Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

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

“France is at war”

And they’re losing. In fact, they’ve probably already lost.

It’s not just rhetoric. Bombs turn up in a posh Parisian suburb. Two young women are butchered at a train station. And it’s just another week of an Islamic World War III being fought in France. 

From the November attacks in 2015 that killed 130 people and wounded another 400+, to the Bastille Day truck ramming attack last year that killed 86 and wounded 458, the war is real. 

French casualties in France are worse than in Afghanistan. The French lost 70 people to Islamic terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. And 239 to Islamic terrorist attacks in France. 

The French losses in Afghanistan were suffered in over a decade of deployment in one of the most dangerous Islamic areas in the world. The French losses in France were suffered in less than two years. 

There’s something very wrong when Afghanistan is safer than Paris.

Well, to be fair, there are probably way more Muslims in France by now than there are in Afghanistan. As Daniel says:

There is no Islamic terrorism without Islam. As Islam expands, so does Islamic terrorism. 

Got Muslims? Got problems.

Share

“Did Obama Spy on America to Protect Islamists?”

My rule with Obama—the worst thing you can imagine him doing, no matter how he may deny it, is most likely just what he’s doingcomes into play again.

When Obama Inc. spied on members of Congress to protect its Iran nuke sellout, it packaged the story to the Wall Street Journal under the headline, “U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress”. The idea was that Obama Inc. was “legitimately” spying on Israel, that it just happened to intercept the conversations of some members of Congress and American Jews, and that the eavesdropping somehow meant that its victims, Jewish and non-Jewish, rather than its White House perpetrators, should be ashamed.

Obama and his minions had used the NSA to spy on Americans opposed to its policies. Including members of Congress. They did this by conflating their own political agenda with national security. 

Since Obama’s spin was that the Iran Deal was good for national security, opponents of it were a “national security” threat. 

And its fig leaf for domestic surveillance was that a “foreign leader” was involved. 

Now get ready for a flashback. 

Susan Rice’s excuse for unmasking the names of top Trump officials in the Obama eavesdropping effort was that they were meeting with the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates. The carefully packaged CNN story, which reeks of the Goebbelsian media manipulations of “Obama whisperer” Ben Rhodes, tries to clumsily tie the whole thing to the Russians. But for once it’s not about Russia. It’s about Islam.

He goes on to make the case, and a damned good one at that. It’ll be dismissed nonetheless, even by some who ought to know better, as delusional “paranoia” akin to what some of these same people are pleased to refer to as the birth-certificate “hoax.”

Daniel closes things out with what he calls a “foul slogan” (“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”), and he’s right about that too. It pretty much gives Obama’s Islam-promoting game away, to anybody with eyes to see. Although I still maintain that Obama isn’t really a Muslim; he believes in nothing but power and his own innate superiority to pretty much everybody. I simply can’t imagine him being devout about anything at all other than his own ego and his hard-core Leftism; even as powerful and binding a force as Islam was in his early years would necessarily fall behind his own boundless narcissism. That, too, is very much part of who he is.

The ironic thing? Muslims have a word for Obama’s duplicitous approach: apostasy. The very faith to which he chooses to lend his half-heartedly clandestine assistance would put him to death in an instant for it.

Share

Lost Europe

Thank goodness it could never happen here.

Tracking down the victims of Rotherham required a bit of elementary detective work on my part, but it’s not that difficult. What struck me, as my time in town proceeded, was how few members of the British media had been sufficiently interested to make the effort: The young ladies were unstoppably garrulous in part because, with a few honorable exceptions, so few of their countrymen have ever sought them out to hear their stories. To damn with the faintest of praise, the victims had a more favorable view of Ms Champion than they did of the rest of officialdom – council, police, social workers, etc – who colluded with the Muslim gangs in covering up the town-wide “grooming” and blaming it on the girls. That parody Tweet above about the “need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity” is, in fact, the unspoken belief of almost everyone who matters in Britain. Which is one reason why Ms Shah fell for it. And also why, as I explained in my report, the sexual exploitation of children is still going on in Rotherham. In broad daylight.

No matter. Ms Shah is the future of the Labour Party, and Ms Champion, a telegenic modern woman and formerly a rising Labour star, has been taught a hard lesson in the hierarchy of identity politics. Amid all this Mohammedan mood music – Barcelona, Turku, Brussels, Buckingham Palace, Rotherham – you’ll be glad to hear a real news story occasionally breaks through. Brendan O’Neill writes in The Spectator of a thwarted airline passenger called Mohammad Khan:

I wonder how Mohammad Khan is getting on in his legal action against Virgin Atlantic. Mo — a Muslim, the clue’s in the name — was waiting to board a flight when he started ‘harmlessly’ talking about 9/11. There is no reason to believe he has any connections with extremists, but he was kicked off the flight because of security concerns and had to fly out of the UK with another airline. Although he was later offered a refund, he is now suing, claiming he was ‘racially and religiously profiled’ by the Virgin staff. ‘I know this wouldn’t have happened if I’d been a white man in his sixties,’ Mo complained. No, probably not. But if the world were comprised entirely of white men in their sixties, then 9/11 might not have happened. The world might also be a nicer place to live, although there might be too many bridge tournaments for my own taste.

It’s entirely reasonable to be less suspicious of a white man in his sixties than a younger man called Mohammad burbling about 9/11. Indeed, it’s so reasonable that it’s now verboten. In the comments section below another Spectator column, readers speculate on what it will take for anything to change. But all the scenarios have already happened: mass murder at pop concerts, national holidays, Christmas markets; the industrial-scale sex slavery of young girls in Rotherham; the deliberate targeting for death of young girls in Manchester…

And still the most obvious mitigation of future slaughter – an end to mass Muslim immigration – cannot even be raised in public by Europe’s establishment.

Yeah, well, don’t look now, but it can’t be raised here either. Not as long as there’s even one stupid “liberal” judge still sitting who’s willing to use completely spurious and contra-Constitutional means to stymie implementation of it, and a rabid, violent PC mob to rise up and club people in “mostly peaceful…mostly” protest over the very idea, it can’t. The upshot?

One final comment on my trip to Rotherham:

I am really enjoying my 1st edition of The Clubbable Steyn. That Rotherham story shows us pure evil exists!

No, sir. It shows us how easily a once civilized people get used to pure evil – at first declining to notice it, to let it catch your eye, and then accommodating it and incubating it. You’ll be surprised how quickly such an attitude becomes universally understood, so that the few who insist on noticing, on not accommodating it become the real problem. See no evil, hear no cries of the victims, speak no forbidden thought of the motivations behind today’s terror attack, and tomorrow’s, and the day after…

So female shoppers in Finland get stabbed by murderous Muslims, and Buckingham Palace is in lockdown because of a man from Luton. Lie back and think of a lost England – and a lost Europe.

And, eventually, a lost West. In fact, judging from my earlier post, the only thing that might frighten Western dimwits into taking some sort of action at this late date would be if the jihadis started packing doorbells instead of machetes, guns, clubs, etc.

Share

No news

Terrorist attack in Barcelona, ISIS, many dead or injured, lone-wolf, homegrown terrorist, no conceivable connection to Islam, authorities baffled as to possible motive.

Candlelight vigils, John Lennon sing-alongs, much weeping to follow. Because COURAGE. And WINNING. They shall never defeat us, we stand united, love trumps hate, (Fill In The Blank) Strong.

Oh, and send us more young male Muslim “refugees,” please. We need them, we don’t have near enough.

Lather, rinse, repeat, forever and ever.

Ho hum.

Share

“As I’ve said before, I’ve said it before”

Steyn hit on a topic very near to my own heart with that opening line.

One of the occupational hazards of the commentative biz is that what’s new – the daily news item – simply illustrates the same old thesis you’ve been hammering for years, so that life’s rich pageant comes to seem like a Broadway catalogue song, a great torrent of accumulation all making the ever wearier point – that “You’re the Top”, “The Lady is a Tramp”, “These Foolish Things remind me of you”. Or in our case: We’re the Pits, The Lady is a Transitioning Gentleman, and These Foolish Things remind me that our civilization’s on the express chute to oblivion.

Here, by way of example, are a couple of stories readers asked for my thoughts on in the last 24 hours:

Richard Dawkins has become the latest speaker to be prevented from speaking at Berkeley. Professor Dawkins is a world-famous scientist, whose book The Selfish Gene has just been voted “the most inspiring science book of all time” in a poll commissioned by the Royal Society.

His science is not the problem. Dawkins is also an atheist.

That’s not the problem, either – or it wasn’t when he was principally urinating over the Pope (“a leering old villain in a frock”) and the Catholic Church (an “evil corrupt institution” that’s also a “child-raping institution”). All three quotes are from just one Washington Post column: that’s how respectable and mainstream Dawkins was back then in 2010.

Alas, Dawkins is an equal-opportunity atheist, and feels just as unkindly toward Islam. Hence the announcement from the “liberal” sponsor of his Berkeley talk, KPFA Radio:

Dear Richard Dawkins event ticket buyers,

We regret to inform you that KPFA has canceled our event with Richard Dawkins. We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn’t know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people.

KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier. We also apologize to all those inconvenienced by this cancellation. Your ticket purchases will automatically be refunded by Brown Paper Tickets.

Sincerely,
KPFA Radio 94.1 FM

It would have to be “sincere”, wouldn’t it? Because it’s hard to see how apparently sentient beings could otherwise write such effete desiccated tripe. Notice how the shriveling of free expression smoothly proceeds to the next diminished staging post: Once upon a time, Berkeley professed to believe in free speech. Then it believed in free speech except for “hate speech”. Now it supports “serious” free speech, but not “hurtful” speech.

Well, we live in a world of hurt. Personally, I’m hurt by people who say they don’t like my cat album, or by the director’s decision to give me purple hair in this video. But what’s really hurtful is that KPFA and Berkeley can’t even be bothered to pretend to a principled defense of free speech. What is “serious” free speech? Not so long ago, arguments for same-sex marriage or tampons for menstruating men would have been dismissed as utterly unserious – indeed, preposterous. What KPFA means by “serious” speech is compliant, conformist speech that brooks no ideological dissent from the pieties of the day – on male menstruation, climate change, Islam, and whatever’s next on the list. You can be as “hurtful” as you like to cardinals but not imams, to climate deniers but not climate alarmists, to homophobic pastry chefs but not to gay newlyweds.

Its “emphatic support” of “serious free speech” is, thus, merely a regime of apostasy enforcement – which is why it has no place for an atheist such as Dawkins.

But see, that’s the beauty of it: Progressivism has no new ideas at all, and their tired, old ones are so self-contradictory as to be completely incoherent by now.

They. Have. Nothing. They’re intensely, smugly dismissive of all religion—except the most primitive, ass-backwards, hateful one in all human history, which absolutely no one is allowed to criticize in even the smallest way. They’re all for “free speech”—but only of the kind they approve of and agree with. They’re all for “dissent”—as long as that doesn’t involve dissenting from them. They believe in individual liberty—entirely and exclusively on matters of sexual hedonism and perversion, the right to unrestricted access to mind-altering chemicals, abortion, and government “assistance.” They are fervent believers in “science”—and oppose any commitment to free and open inquiry, skepticism, and the scientific method itself.

They cherish “diversity”…and ruthlessly enforce a blank, grey-man uniformity of opinion, philosophy, and even physical appearance. They revel in access to the latest trendy-hipster Micronesian/Cajun/Ethiopian “fusion” cuisine, while denouncing the horror of “cultural appropriation.” They smugly consider themselves “citizens of the world”…and disdainfully regard Flyover America as some sort of bizarre, incomprehensible terrain unworthy of any serious consideration at all.

And now, in their open-hearted magnanimity, they have decided that what we benighted ignoramuses are most in need of is another lecture.

The other night, I had an amazing conversation with a friend who admitted he was a Donald Trump voter. Having known him for most of my life, I was shocked. But as a result, as a proud member of The Resistance, I’m even more certain that we progressives are largely responsible for the rise of Trump’s America.

My typical response to conservatives who see me as a smug, elitist hypocrite for not being tolerant of their beliefs is that I’m “intolerant of intolerance,” but I’ve realized that that mistake is the issue. No, we don’t have to accept and respect others’ bigotry or ignorance, but it’s incredibly important that we understand where it comes from and why it exists.

Actually, you smarmy, self-righteous asshole, what’s more important is that you begin to understand that what you’re pleased to refer to as “ignorance” and “bigotry” is usually no such thing at all. It’s merely a difference of opinion, a refusal to accept your convoluted premises and twisted reasoning. But by all means, go on calling us names and refusing to imagine that we might actually have a valid point once in a while. See where that you gets you.

The folks who voted for Trump are by and large people who see progressivism, and specifically concepts like political correctness and intersectionalism, as an attack on all of those deeply held feelings of what America “is.” To them, our movement is an assault on their Field of Dreams. They’re afraid of losing their (yes, white and Christian) America in the tidal wave of cultural shifts that have occurred over recent decades.

Is calling them racist going to change that? Is calling them bigots going to do it? Hateful? Monsters? Ignorant? Uneducated? Privileged? We don’t have to agree with it, but we have to attempt to understand it.

You’re too fucking stupid and sanctimonious to even begin to understand it.

The only way The Resistance succeeds is if we fundamentally change our tactics. We must realize that the way into these hearts is to respectfully suggest that the causes we fight for actually align with their deeply held patriotism and love for America. That yes, our marginalized communities may look different and speak a different language, but they want all the same things you do, and they want to have them in this incredible country we’ve built together.

Umm, excuse me, but: “built together”? You puerile, adolescent shitwits haven’t built a goddamned thing. You denigrate; you insult; you attack; you destroy. You make outlandish and absurd claims about the egregious harm America has inflicted on the world, without ever once acknowledging the good we’ve done. You denounce American capitalist “greed” without ever admitting that the profit motive has sparked more real progress than any sort of collectivist fantasy you could name ever has. You bitch, piss, and moan about our assumed lack of “compassion” and “humanity” and “decency” while condemning millions to dependence on a Leviathan superstate as blank and pitiless as the sun.

You whine and cavil about a lack of “bipartisanship” and “cooperation” only when you’ve lost an election; the rest of the time, you run roughshod over us without the most cursory and insincere nod towards “working together” with your opposition, and condemn us as “Nazis” when we dare to complain. You ram a foolish government-health-care bill down our throats without a single Republican vote, and then try to blame us when it crashes and burns. You demand “respect” while offering not one whit of it in return.

“Want all the same things you do”? No. No, not hardly. What YOU want is total control over us, to reduce us to an abject state of servility and helplessness under a monstrous tyranny you retain total control over. What WE really want is for you to leave us the fucking hell alone—you, and your hideous Leviathan state too.

Unfortunately, we know by now just how likely THAT is.

But what this also means is that we as progressives need to stop getting so offended by everything and learn to put ourselves in others’ shoes. All of our experiences — conservatives and progressives alike — give us unique perspectives, and it is absolutely unhelpful to say things like “it’s not our job to teach you” when someone comes to us with questions.

Actually, it is our job.

No. No, the fuck it is NOT, you goddamned worthless, pietistic, priggish, arrogant shitheel. Get it through your empty head: WE ARE NOT “COMING TO YOU WITH QUESTIONS.” WE ARE NOT IN ANY NEED OF YET ANOTHER PUKE-INDUCING LECTURE ABOUT OUR MYRIAD SUPPOSED FLAWS. WE ARE NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY INTERESTED IN YOUR GODFUCKINGDAMNED COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY. WE JUST WANT YOU TO—AT LONG, LONG LAST—STOP SLAMMING AND TRYING TO DISMANTLE THE VERY FUCKING NATION THAT FUCKING GUARANTEES YOUR FUCKING FREEDOM TO BE SUCH A FUCKING INSUFFERABLE, IGNORANT FUCKING DIPSHIT, AND LEAVE US THE FUCKING FUCK ALONE.

Period. Full stop. End of story.

But no, the asshole continues. It’s like he can’t help himself. Which, of course—being an oh-so-superior, self-satisfied, narcissistic “liberal”—he can’t.

If we’re waiting for people who hold a different view to change their minds without being guided through that process, we’ll be waiting an awfully long time.

Oh, you’re going to be waiting an awfully long time, all right. AWFULLY long. Common ground, at last.

I think progressives would all agree that time is not something we have to waste. It may not be fair, but progressives must be willing to put aside their anger and hate and take responsibility for creating the change they wish to see in the world. To vilify, shame and condemn only causes those who don’t understand to dig in their heels. If we are the ones who want change, the responsibility is ours to do what it takes to encourage it.

To summarize: Progressives, stop insulting, stop shaming, and stop condescending. Start listening. Start teaching.

“Start listening. Start teaching.” And there, right fucking there, is the whole problem. The arrogant douchebag doesn’t even realize that one of those things is not like the other. If these moralizing putzes were even half as smart as they think they are, they’d know that when they maintain their laser-like focus on “teaching” us poor, benighted knuckleheads, then they’re not really “listening” at all.

The ugly truth is, they’re not interested in “listening,” and they never have been; they’re right, we’re wrong, and they will never even dream of considering they might possibly be in error. Even after decades of failure after failure—a collapsing, moribund economy; foreign-policy train wrecks and humiliations one after another after another; a skyrocketing debt fueled by out of control spending; a nation which rightly views its government as an adversary, despising it, distrusting it, fearing it, and seeking to quietly ignore or circumvent it at every opportunity; a populace that doesn’t believe a word its supposed “representatives” say, and fully comprehends the rot and corruption festering throughout the government while having lost all faith in its own ability to wield even the slightest influence over its direction—these are the toxic fruits of Progressivist governance.

Detroit. Detroit is their model, their ideal; Detroit is what they hope to turn the entire country into. It’s all they can do; it’s all they have.

And THAT is where we take hope; that is our ultimate salvation. These halfwits have nothing whatsoever to offer except more of the same. They have already failed; they have failed again and again and again. Anybody who has searched in vain for a job in recent years, or dropped out of the workforce in despair; been victimized by a domestic Muslim terrorist attack that never would have happened without the Left’s wet-brained insistence on importing hordes of unvetted, unassimilable troglodytes; been forced into an unaffordable Obamacare plan that provides them with no real coverage in exchange for an exorbitant monthly charge; or risked their life savings trying to start a business only to see their dream drown in a Sargasso of idiotic regulation, taxation, and government obstruction, knows exactly where their bullshit leads.

How many of you believe that what those desperate victims of Progressivist perfidy need most is another lecture on how deplorable they are from the likes of this pinheaded, pissant prick? How many of you think that this sort of condescension is going to win a single vote for the agents of American ruin, the Democrat Socialist Party?

They destroy a nation. They scold the people who built it, and claim underserved credit for building it themselves. They blame others for their own manifest failure. They decry true patriots while risibly claiming the mantle of patriotism for themselves. They despise, insult, and spit on the military that provides the blanket of freedom under which they cravenly cower. They arrogantly insist that only they can resolve and repair the damage they themselves so wantonly wrought. They undermine the very foundations of the American republic by refusing to accept an electoral defeat.

They lecture, they hector, they harangue. They dismiss, they denigrate. They condescend and insult. They mislead, misdirect, conceal, and lie outright. But the ultimate takeaway is this: THEY FAIL. Always. Each and every time.

They’re done, people. They. Got. NOTHING. Unless they suddenly and miraculously discover a smidgen of humility, it’s only a matter of time before it becomes legal to actually start openly hunting them, and bringing their stinking pelts down to the bank to exchange for a new toaster oven, a gift certificate, or some other premium.

And then, we can truly begin to Make America Great Again.

Share

Moslem immigrants: threat, or menace?

I’m gonna have to go with “both” in answer to that one.

Now consider a second story: A law-abiding unarmed woman makes the mistake of calling 911 and, when the responding officers arrive, they shoot her dead. The American media’s reflex instinct is that this is an out-of-control murderous police-brutality story. To be sure, it’s more helpful if the victim is black or Hispanic, but in this case she is female and an immigrant, albeit from Australia. And certainly Down Under the instinct of the press would also be to play this as an example of a country with a crazy gun culture and the bad things that happen when innocent foreigners make the mistake of going there, even to a peaceable, upscale neighborhood. Or in the shorthand of the Sydney Daily Telegraph front page:

AMERICAN NIGHTMARE

In both Oz and the US, the next stage of the story would be cherchez le cop – lots of reports of a redneck officer with a hair-trigger temper and various personal issues.

But there’s a complicating factor. It’s so complicating that The Washington Post finds itself running a 1,200-word story on the death of Justine Damond without a word about the copper who shot her – nothing about his background, record, habits, behavior. Not even his name.

Because his name is Mohamed Noor. As Tucker Carlson pointed out on Fox News the other night, the reason you know the officer’s identity is significant is because the Post went to all that trouble not to mention it.

Mr Noor was born in Somalia, and these days, aside from being home to the fictional Lake Wobegon, Minnesota is also home to the all too real Little Mogadishu – mainly thanks to generous “family reunification” from a country that keeps no reliable family records.

If you take seriously Sir Robert Peel’s dictum that “the police are the public and the public are the police”, then, if your town turns Somali, you’re going to need some Somali policemen. And, just like Garrison Keillor’s radio tales of old Minnesota, the new Minnesota also requires its heartwarming yarns. In the deft summation of Michele Bachmann (a favorite guest on The Mark Steyn Show) Officer Noor is an “affirmative-action hire by the hijab-wearing mayor of Minneapolis”.

Mayor Hodges doesn’t wear a hijab because she’s Muslim (yet) but to show she’s cool with it – and, if you’re not, you’re a bigot.

So don’t worry, it may look like “complete destruction”, but any moment now we’ll be in full bloom. For her, the recruitment of Mohamed Noor, the ninth Somali officer on the force, is a good-news story, about the glories of “embracing the discomfort of transformation”.

For others, including those on the receiving end of his ministrations, Mohamed Noor is a bad-news story. A few days before he shot Justine Damond, a complaint was filed in federal court by another Minneapolis woman, who also called 911 and claims she was assaulted by Noor. Disinclined to embrace her discomfort, she has instead sued.

Last year, I spoke to many Muslim police officers in France and Belgium. Not all of them were happy to speak back, but a lot of them did. To reprise Sir Robert, the police are the public and the public are the police. So a semi-Muslim public is entitled to a semi-Muslim constabulary. There are potential difficulties here.

And that, folks, would have to be the understatement of the year the decade the century all time. Read all of it; it’s Steyn, which is reason enough all by itself. But he ties together several seemingly disparate threads that tell a story of ongoing Moslem savagery that’s all too familiar to the sane among us by now.

Update! Questions, questions:

First, I am surprised I haven’t seen more questions or comments about a most peculiar aspect of the story—that officer Noor fired at Damond from the passenger seat out the driver’s side window, meaning he shot past his partner. I am no expert in police procedure, let alone handguns, but this strikes me as beyond strange, as well as highly dangerous (to the other officer’s hearing, if nothing else). I would think that police training would discourage this kind of weapons discharge, but perhaps members of law enforcement among our readers can comment more knowledgeably than I can about this detail.

Second and related, a question that I am sure the mainstream media will not ask, and the Minneapolis political class will suppress if asked in any case, is whether officer Noor was qualified to be a police officer as part of an affirmative action push to get a Somali officer on the force. It would be interesting to see his test scores and training evaluations from whatever police academy he went through. Is there evidence of political pressure to qualify Noor for active duty? Normally I wait for more facts to emerge before engaging in speculation on stories like this, except that this is one question that, as I say, is certain to be suppressed.

As with most stories involving mundane Moslem atrocities, expect this one to be flushed most vigorously down the memory hole with a quickness. I’ll append a closing note from Steyn’s post identifying the true root of the problem, which is not so much unassimilable Moslem savages but the politically-correct mania for “diversity” that has brought the barbarian hordes into our very midst in the first place:

The police are the public and the public are the police: civilized policing depends on an instinctive understanding of the rhythms of your community, of its social norms. “Diversity” – particularly the yawning chasm of Minneapolis-style diversity – is an obstacle to that, because “diversity” eliminates the very concept of “norms”. Being an Australian living in a pleasant low-crime neighborhood, Justine Damond saw in the police cruiser the happily prompt and efficient arrival of the friendly local constables, and so went up to the vehicle in her pajamas. Officer Noor fatally shot her in the abdomen, firing from a sitting position in his cruiser across his partner in the adjoining seat and straight through the open car window. The dashcam and bodycams were switched off.

So in this instance the police were not the public and the public were not the police: Justine Damond was not Mohamed Noor and Mohamed Noor was not Justine Damond. Their views of the situation were entirely different, and irreconcilable.

Their views of life on this planet are different, and far more than merely irreconcilable: they are at existential war with one another—a conflict that will never be resolved until one side or the other is utterly, totally defeated. And just because one side is doing most of the fighting while the other remains too effete and squeamish to even name the enemy doesn’t mean an indisputable victor won’t eventually emerge anyway.

Share

Gramscian destruction and memetic warfare

I’ve had this one sitting in an open tab for a couple days now, waiting for me to get around to posting on it. This is actually the one that got me poking around Eric’s place again after a longish absence, leading to the post below this ‘un. Can’t remember where I saw it linked, unfortunately.

…the Soviet espionage apparat actually ran two different kinds of network: one of spies, and one of agents of influence. The agents of influence had the minor function of recruiting spies (as, for example, when Kim Philby was brought in by one of his tutors at Cambridge), but their major function was to spread dezinformatsiya, to launch memetic weapons that would damage and weaken the West.

In a previous post on Suicidalism, I identified some of the most important of the Soviet Union’s memetic weapons. Here is that list again:

  • There is no truth, only competing agendas.
  • All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.
  • There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
  • The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
  • Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
  • The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
  • For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
  • When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.

As I previously observed, if you trace any of these back far enough, you’ll find a Stalinist intellectual at the bottom. (The last two items on the list, for example, came to us courtesy of Frantz Fanon. The fourth item is the Baran-Wallerstein “world system” thesis.) Most were staples of Soviet propaganda at the same time they were being promoted by “progressives” (read: Marxists and the dupes of Marxists) within the Western intelligentsia.

The Soviets consciously followed the Gramscian prescription; they pursued a war of position, subverting the “leading elements” of society through their agents of influence. (See, for example, Stephen Koch’s Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Munzenberg and the Seduction of the Intellectuals; summary by Koch here) This worked exactly as expected; their memes seeped into Western popular culture and are repeated endlessly in (for example) the products of Hollywood.

Indeed, the index of Soviet success is that most of us no longer think of these memes as Communist propaganda. It takes a significant amount of digging and rethinking and remembering, even for a lifelong anti-Communist like myself, to realize that there was a time (within the lifetime of my parents) when all of these ideas would have seemed alien, absurd, and repulsive to most people — at best, the beliefs of a nutty left-wing fringe, and at worst instruments of deliberate subversion intended to destroy the American way of life.

Koch shows us that the worst-case scenario was, as it turns out now, the correct one; these ideas, like the “race bomb” rumor, really were instruments deliberately designed to destroy the American way of life. Another index of their success is that most members of the bicoastal elite can no longer speak of “the American way of life” without deprecation, irony, or an automatic and half-conscious genuflection towards the altar of political correctness. In this and other ways, the corrosive effects of Stalin’s meme war have come to utterly pervade our culture.

The most paranoid and xenophobic conservatives of the Cold War were, painful though this is to admit, the closest to the truth in estimating the magnitude and subtlety of Soviet subversion. Liberal anticommunists (like myself in the 1970s) thought we were being judicious and fair-minded when we dismissed half of the Right’s complaint as crude blather. We were wrong; the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss really were guilty, the Hollywood Ten really were Stalinist tools, and all of Joseph McCarthy’s rants about “Communists in the State Department” were essentially true. The Venona transcripts and other new material leave no room for reasonable doubt on this score.

This post is from 2006; I may even have excerpted it here back then, I dunno. Regardless, Raymond’s clear-eyed analysis—particularly in the way he ties this in with the West’s seemingly eternal struggle with predatory Islam—is almost shockingly prescient. His conclusion, too, seems even more perceptive now than it did then:

The U.S., fortunately, is still on a demographic expansion wave and will be till at least 2050. But if the Islamists achieve their dream of nuking “crusader” cities, they’ll make crusaders out of the U.S., too. And this time, a West with a chauvinized America at its head would smite the Saracen with weapons that would destroy entire populations and fuse Mecca into glass. The horror of our victory would echo for a thousand years.

I remain more optimistic than this. I think there is still an excellent chance that the West can recover from suicidalism without going through a fevered fascist episode and waging a genocidal war. But to do so, we have to do more than recognize Stalin’s memes; we have to reject them. We have to eject postmodern leftism from our universities, transnational progressivism from our politics, and volk-Marxism from our media.

I don’t know that I can share Eric’s optimism, frankly. His fear of a hard Right willing and able to wreak total destruction on the Muslim world seems almost quaint now. From all the evidence I can see, it looks far more likely that we lack the national will to do what’s necessary to vanquish the jihadis and adequately defend our own culture and way of life, and are far more willing to go along with “absorbing” the routine bimonthly terrorist attack, having another of our teary, bleary “memorial” get-togethers that so dishonor our dead afterwards, and then plodding timidly on as before. Until the next time.

The Gramscian rot might well prove to be too deeply ingrained to allow for the vigorous, deadly response required of us; we would rather fence off entire cities behind concrete barriers, resign ourselves to constant and total surveillance, and endure an annoying and degrading mockery of “security” at our airports, it seems. Certainly it’s now obvious that the Muslim world’s unrelenting determination to subjugate us will require at least some of the brutal hard-war fighting at which Eric expresses his horror above if we’re to save ourselves from a fate too ignominious to contemplate. That’s a direct consequence of our squeamishness at facing certain truths unflinchingly, sure enough. But it hardly matters now.

All that aside, I have to say that Eric has had a larger and longer-lived impact on my own thinking than I realized until just now; the above passage is clearly where my oft-repeated statement that “before we defeat Islam, we will first have to defeat the Left” had its origins, for example. I used to correspond with him a good bit back in those days, to my great benefit; I really have to see to it that I don’t let so much time pass before looking in on him again.

Share

Greatest self-beclowning EVER

At last: REAL news!

CNN ran a story on Monday describing the “wonderful” visit of Sesame Street character Elmo to a refugee camp in Syria, where he concludes that “refugee kids are just like us.”

“They like to play and learn just like Elmo and all his friends at Sesame Street,” Elmo said during an interview broadcast on CNN via Facebook Live. “Elmo thinks it’s important to know that everybody is the same deep down and that’s very important.”

And there it is, Progressivist folly distilled down to the pure, the blushful Hippocrene. By an inanely giggling fucking puppet from a children’s TV show. It’s kinda profound, in a hilarious sort of way. Certainly it was, shall we say: UNEXPECTED!™

“It was really sad because Elmo’s new friends told Elmo that they had to leave their homes because it wasn’t safe for them to stay,” he continued. “And that made Elmo really sad and sometimes a bit scared.”

I’m sure Edward R Murrow, Huntley and Brinkley, and Ernie Pyle would all be proud of this exercise in real, serious journalism. Why, even old liberal-propaganda warhorse Walter Cronkite must be shedding a tear of pride over this hard-hitting effort at boldly reporting important news from a Middle East hellhole soberly and evenhandedly, without flinching. Gravitas, anyone?

Aa for poor Elmo’s being “a little scared”: hell, you oughta be, little guy. You were surrounded by people who would just as soon kill you as not. Well, insofar as it’s possible to kill a fucking puppet, I mean. Sheesh.

On the other hand:

The bizarre story comes amidst a rising problem of credibility at the network.

Well, spank my ass and call me Shorty, why ever would THAT be? But this penetrating report should go a long way towards restoring it. Next up: Elmo dons a thobe and keffiyah and visits a mosque to perform a marriage ceremony uniting his friends Bert and Ernie! Then they all have the stuffing torn out of them by the howling, ululating mob.

THIS…is CNN. No really, dammit, it is. Now stop snickering.

They’re all nuts, folks. They are all well and truly, completely and irrevocably, certifiably bug-fuck nuts.

Share

Lies, damned lies, and…

This horseshit.

The establishment media became upset this weekend after President Donald Trump canceled the “White House Muslim Iftar Dinner tradition started by Thomas Jefferson.” But the media is wrong in every respect. Thomas Jefferson never held any Iftar dinner and only three out of 45 presidents ever hosted one, so there is no such “tradition” to cancel.

Amy B. Wang of the Washington Post led the pack with this nonsense that Thomas Jefferson held the “first Iftar dinner” with a June 24 piece entitled, “Trump just ended a long tradition of celebrating Ramadan at the White House.”

The often-used claim that Thomas Jefferson held the first Iftar dinner at the White House was trotted out by the Post’s Wang. She recounted the time when the diplomatic envoy from the Bey of Tunis, Sidi Soliman Melli Melli, visited Washington during Ramadan in 1805.

Jefferson invited the envoy to the White House for dinner at 3:30 PM—the time most Washingtonians had dinner in those days. But after he sent the invitation he was told that Melli Melli could not partake of a meal until after sunset because of Ramadan. Thomas Jefferson was faced with two choices: cancel the dinner entirely or simply have the meal later in the evening at a time when his guest could attend. As a good host and a decent person, Jefferson chose the latter.

In fact, all Jefferson did was change the time of his meal. He had no intention of honoring Islam. Jefferson simply was not honoring the religion of “the Musselmen”—as he termed Muslims at the time—when he changed the time of the meal. Also, there is no evidence that Jefferson asked Melli Melli what sort of food a “Musselman” would eat, so no special food was prepared to suit a Muslim’s religious needs. Jefferson neither inquired about religious accommodations nor was any made. All he did was move the time of the meal as a courtesy.

Further, Jefferson sent no letters containing proclamations about the meal being an Iftar dinner nor mentioning Islam, he never mentioned such honors in his private papers, and there is no record that he spoke to anyone about his intentions to honor the Muslim practice of an Iftar dinner.

Of course he didn’t. In fact, it might be instructive to have a look at how his contemporaries and colleagues viewed Islam:

In her ahistorical article, Wang also quotes John Quincy Adams who expressed “with an air of fascination” his dinner with the Tunisian envoy, but quotes Adams without also noting that the president thought Islam was a terrible and brutal creed.

What Adams thought about Islam is instructive. For instance, he described Islam as a religion of hate in a piece he wrote in the late 1820s:

The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran…The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies…In the 7th century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab..spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth…He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as a part of his religion…The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust, to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.

Other prominent Americans at the time also disparaged Islam.

The father of American jurisprudence, Justice Joseph Story, throughly slammed Islam:

Mahomet aimed to establish his pretensions to divine authority, by the power of the sword and the terrors of his government; while he carefully avoided any attempts at miracles in the presence of his followers, and all pretences to foretell things to come. His acknowledging the divine mission of Moses and Christ confirms their authority as far as his influence will go while their doctrines entirely destroy all his pretensions to the like authority…And now, where is the comparison between the supposed prophet of Mecca, and the Son of God; or with what propriety ought they to be named together?…The difference between these characters is so great, that the facts need not be further applied.

Other founders agreed. Both Ben Franklin and John Quincy’s famed father, John Adams, criticized Islam as a doctrine of war, not a religion.

And they were right about that, too. There are many, many more such quotes from the Founders, plenty of them a lot harsher than these, plenty of which I’ve posted here over the years. But hey, as Reagan said: it’s not that liberals don’t know anything. It’s that so much of what they “know” isn’t so.

And speaking of insidious lies:

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, of the “Ground Zero mosque”, once again wrote a deeply inaccurate article reprimanding Americans for their supposedly “right-wing caricature” of Islamic law, sharia, which he insists is not a threat to American law. In his recent article “The silly American fear of sharia law”, he denied that sharia is incompatible with US laws and the constitution. Oh, really?

Imam Rauf tries to blame sharia’s amputation and stoning on Biblical Law:

“Sharia is not about amputations and stoning. These extreme punishments carry over from earlier, biblical law” and “Within the history of Islam, they have rarely occurred. What Islamic law does prescribe are the same do’s [sic] and don’ts of the Ten Commandments.”

Imam Rauf’s article is, to say the least, misleading — especially regarding the Ten Commandments. Sharia is not only incompatible with Western legal system but is the direct opposite of Western values; it has violated all ten of the Ten Commandments.

Islam was created 600 years after Christianity not to affirm the Bible, but to discredit it; not to co-exist with “the people of the book” — Jews and Christians — but to replace them. It is hard to read Islamic law books without concluding that Islamic values are essentially “a rebellion against the Ten Commandments.”

The American people are not at all silly for opposing sharia. Even the supposedly benign laws of sharia regarding marriage and divorce that Imam Rauf claims are a religious right, totally destroy a woman’s right to divorce and retain custody of her children.

Accepting sharia in the US would totally change the Western concept of marriage by allowing polygamy, wife-beating, female genital mutilation, rape and marrying children.

Among many, many other barbaric horrors. Sorry, Muzzrat scum; we already have a legal system, thanks. We won’t be needing yours. Not now, not fucking EVER. Not while I can still draw breath…and a weapon.

Share

Foolish inconsistencies

The hobgoblin of dhimmi minds.

According to the slogans, the Democratic Unionist Parity is a “hate” group because it is “anti-gay, anti-green, anti-women”. That’s to say, they’re opposed to same-sex marriage, abortion, and take a relaxed view of the impending climate apocalypse.

Oh, my.

Theresa May’s more recalcitrant friends in the DUP think gays are godless sodomites who’ll be spending eternity on a roasting spit in hell. Jeremy Corbyn’s more recalcitrant friends are disinclined to wait that long and would rather light them up now – or hurl them off the roof. Hamas, which Mr Corbyn supports, is fairly typical. Sample headline from Newsweek:

Hamas Executes Prominent Commander After Accusations Of Gay Sex

Doesn’t that make Hamas an anti-gay “hate group”? Well, no. You can bet that 90 per cent of the Google activists in the street protesting Theresa May’s ties to people who think men who love men shouldn’t be permitted to marry are entirely relaxed about Jeremy Corbyn’s ties to people who think men who love men should be burned alive or tossed off tall buildings.

So all those ninnies in the streets of London protesting 300,000 Ulster haters they’d never heard of twenty minutes earlier are surrounded by two-and-a-half million haters every day of their lives – in the Tube, in the restaurants, in the shops and offices of their supposedly vibrant, progressive metropolis.

Now why do you think that is? Could it possibly be connected to the fact that London is more “diverse”? As Douglas Murray points out in his soberly provocative new book The Strange Death of Europe, by the 2011 census in 23 of the capital’s 33 boroughs so-called “white British” people were in a minority. (You can bet it’s even more boroughs now.) And you can’t help noticing, sauntering around, say, Tower Hamlets, that the more “diverse” the community gets the fewer gays you see, and uncovered women, at least after dusk and walking about unaccompanied. It’s not quite the “Gay-Free Zone” promised by the posters of the Sharia Patrols, but it’s getting there.

So, if you think Ulster’s homophobic now, wait till its population is as multicultural as London’s. Boy, that’ll be a real vote bonanza for the DUP haters, right? Except that, by then, Jeremy Corbyn will be posing in Fermanagh and Tyrone villages beaming next to body-bagged crones and full-bearded imams.

Thirteen years ago in The Spectator I wrote the following:

A few weeks back I was strolling along the Boulevard de Maisonneuve in Montreal when I saw a Muslim woman across the street, all in black, covered head to toe, the full hejab. She was passing a condom boutique, its window filled with various revolting novelty prophylactics, ‘c*m rags’, etc. It was a perfect snapshot of the internal contradictions of multicultural diversity. In 30 years’ time, either the Arab lady will still be there, or the condom store, but not both. Which would you bet on?

We are not yet halfway through that thirty years, but the condom boutique has gone. And in Canadian citizenship ceremonies the Muslim woman can now take her oath of allegiance wearing the full body-bag – while Justin Trudeau marches in the LGBTQWERTY Pride Parade. Like I said: In the medium run, which would you bet on? Forty per cent of five-year-olds in Germany are of “non-European” extraction: What do you think their attitudes to gays and women will be in twenty years’ time? Or are you hoping you can hold the line on the “anti-green” thing and they’ll still support the Paris Accords?

To reprise another old line of mine, the fools prancing in the London streets denouncing a benign and harmless Democratic Unionist Party are auditioning to be Islam’s prison bitches. But they’ll be obsessing about the last socially conservative right-wing redneck on earth even as the haters all around consume them.

They hate that poor lone redneck far more than they ever will any member of one of their precious perpetual-victim groups. And they’re unhinged enough that I very much doubt they’d be capable of rethinking things even as their pet Muslims were sawing their heads off with a rusty Ginsu in Trafalgar Square at high noon.

No, seriously, y’all, I mean it: the Muzzrats are shooting them, stabbing them, clubbing them, blowing them up, running them over with cars and trucks, gang-raping them to death, setting them on fire—you name it, any depraved MO the most diseased mind can conceive, they’ve done it by now. And most of the twits still prefer to whine about Trump, and blame it all on him. Their response to this ongoing assault isn’t a stiffening of the spine and a renewed resolve to defend their civilization against a savage would-be conqueror whose core values they’d find hideously offensive in, say, a white Welshman—but a piteous mewling, a weakening of the knees, and a renewed determination to root out and denounce a single case of naked “Islamophobia,” anywhere at all, should they ever find one.

It’s contemptible, is what it is, and my sympathy for them is becoming very, very limited indeed by now. I must admit, it makes it hard to muster the outrage to write about these attacks at all these days.

When I started this site, as you CF lifers will no doubt recollect, I named it what I did not because of my rage over the 9/11 attacks themselves, but over what I knew the “liberal” response was going to eventually be. But even I never really imagined they’d plumb the despicable depths they’ve sunk to now. And as I keep saying: nobody needs kid themselves for a minute that it’s only the Brits we’re talking about here, either.

If it’s “auditioning to be Islam’s prison bitches” they really want, well, I’m just about ready to help Ahmed turn the key on that lock myself by now. If I could only get him to agree not to throw me in there with their sorry asses.

Share

Used to it

Ain’t got a whole lot to say in defense of someone who responds to Manchester and the subsequent attacks by blaming Trump for it all.

Theresa May has said sorry to the Tory MPs and ministers who lost their seats as a result of her decision to call a snap general election which cost the Conservatives their majority.

A disastrous set of election results have left Mrs May clinging onto power with the Prime Minister forced to pursue a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to stay in Downing Street.

She had been hoping to boost her mandate for Brexit negotiations but the Tories actually lost seats and fell below the 326 needed to form a majority government.

What’s truly baffling is that—as I’ve been reading and hearing everywhere and can’t really find anything to contradict—the ceaseless Muslim terrorist onslaught had no impact on the election at all.

I mean…seriously? May’s pathetic appeasement of the savages who in just the last couple of weeks unleashed bloody mayhem in Manchester, at London Bridge, wasn’t a factor in any way here? Her mewling suck-uppery, her disgraceful contortions in blaming Trump for her own fecklessness, her abandonment of entire sectors of her once-proud and mighty nation to gang-rape and grooming and creeping sharia—these profound derelictions were suddenly irrelevant in a national referendum?

Of course, it’s not as if the useless Leftists in the other parties will do any better. England’s electoral choice would seem now to be between “weak” and “cringing,” between “self-deceiving” and “openly begging for mercy.” Given that, it’s kind of hard to get worked up about one party or the other losing or winning a single election; in the end, the foregone conclusion of dhimmitude is all that really matters here.

All in all: wow. Just…wow. “There’ll Always Be An England“? Not one worth bothering about, or that anybody would recognize as such. To re-quote Steyn:

On November 25th 1941, off the coast of Alexandria, HMS Barham was torpedoed by a German U-boat during a visit to the battleship by Vice-Admiral Henry Pridham-Wippell. The ship lurched to its port side, the commanding officer was killed, and the vice-admiral found himself treading oil-perfumed water surrounded by the ship’s men and far from rafts. To keep their morale up, he led them in a rendition of “There’ll Always Be An England”. The 31,000-ton Barham sank in less than four minutes, the largest British warship destroyed by a U-boat in the course of the war. But 449 of its crew of 1,311 survived.

“There’ll Always Be An England” was written for that England.

It’s different now. It’s still a popular headline, but today there’s a question mark at the end, either explicit or implied.

I’d say that by now, it’s more than explicit; the question mark is a given, hugely ironic, and the very asking of the question itself little more than a bitter joke.

It’s already too late for England; the jihadists are seeded throughout the nation, and even if the Brits began earnestly rounding up, locking up, and deporting first thing in the morning, they’ll suffer attack after attack for years to come. The pitiful truth is that they’ve been overrun; England is a conquered nation, and it’s just going to have to, as they say, get used to this.

England resigned itself to its ignominious fate long ago; disarmed, enfeebled, helpless, and besieged, they are now reaping the whirlwind. May God forbid that America ever walks the same shameful, contemptible road.

Now tell me again, whydon’tcha, how Trump’s disdain for NATO is just the most horrible, unthinkable thing EVAR.

Share

UNEXPECTED!

I almost appended this to the Trump post below as another example of somebody coming around to embrace Teh Rebellion at last, but…well, naaaah.

Donald Trump’s whole position on this has been that we are all at risk from Islamist extremists who want to kill us. And he has come up with endless ways he is suggesting of trying to stop this. You may not agree with him, but that is where he is coming from. After what has been happening in London and Manchester, has Trump not got a point?

Is he not allowed as President of the United States to say ‘Wake up everybody! We are in a war here.’?

Brace yourselves, gang; in fact, you better sit down for it. That’s Piers Morgan—PIERS FUCKING MORGAN, ferchrissakes—quoted above. He was interviewing London’s terrorist-supporting sleeper-Muslim mayor, whose response was:

KHAN: Let me tell you what I was commenting on when I said he was ignorant. The idea at the time, when he was a candidate, of banning all Muslims from going to the USA, and I made the point that his views are ignorant — why? Because there are literally million of Muslims born and raised in America who love their country… But also there are millions of Muslims around the world who love America –me included– who love Americans. Who have family in America. And playing to the ISIS narrative that Western liberal values are incompatible with Islam is ignorant.

Okay, first off, you fucking insidious liar: Trump never once, not even ONCE, suggested “banning all Muslims” from etc. It was actually an extension of an Obama edict that…oh, to hell with all that. I am all done with being lured into the weeds, arguing minutiae with dishonest liars. It’s a distraction, and it ain’t no accident that they do it, if you ask me. To hell with arguing on their dishonest terms; I won’t do it with Muslim frauds any more than I will with the Left. Once they get you chasing your tail like that, the game is over, and they won.

Second: Western values incompatible with Islam? Well, depends, I guess. If you mean the Islam of the Koran and the hadiths, yeah, they most certainly are. But if you mean the milder Islam embraced by a tiny handful of more-moderate Muslims scattered here and there across the globe, well, Islam has a word for that, too: APOSTASY. You can go look for yourself what the punishment for that is.

All that said, I must tentatively doff the CF chapeau to these guys:

Over 130 imams from across the United Kingdom have said they will refuse to perform the traditional Islamic funeral prayer for the London and Manchester terror attackers. The ritual is normally carried out for every Muslim, regardless of their actions.

In what is a highly unusual move, Muslim religious leaders from different schools of Islam — both Sunni and Shia — issued a statement late Monday saying their pain at the suffering of the victims of Saturday’s attacks had led to their decision, and they called on others imams to follow suit.

“We are deeply hurt that a spate of terror attacks have been committed in our country once more by murderers who seek to gain religious legitimacy for their actions. We seek to clarify that their reprehensible actions have neither legitimacy nor our sympathy,” the statement put out by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), an umbrella body representing over 500 organizations, read.

At risk of being an asshole here, I must say I am more than a little skeptical of this. Much as I would love to wholeheartedly welcome and endorse such a move—it’s exactly the kind of gesture we’ve said all along needs to be made by reasonable Muslims, and the onus is surely on them to do it—well, frankly, I don’t trust them. The rest of their statement has a pretty greasy feel to it, which doesn’t do much to allay my suspicions:

“Consequently, and in light of other such ethical principles which are quintessential to Islam, we will not perform the traditional Islamic funeral prayer for the perpetrators and we also urge fellow imams and religious authorities to withdraw such a privilege. This is because such indefensible actions are completely at odds with the lofty teachings of Islam,” the statement continued.

See what I mean? A lot of noise about “the lofty teachings of Islam,” and what is and is not “ethical principles which are quintessential to Islam.” Tell me, is abject subjugation of women one of those “lofty teachings”? The killing of gays, the enslavement into dhimmitude of all non-Muslims? It would seem so; it’s all right there in the Koran, after all. Sorry, but this sounds too much like a press release penned by some grubby hack working for a third- or fourth-tier PR firm to me. This, too, only reinforces my skepticism:

He said that while a campaign would be launched to urge mosques to increase their vigilance, “the path towards extremism is outside of the mosque and at the margins of society.”

Umm, no. Not even close. The path towards extremism runs directly through the mosque, into and then out again; in fact, the mosques are a prime source of the problem here, as has been demonstrated again and again. As I’ve said: the problem isn’t some supposed “perversion” of Islam; the problem is Islam, as specifically and unmistakably delineated in its own “sacred” texts.

I dunno, maybe they’re sincere; I most surely hope so, as must we all. If so, good on ’em. But I’ll hold to my skepticism for now; Lord knows the Muslim world has earned that skepticism many times over, and one hell of a lot more besides.

Share

Stop making sense!

Used to it yet?

The worst civilian massacre in the United Kingdom between the Second World War and the 7/7 attacks of 2005 was the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974. For good or ill, it convulsed the nation. In contrast to the now traditional response that the worst thing about an Islamic terror attack is that it might lead to a “backlash” against Muslims and the urgent priority is for everyone to pretend that they’re “united” in “one love”, the pub bombings led to the immediate cancellation of the city’s St Patrick’s Day parade, the third largest in the world, for the next decade. Twenty-one Birmingham pubgoers died that night. Now 22 people get slaughtered at a pop concert, and the public shrug it off with some candles and flowers. Eleven civilians were killed in the 1987 Enniskillen Remembrance Day massacre (a twelfth died after 13 years in a coma), and public outrage was so fierce that the Dublin parliament passed a fast-track UK extradition bill, the IRA apologized, Sinn Féin’s electoral support didn’t recover for 15 years, and Bono declared on stage “F**k the revolution” – which on the whole I prefer to Katy Perry saying touch the person next to you and tell her “I love you”.

The inertia in today’s Britain seems telling. We are, as the French Prime Minister and the London Mayor and other eminences have advised, getting used to it. Terror doesn’t appear (from this distance) to have played much part in the election campaign: in a certain sense, the remorseless Islamization of Britain seems to have passed beyond politics. If you still think the major parties can ameliorate the situation, Mrs May is just about preferable to Jeremy Corbyn: In a choice between a dissembler and a dupe, vote for the marginally less unsafe pair of hands. If you feel the need (as they did after Enniskillen) to be outraged and impassioned, direct your outrage and passion wisely and join your fellow Britons in excoriating the President of the United States for Tweeting about the Mayor of London. If you feel the need (like Mrs Thatcher after South Georgia) to “rejoice, rejoice”, join the patriotic employees of LBC radio in cheering the defenestration of Katie Hopkins, also for Tweeting. If you feel the need (as Mrs May’s COBRA meeting did) for an instant policy prescription, then draw the logical conclusion from the above and blame the Internet. The Prime Minister’s plans to lean on Google, Facebook et al will discombobulate the next bombers not a whit, but they’ll almost certainly lead to a Robert Spencer or Geert Wilders having his YouTube channel taken down or Twitter account suspended, and that’s great news, isn’t it?

In similar spirit, the aforesaid mayor has called for the aforesaid president’s upcoming state visit to be kiboshed. Given the current levels of vigilance by UK officialdom, it wouldn’t entirely surprise me if Trump were to be declared persona non grata but still sailed through British immigration to bang on the door of Windsor Castle asking where his state banquet is. Or perhaps I’m doing the amusingly named “UK Border Force” an injustice: Unable to prevent even the most obvious “Soldier of Allah” from breezing past the desk at Heathrow in his Isis T-shirt, they mysteriously discover hitherto unknown levels of efficiency when faced with such threat priorities as Pamela Geller or Michael Savage. Maybe Mrs May will set up a PREVENT program to prevent Katie Hopkins, or Douglas Murray’s book tour.

That’s not an idle fancy: the Prime Minister is no friend of free speech, and, as we’ve seen in the last few days, the biggest obstacle to “getting used to it” is a relatively small number of people who keep harping on about it.

Mayor Khan is a slippery customer, and he used a slippery phrase in reassuring the public after Saturday’s carnage: London, he declared, was “one of the safest global cities in the world”. “Global city”? What is the difference between a “global city” and a mere city? The latter are more or less ethnically homogeneous places with insufficient vibrancy and diversity for the likes of Mr Khan. A “global city” is a microcosm of the global. Saturday’s dead, for example, number four of Her Majesty’s subjects (one English, one Canadian, two Australian) and three citizens de la république française. In part because of the socialist sclerosis of that republic, London has become home to one of the largest French populations on the planet. That’s a “global city” – where an Aussie can head across London Bridge to a fashionable pub and fall into conversation with a charming demoiselle.

All these Canadians and Australians and Frenchmen were killed by a jihadist born in Pakistan, another born in Morocco, and a third from either Morocco or Libya. In London and the other “safest global cities in the world”, a New Zealander can meet a nice Danish girl and be blown up by a Yemeni on the way home. The conceit of the global city is that there is no distinction between a Dane and a Yemeni.

It’s not a conceit, actually; it’s a delusion, and a dangerous one. But for Progressivists, it must be maintained at all costs, up to and including your life—though not the lives of Theresa May and the rest of them living behind stone walls and fences, stuffed into armored limousines, and surrounded 24-7 by squads of military guards armed with weapons they’ve decided you and me just can’t be trusted with.

That delusion must be maintained, because its pathetic failure merely highlights the fact that their juvenile philosophy is shot through and riddled with them; in fact, it rests entirely on delusions, and nothing more. Acknowledge it just once, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down around it. And in England, maybe even more so than the rest of Europe, those delusions have had a mighty long run, are firmly entrenched and accepted, and will take one hell of a lot of dislodging.

But it ain’t as if we’re all that far behind ourselves; witness the idiots jumping on board to support May’s blaming of Trump’s OUTRAGEOUS!!!™ rhetoric for the latest in the long string of Muslim mass murders, if you have the stomach for it. Which leads me yet again to my oft-asked question: how much, libtards? How much blood is enough for you? How many more of us must die before you finally admit that your simple-minded, feckless fantasy doesn’t work, has never yet worked, never will work, and never can work?

We’re waiting, assholes. But we won’t much longer. The process of kicking your dumb asses to the curb at last has already started here. Maybe not enough Brits have died violently at the hands of your troglodyte allies yet, but as Steyn concludes, the light is dawning:

On Saturday night in Borough Market, when the three knife-wielding jihadists stormed in to the Black & Blue restaurant, they found themselves confronting a 47-year-old football fan. “F**k you,” said Roy Larner. “I’m Millwall” – a footie club with supporters of surpassing ferocity. He held the Soldiers of Allah at bay with nothing but his fists, enabling other diners to escape, and is now recovering in hospital with stab wounds to his arms, head and chest.

“F*k* you, I’m Millwall” turned out to be the “Let’s roll!” of the night. If you’re having trouble keeping your London rail termini straight, the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton; the Battle of London Bridge was won on the playing fields of Millwall. Mr Larner seems disinclined to get used to it – and “F**k you, I’m Millwall” is a more encouraging sign of a societal survival instinct than “one love”.

“One love” is a nice, cuddly, soothing fantasy. But it’s absolutely nothing more, and will founder on the rough shoals of remorseless reality every time. When the British rank and file fully realize what their leaders have done to them, how thoroughly they’ve been sold out—on purpose and with malice aforethought, by people who will never themselves confront the plague they’ve inflicted on their subjects: will never be stabbed, shot, blown up, or even punched in the nose by the violent hordes they’ve clasped to their subjects’ unprotected bosom—then those rank-and-filers just might unleash a little terror of their own.

And that’s the day the tide will begin to turn at last. To defeat the Muslims, we must first crush the Left. Here as well as there. No more, no less.

Share

Lessons? What lessons?

Before too long, we’ll have a Second Civil War to blithely ignore the lessons of.

There’s a tried and true American approach to suppressing terrorism, and it worked quite well during Gen. Sherman’s 1863 Kentucky campaign and Gen. Phil Sheridan’s subsequent reduction of the Shenandoah Valley. We don’t have to be particularly smart; we merely have to do some disgusting things. Sherman and Sheridan suppressed sniping at Union soldiers by Confederate civilians by burning the towns (just the towns, not the townsfolk) that sheltered them. In other words, they forced collective responsibility upon a hostile population, a doctrine that in peacetime is entirely repugnant, but that in wartime becomes unavoidable. By contrast, the peacetime procedure of turning petty criminals into police snitches has backfired terribly. No doubt we will learn that the perpetrators of tonight’s horror at London Bridge were known to police, like the Manchester Arena suicide bomber and most of the perpetrators of large-scale terrorist acts in Europe during the past several years. (Update: “At Least One London Bridge Terrorist Was a ‘Known Wolf'”) The remedy is time-tested and straightforward. We merely require the will to apply it.

Yeah, well, that’s gonna be a problem right there. Best we just go on with the “cower in place” strategy for a long while yet. We can all keep comforting ourselves each time a few dozen more of us are slaughtered by having a good cry; it seems to be working well for blithering idiots all over the world so far, right?

Like Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who burned a great swath through Georgia and the Carolinas, Sheridan believed that war is won not just by killing soldiers but by denying them support from a broader civilian population.

Actually, it’s worse for us than that: Sherman believed, and explicitly stated, that wars were won only when the spirit of the opposition, both military and civilian, was utterly and entirely broken—their will to resist crushed right out of them—and not one moment before. He and Grant both proved, along with a lot of other leading officers throughout history, that competence in warfare is less a matter of intelligence and more a matter of brutal, implacable resolve.

In other words: it all comes down to will. The will of our enemies to conquer us must be bested by our own will to defeat them. So far there’s absolutely no sign at all that that’s the case. We lack the fortitude to even call the enemy by his proper name; for us to even be discussing defeating him is very nearly an obscenity.

DOOMED update! It’s laugh or cry, folks.


metro-police-warning.jpg

That last bit is especially poignant; since Brits long ago allowed their government to disarm them, they’re now reduced to throwing chairs and bar glasses at their Muslim tormentors. It bears repeating: before we can defeat the Muslims, we will first have to crush the Left, and nullify its malign influence on our lives. That’s every bit as true here as it is there, and everywhere else.

Share

He’s on a roll!

Schlichter, that is.

We’re not even willing to take our own side in this fight.

Yeah, the West is theoretically at war with them somewhere far away, or rather, we’re playing at war with a few soldiers and some bombs. It’s war on the cheap, and this campaign may eventually wear down the ISIS caliphate so that that one pustule of Islamic radicalism is lanced, but it won’t be victory. They’ll just pop up again, in Yemen or Somalia or Afghanistan, where we have futzed around for 15-plus years and those pedophilia-loving creeps still hold most of the ground. We sort of fight a sort of war to sort of hold them at bay for a little while.

But it gets worse. We invite them into our countries, willy-nilly, sacrificing what we are so they can remain what they always have been, and on our dime. Do we screen immigrants to make sure they adhere to our values and our beliefs, or do we somehow feel we have no right to decide who comes into our nation and just shrug?

We know who they are and we know what they want. But the suicide squad that is our elite would rather prove its virtue to its emasculated self by placing its weird multicultural fetish above our kids’ lives. We elect a president who wants to slow down the influx of refugees so we have a chance to figure out who the hell they are and our elite rushes to credulous courts that manufacture sanctimonious legal reasoning out of whole cloth to ensure that our people are kept defenseless.

Why?

When something is truly unacceptable, you can tell because we do not accept it. But we accept terror. We won’t do what it takes to win. The solution is obvious. It’s right there, and we all know it, but our elite is largely willing to let scores of us die rather than admit the truth that none of them dare speak.

The answer is not fake solidarity and social media memes and sacrificing a few little girls here and there so we can avoid calling out the lies we have allowed to castrate us.

The answer is destroying the enemy in war zones thoroughly and completely. It is to take up arms and crush our enemies, not just tread water in this sea of blood.

Get angry.

Because we have a right to be angry.

Because anger is the first crucial step to fighting back.

Because if we can see two dozen little kids blasted to shreds and not get angry, then maybe we deserve to live as the slaves of these 7th century savages.

As I’ve said all along: we’ll never defeat an enemy we’re too fucking chickenshit to even call by his proper name. We might not even have to destroy the terror-sponsoring regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran to win, though; Billy Hollis left some great ideas in the comments here:

How’s this for some brainstorming about what could be done:

1. For any act of Islamic terror that results in injury to a non-Muslim, the mosque of the perp is closed for one year.

2. For any act of Islamic terror that results in death of a non-Muslim, the mosque of the perp is closed for two years.

3. For any two such acts from the same mosque, the mosque is closed permanently.

4. If the number of deaths from any incident or combination of incidents by perps from a mosque exceeds 20, the mosque is closed, defiled, and burned to the ground.

5. For any violent responses to such acts, such as riots, any participants who are not citizens are immediately deported. Any participants who are citizens are convicted of a felony and jailed unconditionally for one year.

Works for me, every last word of it. In any event, I feel certain that more weepy, maudlin rallies after the fact are NOT gonna get the job done. Nor are ziggurats of flowers adorned with photos of the never-to-be-avenged victims of each successive Muslim atrocity. Nor any number of pathetic, embarrassing #WHERETHEHELLEVERSTRONG hashtags.

Piss-soaked milksops all over the Western world can roll over and show their soft, flabby bellies all they may like; it will never buy them a single moment’s peace or safety. They are begging for mercy from an enemy who possesses not an ounce of it; they are speaking in a language he doesn’t comprehend, bargaining with a currency he doesn’t value. With each successive attack, they are being tested…and found wanting.

Our “leadership” won’t lead. Our military—the “strongest in the WORLD!”—is forced to squander its might and spill its lifeblood fighting Welcome-Wagon “wars” in far-flung barbaric shitholes without the faintest hope of victory—or any clear idea of what victory might actually even be. Our law enforcement agencies don’t dare to cross the rigid boundaries of political correctness to take official notice of blatantly suspicious malefactors living among us. And too many of our population will support no more vigorous response than flapping their hands, weeping, and milling about in the streets after the fact congratulating themselves on how “strong” they are.

And so, in another couple of weeks—maybe a month at the outside—we’ll be having this conversation again. Until we learn. Or are vanquished.

Official Lies update! Steyn:

Twenty-four hours after the Manchester attack, I joined Evan Solomon on CFRA in Ottawa to talk about what it meant and where we go. You can hear the full interview here (scroll down if necessary). I began by making the point that I was offended by the media coverage’s Orwellian inversion of language – whereby “#ManchesterStrong” means a limp passivity of flowers and candlelight vigils and teddy bears for a couple of days before we all forget it until the next “strong” “united” community gets blown apart.

My thoughts yesterday did not meet with universal agreement. Linda Cianchetti emails:

The killer was the queen of England’s clan.

Rothschild Soros club.

Stop zionist Israel jews from manufacturing all this illusion. They are the banking cartel around the world. Stop blaming everyone but the culprits, themselves. Or we will have no respect for journalists and the tales they put out.

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

I get a lot more of this than I used to. I suspect Ms Cianchetti would blame “zionist Israel jews” and “the queen of England’s clan” whatever happened, but it’s a close call whether she’s any more detached from reality than, say, Newsweek fretting about “reprisals” against Muslims or the nincompoop diversicrat who serves as Chief Constable of Greater Manchester sternly warning that we must not “tolerate hate” – by which he means not the hate of people who shred little girls’ bodies with nail bombs but the mean-spirited Tweets of people who get angry at the people who shred little girls’ bodies with nail bombs.

I was halfway hoping for a more lengthy and comprehensive piece from Steyn on this, but as he himself has said: really, what’s the point? Before we can hope to defeat the Muslims, we’re first going to have to defeat the Left. Until their miserable self-loathing and cowardice is made entirely irrelevant, it’s all just gum-flapping, to little or no good purpose. It’s the main reason I haven’t been in any great hurry to post on this latest attack: I had plenty to say, all right—but I’ve already said it, and have been saying it for sixteen years now. You guys already know it; the Progressivist lackwits ain’t listening, and couldn’t grasp it if they were. Until they’re removed from any position of power or influence, we’re all just pissing in the wind here.

Share

Taking Gillespie to school

Speaking of embarrassment.

Now, does Nick Gillespie really think altering tax policy will magically transform low-IQ, inbred Muslims from the Maghreb into patriotic French republicans who work at Parisian software shops? It’s tempting to say it is just another pose, but the evidence is piling up in favor of the argument that Nick Gillespie is a stupid person. Anyone who truly believes altering tax policy will reverse a thousand generations of evolution is an idiot.

That’s the fundamental problem with modern libertarians. They believe this or they simply are incapable of mastering ground floor level biology. The reason the country of Niger is a basket case is that’s the way the people of Niger want it. It is full of Hausa. The reason Paris was Paris was that, up until recently, it was full of Parisians! Now that Paris is filling up with North Africans and Arabs, it is looking like Algeria with better plumbing.

What’s happened to libertarians is a form of what Vox Day calls convergence. It used to be that libertarians accepted the chain of causality. They worked backward in order to arrive, obliquely, at the first cause. If you wanted to have a nation of maximum freedom, you had to have a nation with rational laws and that meant a rational, Anglo-Saxon culture. The result was a libertarianism in one country model.

Then a new breed of libertarian showed up mouthing all the economic arguments of libertarians, often with the zeal of a fanatic, but embracing liberal cultural arguments, re-framing them in terms of personal liberty. The result is libertarians have almost fully converged now with the liberals. They have been assimilated into the Borg. Libertarianism, like most libertarians, is all about someone else paying for their ethnic dining habits.

Jeez, that stung me, and I’m only an onlooker.

Not that Gillespie is completely wrong, mind. The origins of the decay of France—and the rest of Europe—can easily be traced to their witless embrace of the eternally destructive force that is socialism, sure enough. But to assert that the recent exponential acceleration of that decay has little or nothing to do with the importation of hordes of primordial fanatics openly hostile to the culture that brought them in—vociferously dedicated to its destruction; antipathetic to assimilation; implacable and intractable, eager to do violence against it by any means they can contrive—bespeaks a willful blindness I can’t even begin to grasp.

And I’ve long considered myself a libertarian of the small-l variety, and have admired Gillespie’s writing and quoted it here who even knows how many times.

That said, Z’s last line still smarts a little. And like I said, I’m only an onlooker here.

The bottom line is, all the old paradigms have been overturned, and not just in France, or even Europe. Here in the States, what we thought of as conservatism has been revealed as useless against the Progressivist onslaught, an ideology all too comfortable with its own perpetual defeat. The political party long associated with it stands exposed by its actions as fraudulent, a subterfuge in collusion with its declared enemies, struggling to maintain an unworkable status quo that benefits not the governed, but the government.

Our gutless leaders have not only refused to mount an effective, proactive defense against a deadly jihadist foe, they’ve actually repeatedly suggested that occasional mass murder in our public spaces is just something we’ll all have to learn to live with, while boasting of our supposedly indisputable military supremacy—a hollow supremacy purchased at unimaginable expense, which is incapable of dispensing with an enemy comprised of illiterate goatherds dwelling in remote mountain caves and barren deserts after a decade and a half of violent struggle. They rattle cardboard sabers and mouth empty threats to vanquish an enemy they’re too goddamned cowardly to even name.

The real issue, politically and ideologically speaking, is not so much convergence as it is irrelevance—an irrelevance imposed by insuperable reality, unmoved by definitions and assumptions that are all too obviously outdated, rooted as they are in a stultified political structure that dates back to the Civil War. That structure refers whenever convenient or useful to a Constitution it long since discarded; professes reverence to principles it holds in contempt; and relies on a history it never bothered learning in the first place.

Conservative me no more conservatives, and liberals and libertarians too. Republicans? Democrats? Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, Fascists, Populists, Communists? Meh; might as well talk to me about the Whigs as if they still matter.

There’s now a strong wind blowing, and it’s already sweeping all the old detritus aside. Trump was merely the first gust of it. The old-line pundits complained that he wasn’t really a conservative, and he clearly wasn’t a liberal either. But instead of attempting to wrap their old strictures around him, what they should have done was just admit right up front that they hadn’t the vaguest clue what to make of him. They might at least have then been able to maintain their claim to some sort of intellectual acuity, rather then ending up looking like the befuddled guardians of an old, tired order that history already sidestepped and left behind.

Now all that fresh wind, that new paradigm, really has to do to establish its dominance and forever alter the landscape is adequately and persuasively answer a question or two: will it effectively defend me from murderous Islamist troglodytes, and can it be persuaded to leave me mostly the hell alone, to live my life and pursue my humble ambitions as I see fit?

The Constitution doesn’t enter into it; it’s as dead as the dodo, and has been for decades. The Founders’ vision of freedom and legitimate government doesn’t either, for better or worse; it, too, is gone, and cannot be brought back. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people was finished the moment the people felt secure, prosperous, and comfortable enough to start ignoring what was being done in their name by their supposed representatives, and to suffer no personally disastrous consequences from that disregard.

In addition to the questions I just posed, the ultimate one is this: will it work? Along, perhaps, with: can I trust it?

Whatever rises up to replace the current muddle, if it just handles those questions adroitly, it will truly change the world. For the better? For the worse? Well, we’ll just have to wait and see about that, won’t we?

Share

Stupes and dupes

No wonder they hate Trump so badly.

Long before anyone heard about Evan McMullin running for President, there he is palling around with #NeverTrump Adam Kinzinger in Turkey chatting with the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates (guise SETF) who are essentially the political arm of ISIS under a differing name.

The declared purpose of the meeting was to discuss who and how to arm the entities within Syria. However, just like in 2012/2013 these same Brotherhood voices in 2014 are simply trying to present themselves as one thing, only to gain the goal of another. That’s ultimately the story behind the arms deals within The Benghazi Brief. That’s the lesson that should have been learned if the truth contained within the brief were ever to have larger public interest.

That’s a very brief excerpt to get you started on some stuff that might seem shocking at first blush, but shouldn’t be. After all, it would hardly be the first time a bunch of clueless Western professional politicians got embarrassingly rolled by jihadi wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The ongoing search for the elusive “moderate Muslim” chimera will continue, of course. No doubt some dumb Republicrat will eventually find him riding off into the clouds on a pink unicorn, a hoop snake rolling along right beside them, to hosannahs of joy and approval from the liberal media and the rest of the Ruling Class establishment.

Share

Have we reached Peak Depravity yet?

My guess: no.

One of a pair of ISIS knifemen who stormed a church in Normandy before slitting the throat of an elderly priest has been named as known terror threat Adel Kermiche.

The 19-year-old ‘ISIS soldier’ was being monitored with an electronic ankle tag after he was arrested for twice attempting to flee France to join the terror group in Syria.

Despite having been released early from prison, Kermiche’s bail conditions allowed him to roam unsupervised between 8.30am and 12.30pm, leaving him free to murder the priest in the attack carried out between 9am and 11am.

Kermiche and his accomplice – also known to French police – forced 84-year-old Father Jacques Hamel to kneel before filming themselves butchering him and performing a ‘sermon in Arabic’ at the altar of the church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, according to witnesses.

Both were shot dead by police marksmen as they emerged from the building shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ following the attack that also left a nun critically injured.

Sister Danielle, a nun who escaped, said: ‘They told me “you Christians, you kill us”. They forced him to his knees. He wanted to defend himself. And that’s when the tragedy happened. They recorded themselves. They did a sort of sermon around the altar, in Arabic. It’s a horror.’

Peak depravity? No way; they can do worse, and they will, probably in just a couple of days’ (or hours’) time. The real question, contra my title, is whether Western Civ has reached peak revulsion and disgust, and is ready to start slaughtering these diseased pigs in job lots, destroying the governments (*cough* Saudi Arabia *cough* Iran *cough cough*) that support them, and ejecting them from their hidey-holes amongst civilized humans to go back and live among their own filthy fellows.

“You Christians, you kill us”? No, not yet, Ahmed; not on anything like the scale we’re going to, and ought to. But if you and your swinish fellow subhumans keep it up, maybe we’ll come to our senses yet and finally fix our Muslim problem for good.

Share

Stopped clock right!

Not everything ISIS says is wrong, and they’re not as stupid as the liberals who in effect support them—from our pRetend pResident on down.

A new video released by ISIS today that heavily praised Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen also made specific threats against San Francisco and Las Vegas.

The video, released by ISIS in Mosul, rolls images of Mateen and news footage of the Pulse attack on June 12.

Titled “You Are Not Held Responsible Except for Yourself,” the Al-Furat Media Foundation release was distributed online with a promotional banner featuring Obama, Omar Mateen and scenes from the previous weekend’s carnage.

“Do you think you are at war with a small group of mujahideen in Iraq, Syria, Libya and other places? You are sadly mistaken. And do you think you will defeat us by bombing our homes with your drones and F-16s?” a terrorist called Abu Ismail al-Amriki (the American) says in that earlier video.

“O America, indeed you are at war with … sincere Muslims around the world who yearn and desire to see the honor of Islam returned,” he adds. “And O America, indeed you are at war with the people who wish to be killed and slain for the sake of Allah… you are at war with the holy Quran.”

That’s way more truth than you’re ever going to hear from Obama, Hillary, their supporters in Court Media, or any of the weak-kneed “religion of peace” clowns who set themselves up as “experts” on Islam and refuse to take our enemies at their entirely-accurate and justified word.

Share

Muslim privilege

PC kills.

Would the FBI have been as sensitive if Nidal Hasan had been named Frank Wright? No more than Omar Mateen would have kept his security job if his name had been Joe Johnson.

It’s an increasingly familiar story.

After 9/11, Muslims somehow became the biggest victim group in America. And even if you contend that most Muslims are not responsible for the actions of Islamic fundamentalist groups, even if you believe that most Muslims are being wrongly blamed for the actions of a smaller group of radicals, the pernicious myth of Muslim victimhood has become a distorting force that protects terrorists.

Muslim victimhood has elevated Islamist groups such as CAIR to the front row of political discourse alongside legitimate civil rights organizations, despite their terror links and history of obstructing law enforcement efforts to fight Islamic terrorism, while mainstreaming their Islamist agendas.

Muslim victimhood has silenced the victims of Muslim terrorism. Every Muslim terror attack is swiftly diverted to the inevitable “backlash” narrative in which the media turns away from the bodies in the latest terror attack to bring us the stories of the real Muslim victims who fear being blamed for it.

This obscene act of media distraction silences the victims of Muslim terrorism and rewards the enablers and accomplices of Muslim terrorism instead. It is every bit as terrible as claiming that the real victims of a serial killer are his family members who are being blamed for not turning him in, instead of the people he killed and the loved ones they left behind.

Political correctness must be propped up and defended at all costs…up to and including actual American lives lost to it.

Muslim terrorism is not the groan of an oppressed minority. Its roots run back to racist and supremacist Islamic societies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt where non-Muslims have few if any civil rights. Muslims are a global majority. Islamic terrorism is their way of imposing their religious system on everyone.

Standing in solidarity with Muslims after Orlando makes as much sense as standing in solidarity with Klansmen after the Charleston massacre. No one should be standing in solidarity with hate groups.

Omar wasn’t radicalized by the “internet”. He got his ideas from Islamic clerics who got their ideas from Islam. He was “radicalized” by the holiest texts of Islam. Just like every other Muslim terrorist. His actions weren’t “senseless” or “nihilistic”, he was acting out the Muslim privilege of a bigoted ideology.

Liberal-fascists have always been enamored of irony as a hipster pose, a prerequisite term of art for twee urban douchebags and the bands, visual arts, literature, plays, and movies they flock to and voraciously consume. Now it’s become national policy, a government imperative. I ask again: how many more of us must die for it?

Share

Success!

Lowry (!) on Trump and his horrible, racist, bigoted, and self-evidently un-American plan to get control of our borders and take a pause in importing as many Muslim terrorists as we can cram into planes, ships, trains, buses, and automobiles:

The kernel of Trump’s speech was rather obvious: “The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here. That is a fact, and it’s a fact we need to talk about.”

The reaction of much of the opinion elite was nearly instantaneous: Whatever we do, let’s not talk about that fact.

In six months, terrorists have killed more than 60 people on our shores; two of the perpetrators were the sons of immigrants, and one an immigrant herself.

It may be that one of the reasons we have avoided the problems of a France is sheer numbers. France has 50 percent more Muslim immigrants than we do, even though it is a much smaller country. Only 1 percent of the U.S. population is Muslim; 7.5 percent of the French population is.

The Somali community in Minneapolis, seeded with refugees and then replenished with chain migration, has proved a rich recruiting ground for Islamist extremists of all stripes. This suggests that when we have our own enclaves of poor Muslim immigrants, the experience isn’t a happy one.

On the current trajectory, we will take in 1 million Muslim immigrants or more over the next decade. It can’t be racist or out of bounds to ask whether that’s a good idea.

And it isn’t, particularly when you consider that “Muslim” isn’t a race, any more than “Mexican” is. But the pundit class and the political parties they rely upon for the continued filling of their iron rice bowls are content with the status quo—a status quo that has been figuratively killing us for years, and is now literally doing so—and they intend to see it maintained.

His proposed Muslim ban is a mistake. It communicates a hostility to all Muslims and, besides, is unworkable.

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies outlines a more sensible course. He suggests a return to a Cold War-era ideological test for new arrivals, geared to the new struggle against radical Islam. It would ask potential immigrants questions such as whether they support killing religious converts or homosexuals. Anyone answering “yes” would be excluded. Applicants could lie, but at least such an exercise would send a signal about what constitutes a lowest-common denominator of American civic life.

Responsibility for Omar Mateen’s heinous act is all his own, but it is certainly relevant that his Dear Old Dad supports the Taliban and hates gays. He is exactly the kind of immigrant you would hope to deny the priceless privilege of coming here.

So in other words, Trump’s opening gambit in this negotiation worked beautifully: it shook up the status quo, vigorously rattled the bars on the DC/PC golden cage, got everybody talking about a topic that was previously absolutely verboten by the calcified existing power structure, exposed the flaws in the nefarious plans of his opposition, and now there’s at least a slim possibility we might finally see something sensible done about a massive problem we’d been ignoring up until now.

Gee, what a hopeless, blundering, stupid loser he is.

Share

Dog bites man!

UNEXPECTED™!

Why the surprise? We know Muslims kill Christians. We know they stone adulteresses to death. We know they drive airplanes into buildings. We know they mutilate women. We know they bomb airliners. We know they destroy historic monuments. We know they kill their daughters for losing their virginity. We know they kill homosexuals. We know they make coordinated mass attacks on cities. We know they are incompatible with societies of the First World. We know they have no respect for our laws. We know they hate us.

Knowing all of this, what do we do? Why…of course! What else? We import more of them. Nothing could make more sense. Ten thousand Syrians, coming to your neighborhood. Thank you, Obama. Thank you in advance, Hillary.

More precisely, Hussein Obama imports them. A black President with Islamic roots, barely American, who dislikes white people and recruits immigrants of his two ethnicities as hard as he can. We get utterly unassimilable Somalis in Minnesota, and all the Muslims he can find. Fifty gay men have just paid the price.

For Hussein’s policy.

The man fascinates me. The two worst actors that America has suffered since Lincoln are Osama bin Laden and Hussein Obama. They easily fit into any list of history’s most effective and influential men, being true geniuses. For a few hundred thousand dollars and an army of a couple of dozen, bin Laden stunningly humiliated America on international television, turned the country into a police state frightened of everything, inspired abrogation of its Constitution, and sucked the country into unending wars. On a cost-benefit basis, it was astonishing. He up-throttled national decline and has Americans hopping barefoot in airports while recordings on subways tell us to watch each other and report “suspicious behavior.”

Hussein Obama is in the same majestic league. He has said that he wants to “transform” America, and he has, has he ever, by simply doing what he wants. He found and exploited the hidden weakness in American government, which is that nobody has the balls to tell him “No.” He has won by sheer force of will. You’ve got to hand it to the guy: he’s good.

Or the people behind him pulling his strings are, at least. I hope Fred has something to say later about Goosh Cuntman The Fearless AR Tamer, but in the meantime this one will do nicely.

Share

On “national mourning”

So now, as predicted, we’re seeing all the usual ostentatious, self-serving displays of “grief,” and are told again and again that we’re “honoring our dead,” “paying tribute to the victims” of the latest Muslim atrocity with them. All over the country and the world, people are lighting candles, giving each other a nice hug, and having themselves a good cry over the sadness of it all. And almost nowhere do you see anyone proposing to do the one thing that would truly and appropriately honor the dead: making sure it never happens again, by swiftly and brutally avenging them.

How the hell does it do anything but dishonor to both the dead and ourselves to make a big public show of pathetic weakness and grief for them? This isn’t honor; it’s disgrace. Exhibit A:

I cried all day.

I cried walking to the subway. I cried on the subway. I cried when I got off the subway. I cried while giving a tourist directions to Chelsea Market; I think she may have asked me because maybe only true New Yorkers are comfortable crying in public here. I cried walking to work. I cried at work. I cried when I left work early because I couldn’t stop crying. I cried sitting on a stoop in Chelsea, talking on the phone with friends. I cried knowing one of my best friends was coming to New York tonight and he would be the perfect person to be hugged by and cry with on a day like today. I can’t stop crying.

I am gay. I don’t know if I’ve officially said that on the internet, though I’ve certainly hinted at it, and I’ve said it plenty in real life. I am gay.

I am also from Orlando.

I don’t know when I’ll stop crying. I want to stop crying. I want to stand proud and be brave. But also, I don’t want to have to be brave. Why should I have to be brave?

Because you live in something some of us like to call the Real World, honey, and it can be cold and ugly and hard. There are bad people living in it, unswervingly determined to do very bad things to others, and if we don’t stop them their badness will only spread and grow stronger like the plague it truly is. Relying on others (the military) to be brave for you so you don’t have to is what we’ve been depending on for decades, but when the plague has spread so far and become so firmly entrenched—and when we’re busy importing as much of the plague virus as we can to come and live right in our very midst—that method just won’t work anymore.

In the Real World, if you don’t get brave, you’ll eventually get dead.

Your mama should have told you about all this long, long ago, but apparently that’s yet another of those Jobs Americans Just Won’t Do nowadays.

Can trembling milksops like this actually for one moment really believe all that “Love Wins!” flapdoodle they spout? Can there be a single living soul on this planet willing to arm himself with a pen to take on someone wielding a sword to prove once and for all the old tommyrot about which is mightier? Can there really be anyone so enamored of the smell of their own bullshit as to be willing to spend every minute of their day inhaling it? Anyone who really thinks they’re going to accomplish a damned thing by mouthing empty words to the effect that they intend to “Stand against terrorism!” when what they’re actually doing—rather than bothering to, y’know, stand up, which is just too hard—is lying down, rolling over, and presenting their yellow bellies and exposed necks to it?

Do you people really think that coming out on the lucky side of the draw and surviving merely to die another day because you didn’t happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is somehow going to win this war?

And what about all this “cried all day” stuff anyway? Maybe that might almost be appropriate for the girl who posted the above piteous and contemptible wallowing in her own funk, since she’s a former Orlando resident and patron of the club; presumably, she may still have had people she was close to there and who might have been present and done tragic harm. But what the hell are all the others across the globe doing weeping so copiously over people they don’t even know personally, and never will? Do these poor fragile souls have similar day-long nervous breakdowns every time they drive past a bad accident on the freeway or see one on the 6 o’clock news? And what the hell has convinced them that they should be displaying such evidence of mental disorder publicly, as if if fragility and neurosis had somehow become a badge of honor, a virtue they should be proud of instead of a flaw for which they should probably be seeking some sort of professional medical assistance in overcoming?

Can you people at long last come around to the idea that cowardice, laziness, and obstinate clinging to a delusional fantasy are not characteristics of which any decent, worthwhile, honorable person should be proud—and are CERTAINLY not pillars on which Western civilization can stand for its survival? If not, can you at least somehow search through the fog of your near-impenetrable self-regard to find the decency, honesty, and clarity to tell us how many more of us must be slaughtered like pigs in an abattoir before you will? What price, exactly, are willing to have others pay to prop up your mistaken feelings of moral superiority? What will be the butcher’s bill for liberal guilt? Are you willing to finally tot it up for us? And if not, why not?

If you really want to honor your dead, you man up and do whatever you must to make sure there are a lot fewer of them in the future. You damned sure don’t fall back on making yourself feel better by making a public display of your own supposed virtue in “grieving” for people you never met and will most assuredly have forgotten all about in a couple more weeks or months, when it all happens again and the whole sick-making spectacle repeats itself.

New category inspired by this ignoble rot: “Culture of Cowardice.” Sadly, I should have done it long ago.

(Via Bill)

Update! A further thought on all this: “Love Wins!” ONLY when it’s used as a club against decent people living in a contemporary, tolerant society whose inhabitants by and large don’t think it’s worth it to draw sharp, hard lines around weaklings and fools, who are willing to let them win rather than waste time fighting real wars over nebulous bullshit. In the Real World, amongst the Bad People, not so much. Here, most of us are willing to respond to the Brat Left’s Tantrum Of The Week by shrugging and saying, “To heck with it, let the whiny little snowflakes have their way. It ain’t worth killing them over.”

Until one day, it IS. That day comes when the rest of us realize that weakness, cowardice, and foolishness are getting the rest of us killed along with the fools. Then, watch out. On that day, if it comes, you might REALLY have something to cry about. Which is another thing your mama should have told you about.

Progress of a sort update! The antidote. Well, sorta.

Yes, there is a war between religious fundamentalism and the spirit of love and tolerance. But we progressives here in America still labor under the delusion that the religion we need to combat is Christianity. But that’s a strawman opponent, and has been so for decades. Since the 1990s, Christian extremists have essentially lost all their power, and are now toothless nonplayers in the “culture wars.” Meanwhile, Muslim extremists, with guns, murder us, and on the left our only response is to bleat about “Islamophobia” and jump through hoops trying to explain away the self-evident religious motivation for the killings.

Oh sure, all year I’ve been playing the “Bernie or Hillary?” game with all the other default-Democrats in my social and professional circles. But this is no longer some kind of game. Our lives are on the line. Although I voted for Hillary in the primary, I now cringe inwardly with shame and embarrassment at having done so, and in November I will vote for Trump.

I also now realize, with brutal clarity, that in the progressive hierarchy of identity groups, Muslims are above gays. Every pundit and politician — and that includes President Obama and Hillary Clinton and half the talking heads on TV — who today have said “We don’t know what the shooter’s motivation could possibly be!” have revealed to me their true priorities: appeasing Muslims is more important than defending the lives of gay people. Every progressive who runs interference for Islamic murderers is complicit in those murders, and I can no longer be a part of that team.

I’m just sick of it. Sick of the hypocrisy. Sick of the pandering. Sick of the deception.

And you know what makes me angrier still? The fact that I have to hide my identity and remain anonymous in writing this essay. If I outed myself as a Trump supporter, I would be harassed and doxxed and shunned by everyone I know and by the Twitter lynch mobs which up until yesterday I myself led.

I am ashamed.

Yeah, well, hate to say it, but you damned well oughta be. It took you way too long to realize what some of us have been shouting from the rooftops for years now, at least since 9/11 if not before. But welcome aboard at long last, anyway. Better late than never, and better late than too late for sure.

Share

A reminder

Your pRetend pResident, the guy who swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend this nation and its Constitution, said this:

President Obama, after being warned repeatedly by his advisers about the threat of another terror attack on U.S. soil, said in an interview two months ago that the United States could “absorb” another strike.

The comment was included in the new book by journalist Bob Woodward, “Obama’s Wars,” excerpts of which were reported by The Washington Postand The New York Times.

Despite warnings of another attack, he suggested the United States could weather a new strike.

“We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever…we absorbed it and we are stronger,” Obama reportedly said. 

So, there you go. No big deal, it’s the New Normal. Just suck it up, America, and stay on that Third Rate Power track. “Absorb” it…and the next one, and the next. How do you LGBTetcetc types in Orlando feel about that now, pray tell?

There’s another oath that’s even more meaningful at the moment, taken by the military among others:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…

Note the “domestic” bit, which I helpfully highlighted for you. It’s the gist of Bracken’s great “Enemies” trilogy, and it’s the concept at the root of our current disastrous situation. Washington DC is infested stem to stern with domestic enemies of the Constitution, starting with the miserable cur roosting in the White House who is even now trying to use this entirely preventable attack to advance his contra-Constitutional anti-Second Amendment agenda instead of openly acknowledging the threat, and dealing with it appropriately.

His first priority—his only thought—after an attack like this is to denounce gun owners and their unalienable, Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms: to slander American gun owners who have committed no crime as somehow culpable for our own torment at the hands of Muslim invaders openly dedicated to our destruction. He’s importing a hundred a day of these invaders even now, and he’s going to go right on doing it no matter what we say or do.

He would not even utter the words “Muslim” or “Islam” in the useless twaddle he bleated immediately following the attack. He will send bucketloads of money and DHS agents to secure Mexico’s southern border, while openly mocking calls to re-establish our own, and undermining any effort to do so.

Oh, and did I use the words “entirely preventable” just now? Why yes, I believe I did.

Omar Mateen, a U.S.-born son of Afghan immigrants, was already known to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which twice investigated him over hints of radical leanings before closing those cases as inconclusive.

Federal agents are now trying to piece together how the 29-year-old Mr. Mateen became the gunman police say is responsible for the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.

The night of the Orlando nightclub attack, Mr. Mateen called emergency services and proclaimed allegiance to Islamic State. The FBI is probing the attack as a terrorism act.

Mr. Mateen’s call echoed FBI concerns about him in 2013, “when he made inflammatory remarks to co-workers alleging possible terrorist ties,” said Ronald Hopper, an FBI official in Orlando. The bureau, “thoroughly investigated the matter, including interviews of witnesses, physical surveillance, and records checks,” he said, and “ultimately, we were unable to verify the substance of his comments and the investigation was closed.”

And this is exactly what will go right on happening, for every bit as long as we mulishly and idiotically insist on treating mainstream Islam’s war against the West as strictly a law-enforcement problem.

Mr. Mateen had lived in Florida since childhood after moving from New York, where he was born, officials said. His parents had moved to America from Afghanistan.

He had worked since 2007 for G4S, a private security firm with offices in Jupiter, Fla. Law-enforcement officials said the high casualty count may be due partly to Mr. Mateen’s training in security work and firearms.

On the job, Mr. Mateen earned a reputation as an erratic security guard. One colleague, Daniel J. Gilroy, who worked with him in Port St. Lucie, said Mr. Mateen often used racist and derogatory language when talking about blacks, Hispanics and gays. “It became quite apparent that the guy had anger issues and was very unstable,” Mr. Gilroy said.

“We are shocked and saddened by the tragic event that occurred at the Orlando nightclub,” the security firm, based in the U.K., said in a statement.

Oh, I’m sure. We always are, every single time. I have been writing about this shit for fifteen fucking years now, and it could not be more clear that we have learned absolutely nothing. NOTHING. With every passing day, with every cowardly, mealy-mouthed bleat from our pussified liberal “leaders” in response to each successive Muslim atrocity—with the numbing sameness, the “shock” and “sadness” expressed after each and every one of these things—I become more convinced that we never will.

None so blind as he who will not see.

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