potential for conflict but a warm, fuzzy, huggy-kissy Utopia, and to convince the rest of us of how wrong we really are about them and their childish delusions.

Every successive attack, every mauled corpse, every blood-splashed Western sidewalk contradicts these shallow and ignorant assumptions. Rather than face up to the cognitive dissonance—which has to be so severe by now as to be physically painful—it’s much easier to close their eyes, stuff their fingers in their ears, sing tra-la-la, and keep hoping for some sort of miraculous deliverance from their awful plight.

Until they end up being one of those butchered in our increasingly bloody streets, anyway. Which is about as fitting an end for them as I can think of, really, short of that whole swinging-from-lampposts thing I mentioned earlier.

Share

Fool Kill me once…

Aesop has a suggestion, and it’s a good ‘un.

Islam is incompatible with Western democracy. You can believe the Diversity Bandwagon, or just believe your lying eyes from every spot they foul around the world.

99.something percent of rapes in Scandinavia – Norway, Sweden, Denmark – are perpetrated by Muslim invaders there.

They’ve burned London and Paris, several times apiece. (Reference what we did, collectively, when the Nazis did this. I’ll wait.)

Nearly every current war in the world is traceable to either Muslims vs. other Muslims, or Muslims vs. Anyone Else, because they don’t work and play well with others, and haven’t since 610 AD.

Proof of the frog-in-a-frying-pan theory is that if this truck attack had taken place on the 9/11 anniversary, let alone on 9/12/2001, New Yorkers would have rounded up every Muslim in the Five Borough by hand, and deported them bodily into the Hudson River, with transmissions and engine blocks tied to them to help kickstart their auto repair businesses back in Dirkadirkastan. And the fires from burning mosques in the city would be visible from space, and keeping homeless people warm for days. Because NYFC residents are givers like that.

Instead, they’re wringing their hands, cowering in fear, and listening to DeBlovio burp out platitudes. Instead of going all Tony Soprano, and taking care of business.

You had WTC I, WTC II, and now this. Three strikes and you’re out, boys and girls.

The D.C. Snipers, Ft. Hood, Orlando, San Bernardino, Nashville, Boston, and NYFC three goddam times. Shall we wait for four, or fourteen, just to be absolutely sure???

And those are just the bigger incidents, we’re not even talking about the onsie-twosie incidents. Let me know when the penny drops.

(I know the “fool me once, fool me twice…” aphorism. How does it go after 27 or 57 times…?)

If you’re in a cage with a hungry tiger, you either get a gun, or you crawl into his food bowl.

It’s time to put Islam into the same box as Carthage after the Third Punic War.

For the historically curious, look up the results of the Fourth Punic War.

I’m all for it. But you’ll pardon me, I’m sure, if I don’t hold my breath waiting.

Share

“The Uber of Islamic terrorism”

They’re here, they’re severe, get used to it.

Dismissing the terrorists who have been killing for ISIS in the West as “lone wolves” misses the point.

The Islamic terrorist who goes on a stabbing spree in London or a shooting spree in Orlando is no more a “lone wolf” than an Uber driver who picks up a passenger is just some random eccentric. They’re parts of a distributed network that is deliberately decentralized to better fulfill its central purpose.

CVE and other efforts to tackle “online extremism” fight messaging wars that ignore the demographics. But our targeted strikes on ISIS ignore demographics in the same way. We keep looking at the trees while missing the forest. But the forest is where the trees come from. Muslim terrorists emerge from an Islamic population. They aren’t aberrations. Instead they represent its religious and historic aspirations.

ISIS and Islamic terrorists aren’t going anywhere. Defeating them through patronizing lectures about the peacefulness of Islam, as Obama’s CVE policy proposed to do, was a futile farce. Bombing them temporarily suppresses them as an organized military force, but not their religious and cultural origins.

As long as we go on seeing Islamic terrorism as an aberration that has no connection to the history and religion of Islam, our efforts to defeat it will be pinpricks that treat the symptoms, but not the problem.

Only when we recognize that Islamic terrorism is Islam, that the crimes of ISIS and countless others dating back to Mohammed were committed to achieve the goals of the Islamic population, will we be ready to face the war that we’re in and to defend ourselves against what is to come not just in Iraq or Afghanistan, but in America, Australia, Canada, Europe, India, Israel and everywhere else.

We are not fighting a handful of Islamic terrorists. We are standing in the path of the manifest destiny of Islam. Either that manifest destiny will break against us, as it did at the Gates of Vienna, or it will break us. The attacks were once yearly. Now they are monthly. Soon they will become daily.

Every attack is a pebble in an avalanche. A pebble falls in Brussels, in Fresno, in Dusseldorf, in New York, in Munich, in London, in Garland, in Paris, in Jerusalem, in Mumbai, in Boston and in more places than anyone can count. We are too close to the bloodshed to see the big picture. We only see the smoke and hear the screams. We see the boats bringing armies into Europe. We see refugees fill our airports.

Those are the trees, not the forest: the pebbles, not the avalanche. Those are the battles, not the war.

It’s a war we’re losing, and badly. Not because of them, but because of us.

So two hours after the attack, Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio and other New York bigwigs assembled for the usual press conference to give the usual passive shrug – this is the way we live now, nothing to be done about it, etc, etc. Every so often in New York, as in London as in Stockholm as in Berlin as in Nice as in Brussels as in Paris as in Manchester as in Orlando, your loved one will leave the home and never return because he went to a pop concert or a gay club or a restaurant or an airport, or just strolled the sidewalk or bicycled the bike path. “Allahu Akbar”? That’s Arabic for “Nothing can be done”. So Andrew Cuomo ended with some generic boilerplate about how they’ll never change us:

We go forward together. And we go forward stronger than ever. We’re not going to let them win…We’ll go about our business. Be New Yorkers. Live your life. Don’t let them change us.

But they are changing us. I’ve written before about what I’ve called the Bollardization of the Western World: the open, public areas of free cities are being fenced in by bollards, as, for example, German downtowns were after the Berlin Christmas attack, and London Bridge and Westminster Bridge were after two recent outbreaks of vehicular jihad. This is a huge windfall for bollard manufacturers – Big Bollard – and doubtless it’s a huge boost for the economy, if your town’s nimble enough to approve the new bollard plant on the edge of town, or if your broker is savvy enough to divest your tech stocks and go big on the bollard sector. As I write, Geraldo is on Fox demanding to know why this bike path wasn’t blocked off with concrete barriers.

Why? Why does every public place have to get uglified up just because Geraldo doesn’t want to address the insanity of western immigration policies that day by day advance the interests of an ideology explicitly hostile to our civilization? Instead Geraldo wants to tighten up vehicle rental. Why? Why should you have to lose an extra 15 minutes at an already sclerotic check-in counter because Hertz and Avis and UHaul have to run your name through the No-Rent list? Why should open, free societies become closed, monitored, ugly, cramped and cowering?

And now eight people are dead and dozens more injured – at the hands of a guy who came here in 2010 because he won a Green Card in the so-called “diversity lottery”. Why was that stupid program not suspended on September 12th 2001?

Because even 3,000 dead cannot be allowed to question the virtues of “diversity”. The other day, the Australian government lost its working majority because, thanks to the usual boneheaded jurists, an Aussie-born citizen who chances also to share, say, New Zealand citizenship is deemed to be ineligible to sit in Parliament. [UPDATE: See my note to our Oz commenter below.] Er, okay, whatever. But at the same time we’re assured that an Uzbek or a Somali or a Yemeni becomes a fully functioning citizen of a free, pluralist society simply by setting foot on western soil. That’s not so. And the price of maintaining the delusion is blood on the pavement.

And so, on a buckled, broken bicycle on the Hudson River Greenway, the wheel comes full circle. America and every other major western nation thought the appropriate response to 9/11 was to show how nice we are by dramatically increasing the rate of mass Muslim immigration. Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov was among the many beneficiaries of the west’s suicide by virtue-signaling. “Sayfullo” is a Central Asian rendering of “Saifallah” – or “Sword of Allah”. Hmm, what a fascinating name! Do you think whichever brain-dead bureaucrat who gave Sword of Allah’s online Green Card application the once-over (assuming anyone did) so much as gave the name a second glance? And so, because we did not take an act of war seriously in 2001, we are relentlessly harassed and diminished by unending micro-jihad – in Copenhagen, in Toulouse, in San Bernadino, in Calgary, Barcelona, Parsons Green…and now on a bike path 300 feet from where we came in sixteen years ago.

The simple truth is, despite Cuomo’s and Red Bill DeBlahBlahBlahsio’s tepid, meaningless platitudes about how “cowardly” the victorious jihadists are, WE’RE the real cowards. We’re too gutless to call the enemy by his proper name; too contemptuous of and embarrassed by the ahistorical success of our own civilization to bother defending it, too terrified of being called names by the Treasonous Left to keep these villainous savages outside our borders. We’ll far more vigorously defend vacuous, juvenile, and demonstrably false fantasies about “equality” and “diversity” than we will our own homes, families, borders, and fellow Americans.

And yes, that includes all of us, not just the Left and our our panty-soaking “leaders.” How many times have you heard security hawks (yes, me included) talk about how, if our “leaders” won’t do their jobs and defend us, we’ll take matters into our own hands? How many empty threats have we all made about some vague critical mass being reached when all of a sudden we’ll collectively go medieval on the Muslim world, bombing them into oblivion, clamping down on them domestically, even gunning them down whenever they’re seen to make a threatening move against innocent civilians?

None of it ever happens, and none of it ever will. As with tough-guy blabber about a second Civil War, we’re going to go right on talking big as bright red lines are crossed one right after another…and not doing jack shit about any of it. Oh sure, we’ll bluster on our internet forums and blogs, but that’s all we’re ever going to do. Yeah, yeah, “history shows” that the West will eventually rouse itself from its stuporous torpor and rise up against the barbarian onslaught, just as it did at Poitiers and the Gates of Vienna—both of which were a long damned time ago, neither of which the huge majority of effete Western pussies have any knowledge of at all. We’re far more “civilized” than those stout Europeans were then, don’t you know; Western Civ seems to be all out of Charles Martels just at the moment, and we aren’t making any new ones. Even Steyn, astute and historically literate as he is, is guilty of this kind of bootless bluster:

So now eight grieving families and dozens more who’ll be living with horrific injuries for the rest of their lives are told by Cuomo and De Blasio and the rest of the gutless political class behind their security details that there’s nothing to do except to get used to it.

I don’t want to get used to it – and I reiterate my minimum demand of western politicians that I last made after the London Bridge attacks: How many more corpses need to pile up on our streets before you guys decide to stop importing more of it?

The answer is, they will NEVER stop importing more of it; the corpses will go right on piling up, and we already HAVE “gotten used to it.” Which makes the real question: what are you gonna do about it if they don’t? Besides “demand” something your chances of ever getting hover somewhere between “none at all” and “don’t make me laugh”?

The answer to that one is as clear as glass: not one damned thing, that’s what.

I’m no Bill Maher fan by any stretch, but he’s been consistently right about Moslem terrorism pretty much from day one, including a statement from early on that he caught a whole lot of grief for at the time:

Within hours of the attacks, President Bush twice used the c-word to describe the terrorists’ plot. In a statement at an Air Force base in Louisiana, he declared, “Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward…Make no mistake: the U.S. will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts.”

The House and Senate soon followed suit. A joint resolution passed the next night labeled the suicide hijackings as “heinous and cowardly attacks.”

An alternative view came from Bill Maher, host of the ABC late-night talk show Politically Incorrect. “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly,” Maher said on the show last week. “Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.”

He was right then, and time has only reinforced the veracity of his views since. A jihadist who launches an attack against his enemies in the full expectation of dying in the commission of his atrocity might be nuts, but a coward he surely ain’t. He is possessed of a moral courage we pampered, weak-kneed Westerners can’t even comprehend anymore, much less match: he has principles which he will willingly, even gladly, lay down his life defending and advancing. We possess nothing of the sort. He will put his body in the line of fire and risk his continued existence for his ideals, hideous as those ideals are; we will condescend only to send our hired soldiers—the last repository of real valor in the West—to patrol Muslim shitholes with empty magazines and don’t-shoot ROEs, and countenance the launch of an occasional ineffectual drone strike from air-conditioned trailers in Oklahoma, call that a “win,” and retire back to our sofas for a little sportsball-watching to recover from our “efforts.”

Every time we hold hands and sing Kumbaya with tears running down our cheeks in the wake of this week’s act of “lone wolf” war, we roll over and show our soft yellow bellies to a vicious and implacable enemy eager to get at them and tear them to pieces, both figuratively and literally. This can only end one way: with what little guts we have ripped right out of us and lying stinking and steaming on the sidewalk, to eventually be washed away by a tide of history that cares not one whit about who wins or loses—leaving us exposed to posterity’s judgment as unpitied sacrifices in a contemptible, half-assed struggle.

Victory has to be earned. We’re losing, because we deserve to. Harsh as it may seem, humiliating as it no doubt is, it really is as simple as that. New Yorkers, Parisians, Londoners, all of us—we will continue to mewl, and crawl, and beg for a mercy that is not forthcoming, no matter how piteously we may weep. Some of us will continue to bluster and rage impotently; I surely will, I admit, for whatever that’s worth. No matter; in the end, “history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies” will be big enough to encompass us all.

Share

Pathetic is the new normal

Another Muslim terrorist attack that has nothing to do with *cough cough ALLAHU AKHBAR cough cough* Islam, this time in NYC. Candlelight vigils, weeping, huge piles of flowers and teddy bears, “Love trumps hate,” “you will never defeat/divide us,” and empty boasts of being “New York Strong!!” immediately to follow. The FBI will remain baffled as to motive.

Eight dead, not one of whom will be avenged. We’ll have ourselves a good cry, congratulate ourselves on our “strength” and “courage,” and hunker down to wait for the next one…while importing as many more of these savages as we can possibly manage. Ace makes a good point: “It will be interesting to see if he came from a country on Trump’s travel ban list — whose operation remains blocked from going into effect by liberal judges.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Over and over, ad nauseum.

Update! I think I speak for all of us when I say that the real victims here are the jihad-sympathizing Muslims who might be made the slightest bit uncomfortable by the awful prospect of the kind of Islamophobic retribution that has never yet happened, but is always a looming imaginary threat.

An incident occurred today in New York that even progressive Mayor Bill de Blasio couldn’t pass off as workplace violence. A truck plowed into a bicycle-only lane on a busy street in Manhattan. The City of New York determined that the truck attack that  left at least eight people dead was indeed an “act of terror.”

But meanwhile, CNN once again showed where its priorities were. As news broke that the driver was shouting “Allahu Akbar” as he attacked these people, Jake Tapper wanted to remind his audience that “The Arabic chant ‘Allahu Akbar,’ God is great… sometimes said under the most beautiful of circumstances, and too often we hear it being said in moments like this.” Sure, he did finish the sentence by talking about how we have heard this chant in moments of horror, but why even say the first part? Liberals like him always think they have to remind people that there are Muslims who are good — that ‘Allahu Akbar’ can be beautiful.

Of course they do. They’re constitutionally incapable of neglecting an opportunity to lecture the rest of us while simultaneously congratulating themselves on their innate superiority to us benighted schlubs.

Yet again: if we’re ever to have a hope of defeating the Muslims, we’re going to have to defeat the “liberals” first.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix