Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Still the same

Who gives a shit?

Since April, 1992, an international peacekeeping or monitoring force of some type has attempted to reduce the mayhem in war-wracked Somalia. Subtract 1992 from 2018: you get 26 years.

Prepare to add more. This week the UN Security Council voted to maintain the UN and African Union Somali peacekeeping operation (African Union Mission in Somalia, AMISOM) through at least 2020.

Troops from Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, Djibouti and Ethiopia man AMISOM and do the brunt of the fighting and security work in southern Somalia. AMISOM soldiers battle Al Shabaab Islamist terrorists, protect the national government in Mogadishu, the capital, and attempt to separate warring Somali clans.

Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti have immediate security interests in Somalia. Al Shabaab has struck Uganda with several terrible terror attacks. It makes sense their troops serve with AMISOM.

American special operations forces also conduct raids, drone attacks and surveillance missions against Al Shabaab.

Why are Americans involved? Al Shabaab has ties to al-Qaida and the Islamic State. In 2006, the group managed to seize Mogadishu. 2006 pre-dates the Islamic State but Al Shabaab envisioned establishing a militant terrorist state. To be succinct, Somalia in 2006, like Afghanistan in 2001, was an anarchic nowhere apocalyptic terrorists could use to launch global attacks.

So create a highly radioactive glass-lined crater where Somalia used to be and call the job done, then. Lather, rinse, repeat with Afghanistan and any other Muslim shithole that even looks like attacking us, until the mere thought of doing such makes them involuntarily wet themselves in terror.

Yeah, I know, ain’t gonna happen. But a fella can dream, can’t he? The truth is, Somalia ain’t worth the cost of a single Blackhawk helicopter, much less the lives of those American soldiers who died in Bill Fucking Clinton’s ill-advised, bumbling, pointless, and costly UN-mandated clusterfuck there. The idea of involving ourselves there again to any more complicated or risky degree than simply nuking the site from orbit makes me very nearly ill with disgust. Somalia is their shithole; they made it what it is. So let them fix it, then…or not, as they may prefer. Whatever.

Share

THAT’S how you do it

Fixing the unfixable.

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

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

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

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

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

Heh. Tell ’em, Daniel.

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

Share

Creative destruction

I started calling him Trump the Disrupter way back when for a reason, you know.

In Chinese eyes, Mr Trump’s response is a form of “creative destruction”. He is systematically destroying the existing institutions — from the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement to Nato and the Iran nuclear deal — as a first step towards renegotiating the world order on terms more favourable to Washington.

My interlocutors say that Mr Trump is the US first president for more than 40 years to bash China on three fronts simultaneously: trade, military and ideology. They describe him as a master tactician, focusing on one issue at a time, and extracting as many concessions as he can. They speak of the skilful way Mr Trump has treated President Xi Jinping. “Look at how he handled North Korea,” one says. “He got Xi Jinping to agree to UN sanctions [half a dozen] times, creating an economic stranglehold on the country. China almost turned North Korea into a sworn enemy of the country.” But they also see him as a strategist, willing to declare a truce in each area when there are no more concessions to be had, and then start again with a new front.

For the Chinese, even Mr Trump’s sycophantic press conference with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, in Helsinki had a strategic purpose. They see it as Henry Kissinger in reverse. In 1972, the US nudged China off the Soviet axis in order to put pressure on its real rival, the Soviet Union. Today Mr Trump is reaching out to Russia in order to isolate China.

In the short term, China is talking tough in response to Mr Trump’s trade assault. At the same time they are trying to develop a multiplayer front against him by reaching out to the EU, Japan and South Korea. But many Chinese experts are quietly calling for a rethink of the longer-term strategy. They want to prepare the ground for a new grand bargain with the US based on Chinese retrenchment. Many feel that Mr Xi has over-reached and worry that it was a mistake simultaneously to antagonise the US economically and militarily in the South China Sea.

That’s from a Financial Times article which, unfortunately, is securely locked up behind a paywall; I saw it mentioned elsewhere several days ago and tried to find a way around to no avail. But Matt Vespa found a way to excerpt it somehow, appending some commentary of his own:

China is one of our biggest geopolitical rivals. Is this a bad course of action? No, but Trump will never be given the credit. Instead, we’ll focus on how he hurt some European leader’s feelings and go into hysterics over that, among 10,000 other tiny, irrelevant things he does because that’s how our anti-Trump news media is as of late. But across the vast gulf of the Pacific, our enemies, rivals, competitors, or whatever you want to call them, have a much higher opinion of Trump’s intelligence and capability as a leader. They view him as an effective tactician. They view him as a threat, not based on his tweets, but in what he’s reportedly trying to do. How Trump can accomplish this long-term goal would require swamp draining for sure, but it also shows that Democrats, so blinded by hate, are missing one helluva show that could be in production in East Asia.

It’s clear by now that what Trump intends is a reworking of the post-WW2 world order, which is long outdated and badly in need of modification with American interests in mind. He’s bypassed the shriekers entirely; while they’re all busy accusing him of being a stupid, incompetent fool, he’s running rings around their dumb asses to enjoy success after success. It is indeed a hell of a show, to say the very least.

Share

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

No taming ’em.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Brechtian nightmare

Dissolving the people, and electing another.

These stories are the more obvious signs of the dissolution of the people: One of the livelier members of the new people is affronted by an obvious provocation – a satirical magazine, a Jewish school, a pop concert, a swingers’ club; it’s an ever longer list… But we think we know how to handle that: increase the budget of the security services, more surveillance, more databases, more manpower swooping down in the nick of time…

But, in between such stories, the softer, slyer, suppler dissolution continues unseen and largely unreported. My sometime editor Mary Wakefield has an interesting if rather agonized column about how the dwindling numbers of non-Muslim pupils in certain English schools can’t seem to make any Muslim friends:

Quite by coincidence and on separate occasions, in the past month I’ve met two (non-Muslim) women whose children have had trouble at Muslim-dominated state schools. The kids made friends easily in their first term, said the mothers, but as the months went by it became harder to stay pals. Their schoolmates never invited them home, nor would they come round for playdates or parties. The friendships faded away and the kids were left confused. One of the two mothers I met had decided to move house: new catchment area, new start. She felt guilty, she told me, because she’d been keen her son have friends of all faiths. But he was one of only two non-Muslim boys in his class, and he was lonely.

So there’s now only one non-Muslim boy, who presumably feels even lonelier. Although I’d wager he’ll go too – and, to invert Rupert Brooke, there’s yet another corner of an English field that is forever foreign.

What remains now of “Christian civilization” in England? Or of “our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions” – such as, say, Church of England primary schools in which all but two boys are Muslim. There are many communities “far beyond the oceans…built up on our laws and on our civilization”, but in the ancient Motherland Bertolt Brecht’s words seem more pertinent than Churchill’s.

And which men in a new Britain will still say “This was their finest hour”?

As Brecht so stingingly quipped of the East Germans, British subjects have forfeited the confidence of the government. Now they’ve indeed been replaced, turning Churchill’s wistful speculation on the Empire and the Commonwealth lasting “a thousand years” into a sad joke. Winston was right, though: it WAS Britain’s finest hour— one they’ll never again come anywhere near equalling.

Share

Desaparicido

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Also incompatible

Speaking of which, and at the risk once more of sounding like a broken record.

Sharia law and the caliphate are institutions that most Muslims feel an obligation to accept as expressions of Allah’s will. The global imposition of sharia law and the caliphate are not distortions of true Islam; they are mainstream ideals that the religion expects all believers to pursue. Many Muslims secretly admire the jihadists whose personal commitment to establishing sharia under a caliph is glorified by Islam.

The problem for the West is that Muslims view sharia law as the word of Allah, an absolute and uncompromising truth that can never be modified. What makes the problem intractable is that Muslims accept the superiority of sharia law based on its foundation in faith rather than reason. Not only do Muslims believe that law must come from Allah, but they reject out of hand the possibility that the existing laws of sharia can evolve as societal conditions change or that any new legal principle can be entertained if it relies on mere reason.

Compounding the problem for the West is the fact that Muslims believe in the caliphate, an absolutist form of governance in which a single individual exercises authority in the name of Allah – comparable to, but even more absolutist than, the old idea of “divine right of kings.” The caliphate is even more absolutist because Muslims know that there can be only one caliph.

There is, in short, an unbridgeable gulf between Islam and the West, a difference founded in principles and therefore a difference that brooks no compromise. Islam and the West are irreconcilable.   

Now, it is NOT true that no Moslem can live peaceably among us in Western Civ; there are many who do, actually. It’s just that they have to reject certain core Islamic beliefs specifically spelled out in the Koran. They therefore, pretty much by definition, must become what true-believing Moslems would label apostates, the penalty for which is death.

If you’re a Moslem, you can’t be a moderate; if you’re a moderate, you aren’t really a Moslem. The truly tragic thing is that, contrary to the calls from ill- or mis-informed Western pundits for a Moslem “reformation,” they already had it. Its primary mover and shaker was the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and…well, we all already know how it went.

Share

The hits just keep on coming

Another stunning win for President Trump.

Surreal scenes capped off the historic meeting between Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in today as they held hands and listened to Korean pop music during a lavish farewell ceremony.

Kim became the first North Korean leader to step into the South for 65 years as he and President Moon vowed ‘there will be no more war’ and agreed to ‘complete denuclearisation’.

The two sworn enemies exchanged a warm greeting at the 38th parallel in the truce village of Panmunjom before the pair held talks and planted a commemorative tree together. The dramatic meeting has been seen as a precursor to  planned talks between Kim and US President Donald Trump next month.

Yes, yes, I know: it could be some kind of ruse or trick, Kim is not to be trusted, this sort of thing has happened before only to come to nothing in the end, and etc.

Except: no, this has NOT happened before. Not like this, with the NK dictator actually stepping foot on SK soil, treating with SK’s president in an amicable and respectful manner, pledging to end the war, and agreeing explicitly to “complete denuclearization.”

Wherever it all goes from here, there can be no doubt whatever that it was Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy that made it happen. Whodathunkit: a hardnosed approach to dealing with bellicose, aggressive adversaries actually yields better results than rolling over, showing your flabby yellow belly, and trying to bribe them into the light of reason.

Gee, wonder how all the hysterical surrender-monkeys—so recently weeping over how Trump’s “dangerous, provocative rhetoric” and “threats” against Little Rocket Man were sure to drive him to unleash nuclear hell on Hawaii or LA in response—are going to cope with this most welcome development? I don’t wonder IF they’re going to find a way to complain about and/or belittle Trump’s achievement; that, after all, is a given. I just wonder HOW they might try to go about it, without making themselves look once more like the pusillanimous, ass-backwards clowns they are.

Pelosi for one is probably speechless with worry and rage right about now, if she isn’t crouched in a corner gibbering to herself like Renfield in the rubber room—skull swiveling to and fro on its giblet neck, mad eyes darting wildly, swatting at imaginary insects with those skeletal claws of hers. One can only imagine the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth in Libmedia lairs everywhere once the news broke. Scads of State Department hacks were probably contemplating lying down in the tub and opening a vein.

This is another addition to a lengthening list of serious reversals for the Left and the Democrat Socialists, highlighting one of my cardinal rules: anything that damages them bodes quite well indeed for the American people and the world. And it’s all down to Trump: his willingness to buck conventional wisdom and established procedure, his insouciant refusal to humbly tug the forelock in deference to the supposed wisdom and experience of “experts” who somehow never accomplish a damned thing. His real genius is his reliance on simple, timeless common sense, one of whose dictums is that it is infinitely preferable to deal from a position of strength, with confidence and resolve. Vox gets right down to it:

This is a staggering development of the sort we have not seen since 1989. I expect the Nobel committee will give the award to Kim and Moon, of course, but the world knows who really deserves it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Donald Trump is already one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States of America.

Pretty much, yeah. Just like I said he could very well end up being right from the start, as yu may recall. For a clueless moron whose administration flounders about in perpetual chaos—a reckless, unqualified, and actually dangerous amateur wholly unfit to be President—Trump sure seems to be getting a lot of worthwhile things done.

Update! From Diplomad, decidedly NOT one of those State Department hacks I derided above:

President Trump played Kim like Perlman plays a violin. Trump quickly got the measure of the dictator and checked him at every move, despite the pearl-clutching and couch-fainting in the West. Kim launched rockets; Trump labelled him “Rocket man” and ridiculed his pretensions. Kim bragged about his nuclear button, Trump fired back that his was much bigger and, unlike Kim’s, it was guaranteed to work. SecDef Mattis, in his low-key USMC way, reminded the world that, if need be, we have a military solution to the Korean problem. The US Navy closed in on the peninsula and the USAF deployed bombers. US-ROK military exercises went ahead. Trump went to the Chinese and drove home their responsibility for keeping Kim under control and, not so subtly, asked the Chinese whether their relations with the US were less important than their relations with Kim. Kim got the message; met with the CIA Director; has agreed to a one-on-one with Trump. We have now the first real opportunity since 1953 to turn the page on the Korean War. Things can, of course, go wrong, but they seem to be going quite right.

Trump gets the credit.

As the old TV ad said, he got it the old-fashioned way: he EARNED it.

Share

Culture war

It’s ON in Bavaria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Progress, if you like it

So I was clearing out the ol’ email inbox and ran across this item, sent to me by Monty back in…um, uhh, a while back. Don’t know how I let it get by me without a mention here back then, but consider that shameful lapse rectified.

German Muslims have established a self-styled biker gang — modeled on the Hells Angels — aimed at protecting fellow Muslims from the “ever-growing hatred of Islam,” according to Die Welt.

The emergence of the group, which aspires to open chapters in cities and towns across Germany, has alarmed German authorities, who have warned against the growing threat of vigilantism in the country.

The gang, which calls itself “Germanys Muslims” (the possessive apostrophe is not used in German), is based in Mönchengladbach and now has offshoots in Münster and Stuttgart. It was founded by Marcel Kunst, a German convert to Islam who also uses the name Mahmud Salam.

The gang’s uniform consists of a black leather jacket with a logo depicting a one-fingered salute, the “Finger of Tawheed,” which represents belief in the oneness of Allah.

Well, fine, I guess. But WHICH finger?

The logo also includes the number 1438, which represents the current year in the Muslim calendar, as well as the number 713, which stands for GM (Germanys Muslims), the seventh and thirteenth letters of the alphabet.

A bit of a departure from the old “13-69” patch that’s traditionally adorned so many club cuts over the decades—I probably have one of those same patches laying around here someplace myself—but what the hell. Legend has it that the “13” stands for the letter “M,” 13th in the alphabet, which in turn stands for “marijuana.” The “69” you can figure out for yourselves.

Oh, and as for that “apostrophe not used in German” business: it ain’t used in the HA logo either, a fact a lot of people who make it their business to write about them seem to be unaware of. Interesting to note that they got it right here. Punctuation aside, though, the most interesting aspect of all is just how long it’s going to be before the name gets changed from “Germanys Muslims” to “Muslims’ Germany.”

Share

Looking for love logic in all the wrong places

Ace commits an error very common on our side:

Other people have pointed this out, but Trump is saying: We should pick immigrants according to our needs.

The left is fighting this claiming that it is immoral to think about ourselves; we must think only of the immigrants’ plight.

But why are they in a “plight” at all? What would be immoral about just leaving them where they are now?

Because, of course, they live in shitholes. That’s what the left puts forth to change this argument from one of rational self-interest (pick immigrants and number of immigrants according to our own changing needs) to one of absolute moral imperative — we must let them in because to leave them in their current countries would be cruel and inhuman.

There’s only one kind of place it would be cruel to leave someone — that’s right, a shithole.

So they can choose between screaming that we are morally obligated to lift immigrants out of their shitholes, or they can scream that it’s a travesty to call these countries shitholes, but they can’t do both.

But of course they can. They do it all the time, in fact, on just about every issue you can name. It’s been a source of half-annoyed amusement for me for a good long while now: the Left seemingly paints itself into another corner, and then some Righty blogger, columnist, or TeeWee talker crows in triumph that “they can’t POSSIBLY…” or “they wouldn’t DARE…” say or do this or that…

And then they go right ahead and do it anyway. And get away with it, too, except for whatever momentary pause our Charlie Browns out there kicking furiously at that football again and again might give them. Which is to say: none at all.

The mistake at the heart of the assertion that the Left “can’t POSSIBLY” do anything they wish is based on a fallacy: that logic, rationality, integrity, fairness, evidence, and even facts themselves matter to Progtards in even the smallest degree. It has been made bounteously clear a million times over that they do not. Not when there’s an argument to be won or a dissenter to be silenced or run over roughshod, they don’t.

The Left does not debate in good faith. Not ever, not about anything. There’s no real harm in making the case for that truth, I reckon, and in some ways it’s even a good and necessary thing. But nobody should be saying “they can’t…” with any serious expectation that it will inspire some serious reflection on their internal contradictions among them, much less stop them from doing whatever they may wish. I’m sure Ace knows that, and uses that statement not out of a shocked revulsion at their dishonesty and lack of honor, but as a reinforcement of the very notion of integrity in debate. Like I said: nothing wrong with that. And in similar vein, I’ll present this:

Three weeks after college, I flew to Senegal, West Africa, to run a community center in a rural town. Life was placid, with no danger, except to your health. That danger was considerable, because it was, in the words of the Peace Corps doctor, “a fecalized environment.”

In plain English: s— is everywhere. People defecate on the open ground, and the feces is blown with the dust – onto you, your clothes, your food, the water. He warned us the first day of training: do not even touch water. Human feces carries parasites that bore through your skin and cause organ failure.

Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that a few decades later, liberals would be pushing the lie that Western civilization is no better than a third-world country. Or would teach two generations of our kids that loving your own culture and wanting to preserve it are racism.

Senegal was not a hellhole. Very poor people can lead happy, meaningful lives in their own cultures’ terms. But they are not our terms. The excrement is the least of it. Our basic ideas of human relations, right and wrong, are incompatible.

I couldn’t wait to get home. So why would I want to bring Africa here? Non-Westerners do not magically become American by arriving on our shores with a visa.

For the rest of my life, I enjoyed the greatest gift of the Peace Corps: I love and treasure America more than ever. I take seriously my responsibility to defend our culture and our country and pass on the American heritage to the next generation.

African problems are made worse by our aid efforts. Senegal is full of smart, capable people. They will eventually solve their own country’s problems. They will do it on their terms, not ours. The solution is not to bring Africans here.

Actually, I do disagree with one thing here: after uncounted millennia of these “smart, capable people” in Senegal and other places NOT “solving their country’s problems,” I can see no reason to assume they ever will. I’ve read several Righty columns and posts the last few days on Trump’s “shithole” truism, with almost all of their authors hastening to declare that the problems of shitholes like Haiti, Somalia, and others are “not the fault of their people.” They do this either in obeisance to liberal pieties, or in order to deflect the cries of “RACIST!” that will surely follow any contravention of them.

Which timid delicacy STILL doesn’t render those pieties true or accurate (it won’t safeguard the writers from shrieks of “RACISM!™” either, but that’s another topic). After literally eons of failure, squalor, and general lack of civilizational progress in these squalid places—with every form of governance ever conceived of having been attempted there, the only one yielding any success at all being colonial rule by more enlightened European nations—the inescapable conclusion is that, yes, these shitholes are what they are PRECISELY BECAUSE OF their primitive, mostly ineducable, un-upliftable, savage inhabitants. Naturally, there are exceptions, as Karin herself points out. All facts, history, and numbers considered, they would be of the kind that prove the rule. Goad examines but a handful of the inconvenient truths:

In terms of life expectancy, Norway leads the pack at 81.8 years. Then comes the USA (79.3), with a sudden drop to 63.5 years for Haitians and a mere 55.0 years for Somalians.

Norway also wins the blue ribbon when it comes to per-capita income, which is a staggering 38 times that of Haitians and 173 times that of Somalians.

The noble Norsemen also win when it comes to their nation’s mean IQ, which is 100 compared to the USA’s 98. Somalia (68) and Haiti (67) both suffer a mean IQ that is below the commonly accepted cutoff line for “retarded.”

The only category where the USA comes out on top is the percentage of the population with access to improved sanitation facilities—one index claims that 100% of Americans can find a functional toilet if they try. Next comes Norway at 98.1%. Haiti (27.6%) and Somalia (23.5%) are far, far worse.  According to Wikipedia, “Sewer systems and wastewater treatment are nonexistent” in Haiti, which would mean the country is a literal shithole.

Prediction: Not a single loudmouthed virtue-signaler who’s publicly wetting themselves about Trump’s alleged comments will ever move to Haiti or Somalia.

That, too, is true, and telling. If you think it’s all “racist” anyway, well, my heart just breaks over your anguish there, kid. But reality is what it is, and speaks for itself…just like Trump’s open acknowledgement of these shitholes’ nature—and the desirability and likely negative impact on our own country of importing them—does.

Be sure to read all of it; her conclusion is bang-on, and well-stated. Hats off to her as well for having courage enough to confront some ugly truth head on, and to allow her views to be informed and shaped by it rather than clinging to what I would guess was the standard starry-eyed “we’re all the same” liberal balderdash she would have been infected with in college. As one of Vox’s commenters puts it: “What’s the difference between a missionary and (a) racist? Two weeks.” We can file that worthy observation for future use right alongside the great old classic, “a liberal is a conservative who’s been mugged,” I think.

Share

Last call for everything

Steyn notes a pathetic passing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

New day dawning?

I dunno, call me cynical, if you will—jaded by the starry-eyed, hopeful foofaraw over the stillborn (murdered in the crib, more like, whatever fraction of it was ever going to yield positive results to start with) “Arab Spring,” which I’m proud to say I never bought into for a second. But methinks Walsh is being a little, shall we say, excessively optimistic here.

The end is near for the mullahs of Iran, which is bad news for the Islamic Republic of Iran, but good news for the Persian people, who have a chance to free themselves of the baleful effects of the Arab conquest and — finally — join the community of Western nations by casting off its imposed Islamic theocracy and, it is to be hoped, Islam itself.

Okay, it ain’t just me then. He is DEFINITELY going overboard with the optimism. Mike, I love ya and all, I really do. But that’s one hell of a lot to hope for there buddy, don’tchathink?

Continue reading “New day dawning?”

Share

Diversity Bollards

I’m sure we’re all BAFFLED as to motive.

So there will be more empty seats round the Christmas table this year, after an “Australian citizen” mowed down pedestrians at the junction of Flinders Street and Elizabeth Street in Melbourne. The casualties include “a pre-schooler with serious head injuries”. The “Australian citizen” (I presume this designation is being used to emphasize that he’s entirely eligible to serve in Mr Turnbull’s cabinet) did it deliberately, but relax, lighten up, there’s no need to worry because, according to Victoria’s police commissioner, all this terrifying terror is “not terror-related”.

You’ll recall there was a previous “vehicle attack” in downtown Melbourne earlier this year, after which the authorities ordered up the bollardization of every pedestrianized precinct in the vicinity. As Andrew Bolt writes:

All the bollards put up after six people were killed in Bourke St Mall in January have not stopped this.

After the Halloween jihadist killed eight people on a bike path in Lower Manhattan, New York’s bollardizers commanded similarly extravagant installation of Diversity Bollards up and down the city.

Alternatively, instead of attempting to ring-fence every potential target – ie, everything and everyone – with Diversity Bollards, we could try installing bollards where they matter – around the civilized world.

Better yet, around the Muslim world instead. Failing that, Trump’s Big Beautiful Wall ought to suffice.

But the second part of Steyn’s post is where things really go careening around the bend into full-on bughouse insanity.

Speaking of non-terror-related Muslims, there’s a hot new hashtag trending in Britain called #AVeryMerryMuslimChristmas. This derives from the title of a new report by Westminster’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims. “A Very Merry Muslim Christmas” purports to demonstrate that almost all Christian charity in fact comes from Muslims:

What we hear even less about is the ‘Muslim Merry Christmas’. The soup kitchens, the food banks, the Christmas dinners, the New Year clean up – work Muslim charities will be busy doing during the Christmas period.

Yeah, you Islamophobes thought that the “Muslim Merry Christmas” consisted of shooting up churches in Egypt and Pakistan, and mowing down shoppers in Berlin markets and Melbourne intersections, and self-detonating at Port Authority Bus Terminal. But you’ve got it all wrong: Allah is the reason for the season. Without him, this whole Christmas thing would be a total bust.

And that right there is why the West can’t have nice things—or a peaceable existence free of monthly Muzz-rat terror attacks in our own damned countries. Read on, though, because as incredible as it seems, it gets worse. The picture Steyn posts of St Paul’s cathedral in Melbourne is nothing short of sickening.

Share

Demographic doomsday

Okay, I found this somewhat bleakly comical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Under siege

One will win, and the other…will lose.

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

Gee, wonder which students THOSE would be.

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

Imagine my surprise.

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

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

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

As it damned well ought to be.

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

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

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

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

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

(Via Insty)

Share

The Great Treason

Liberalism delenda est.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, change nothing; do nothing.

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

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

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

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

Share

Fool Kill me once…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

“The Uber of Islamic terrorism”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

“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

Imagine there’s no Heaven

It’s easy if you try. And it will cost you in the long run.

Belief systems describe a people. The ancient Egyptians had a highly complex belief system like many ancient people. Their religion, however, was unique in that it was entirely focused on the afterlife. They did not make sacrifices and pray for the here and now. They built monuments, complex burial systems and temples in order to prepare the living for the after life. There is a good argument that this focus on the after life is what allowed the Egyptians to keep their culture going for 3,000 years.

On the other hand, the Greeks were not very concerned about the after life. Their focus was on the here and now. The gods interfered in the lives of men, so it made sense to focus devotion on swaying the gods to act on your behalf or against the interests of your enemies. The Greeks did have the concept of an afterlife, but it was not the focus of their belief system. Immortality for man was possible by having sons, who would carry his name, or dying for his polis, which would live on and remember his name.

The Greeks may have been more concerned with the present, when it came time to worshipping the gods, but they had a nice long run, roughly 1000 years. It was not as if they were hedonists, living only in the moment. Even so, this focus on the now had some odd results. For instance, we know just about every Egyptian ruler and his deeds. We even have some of their corpses. The Dorian Greeks, on the other hand, burned their kings, as well as any record of them. We know nothing about them as a result.

This brings up an important point about our present age. The cult of Gaia, for example, is long on rhetoric about the future, but its focus is on present virtue. The greens are not trying preserve the environment for future generations. They are hoping their efforts snuff out future generations. The same is true of anti-racism and multiculturalism. These are all about the present. Calling them suicide cults is useful rhetoric, but in fact our virtuous rulers don’t think past tomorrow. it’s all about grace today.

This is particularly true with regards to migration. Nationalists like to cook up complex theories as to why our rulers are wedded to the idea of mass immigration. Some say it is cheap labor. Other say it is cheap votes. Still others see it as spite. All of those things are true, but the real motivation is virtue. Instead of a public ceremony where they sacrifice a bull or consecrate a church, inviting in the poor and downtrodden is the big public act of virtue. The consequences are down the road. The grace is today.

It’s not just vanity. We are the first people to have no conception of an afterlife. Even the Greeks believed in the after life and they believed there was judgement of souls. They may not have made that the focus of their faith, but they still believed there was something beyond this life. This spiritual hopelessness of Western elites may be why the Cloud People couch everything in terms of personal fulfillment and self-actualization. It is a way of crossing the River Styx without actually believing in it.

The nuttiness of modern elite culture may simply be a neurosis arising from the conflict between the natural, bone deep desire of man to be remembered, colliding with the lack of any reason to be remembered. Even the humblest of men will carve his name into a tree or scratch his name on his prison wall. “I was here” is the primal scream. Today, that impulse has no cultural vessel into which it can flow. The lonely barren spinster yells “I was here” and the only thing that happens is the cat stirs and then goes back to sleep.

Personally, I think the Progressivist need to sanctify their every least impulse to adolescent rebellion and self-indulgence is at the heart of it. Neurosis it surely is, but nobody could call it minor except in the purely personal sense, given the destructive effect it’s had on an entire culture.

Share

Unexpurgated history

Gavin McInnes gets himself a schooling.

Dunkirk starkly portrays the nearly 400,000 British soldiers who were rescued from this coastal French town when the Nazis cornered them on the beaches. It happened in the spring of 1940 and was a major turning point in the war. The Nazis saw it as a victory because they sent England running and the Brits saw it as a victory because they saved hundreds of thousands of men and enabled them to fight another day. In the Time/Life special-edition magazine Dunkirk: One Rescue, Nine Days, 340,000 Lives Saved, they argue that Britain was only able to escape because Hitler blundered and gave the Nazis a three-day break shortly before the evacuation. I don’t think it was a blunder. I believe Hitler allowed the Brits to escape because he saw Churchill as a potential ally at the beginning of the war and hoped they could fight together.

All this is covered beautifully, of course, in Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire. Here we learn of Germany’s affinity with the U.K. (I had no idea the Kaiser was Queen Victoria’s grandson). The book argues that Churchill should have continued England’s “splendid isolation” and let Germany have its way with Europe. The whole thing would have taken a few months and we wouldn’t have had the Holocaust or countless other atrocities. We lost a good 60 million people in that war and most of them starved to death. Worse, Buchanan points out, the war led to the end of Western dominance and begat the proliferation of Leninism, Stalinism, and the oppressive communist ideologies that still plague us today. We may have defeated the Nazis, but using our bravest and brightest left us ill-equipped to handle their ideology. Dinesh D’Souza released The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left this week, in which he makes the claim that the far left are not similar to Nazis—they are Nazis. Where Hillary’s America proved the DNC has no right to use the race card, his new book shows the left has no right to employ the Nazi card, either.

This is what I was hoping my Puerto Rican neighbor and everyone else would glean from the film. We didn’t steal our wealth and privilege from the poor. We had civil war after civil war and eventually figured out the best way to maximize personal freedom. More important, just as Churchill’s hubris enabled communism to flourish after WWII, we are letting the same kind of fascism flourish today. Only, today it’s not just leftist fascism, it’s Islam. The left’s ethnomasochistic war on history has created a vacuum that Sharia is happy to fill. To throw bacon on a mosque is a death sentence in today’s England, but Muslims can rape children with reckless abandon. This happens because of shame. Shame happens because we trivialize our own achievements and assume we don’t deserve what we have. We must have stolen it. We need to be punished.

You could call it a weird societal version of Stockholm Syndrome, maybe.

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

Trump rocks Poland!

Forgive my gloating, but it’s working out just as I said all along: Trump is on track to go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents.

President Trump’s speech in Warsaw was a remarkable statement from a western leader in the 21st century – which is why the enforcers of our public discourse have gone bananas over it and denounced it as “blood and soil” “nativism” (The New Republic), “racial and religious paranoia” (The Atlantic), and “tinpot dictator sh*t” (some comedian having a meltdown on Twitter). Much of the speech was just the usual boosterish boilerplate that one foreign leader sloughs off while visiting the capital of another. But that wasn’t what caused the mass pearl-clutching. This was the offending passage:

There is nothing like our community of nations. The world has never known anything like our community of nations.

We write symphonies. We pursue innovation. We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers.

We reward brilliance. We strive for excellence, and cherish inspiring works of art that honor God. We treasure the rule of law and protect the right to free speech and free expression.

We empower women as pillars of our society and of our success. We put faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, at the center of our lives. And we debate everything. We challenge everything. We seek to know everything so that we can better know ourselves.

And above all, we value the dignity of every human life, protect the rights of every person, and share the hope of every soul to live in freedom. That is who we are. Those are the priceless ties that bind us together as nations, as allies, and as a civilization.

I’m not certain we do put “faith and family” ahead of “government and bureaucracy”, not in Germany or even Ireland, but we did once upon a time. Nor am I sure we still “write symphonies”, or at any rate good ones. But Trump’s right: “The world has never known anything like our community of nations” – and great symphonies are a part of that. I’m not sure what’s “nativist” or “racial” about such a statement of the obvious, but I note it’s confirmed by the traffic, which is all one way: There are plenty of Somalis who’ve moved to Minnesota, but you can count on one hand Minnesotans who’ve moved to Somalia. As an old-school imperialist, I make exceptions for sundry places from Barbados to Singapore, which I regard as part of the community of the greater west, and for India, which is somewhat more ambiguously so, but let’s face it, 90 per cent of everything in the country that works derives from England.

As Steyn says, our beloved God-Emperor knocked it right out of the damned park with this one. But there’s a caveat:

As I said, a remarkable speech. Of course, at the press conference afterwards, the A-list hacks, like CNN’s drama queen Jim Acosta, were all obsessed with the “Russia investigation”, but in fairness The New York Times at least reported the story under the headline “Trump, in Poland, Asks if West Has the ‘Will to Survive'”.

That’s the question – the one that matters. Angela Merkel won’t ask it, nor M Macron or Mrs May or M Trudeau. But Donald Trump did – and then answered it…

I am nowhere near as confident of that answer. But he raised the question at a time when no other western leader will. It is a measure of our decay and decadence that the question is necessary, but in an age of cultural relativism a statement of the obvious is daring and courageous: Ours is the civilization that built the modern world – as even the west’s cultural relativists implicitly accept, if only because they have no desire to emigrate and try to make a living as a cultural relativist in Yemen or Niger. We built it, and, if we do not maintain it, and defend it, then, as Donald Trump says, it will never come again.

Even as purblind and prissy a NeverTrumpTard as Rod Dreher perceives it, if only through a glass, darkly:

I’m sorry, duckies, but how is this all that controversial? An American president, standing in the capital of a nation that suffered in the last century the domination of two tyrannies — Nazi and Communist — that tried to eradicate its culture, a nation whose Catholic faith kept its spirit alive and led to its rebirth — proclaims that there are things unique and valuable about Western civilization, and that we should remember those things, affirm them, and defend them.

The shocking thing here is that this is controversial at all. It shows how decadent we have become.

“We”? Say rather: Western “liberals.” They, not we, are the ones who, brainwashed from childhood to hold Western Civ in contempt, can’t seem to comprehend that the Western values they despise and denigrate are the foundation upon which their privileged lives depend. Without the protection of the defensive wall built around them by Western culture behind which they cower, bluster, and threaten, they would find their lives to be very nasty, very brutish, and very short indeed.

Yes, that last would be an adaptation of a quote from another one of those Western thinkers they so abhor, hilariously enough.

At any rate, as Steyn says, those values are NOT universal. Nor are they eternal or somehow magically immutable; they’re transferable down the generations only for so long as we will them to be. Without continuous vigorous defense, they will assuredly be destroyed and lost. Make no mistake: “defense” means against enemies both external AND internal—”enemies foreign and domestic,” as some other great Western thinkers now despised by those domestic enemies once said.

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

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