Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

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

Lies, damned lies, and…

This horseshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other prominent Americans at the time also disparaged Islam.

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

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

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

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

And speaking of insidious lies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Foolish inconsistencies

The hobgoblin of dhimmi minds.

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

Oh, my.

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

Hamas Executes Prominent Commander After Accusations Of Gay Sex

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

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

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

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

Thirteen years ago in The Spectator I wrote the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Division

There is a great divide, all right.

You non-experts might think this a fairly crude sleight of hand – that concerns about “division” is a not so subtle way of suggesting that the real problem isn’t guys like Salman Abedi waiting with his nail bomb at the exit to the pop concert, but divisive types like you querying whether it’s prudent to keep importing more and more Islam into the western world. Well, screw you: if you disagree that the real danger here is the sowing of division, you’re just sowing even more division.

Pace The Toronto Star, I’m not sure it is “stating the obvious” to say that Monday’s attack was meant to “sow division”. What’s going on in Britain and Europe occurs because division has already been sown. It was sown by a careless political class that insisted there could be no questioning of a reckless demographic experiment. It is being reaped, as the division-sowing pop star Morrissey has divisively noted, by the political class’ hapless citizenry.

Britain is “divided”, perhaps fatally. It’s not so much the comparatively small numbers of suicide bombers, or even the support group of family and friends – the dad who works at the mosque pending his return to the battlefield, the sister who congratulates him on entering Paradise, the sister’s schoolmates who drop out to be become brides of Isis, the bomb-maker who lives down the street, the other friends and family who turn a blind eye to it all. Beyond all that is the larger comfort zone of “British” Muslims who support the ultimate goal of Salman Abedi – an Islamic state where once was England – and for the most part live their daily lives as if it’s already here. “Britain” has no purchase on them, and its “values” command no allegiance – even though, lest they give offense, non-divisive officials are careful never to spell out precisely what those “values” are”. Easier to chant the approved abstractions, and warn against the non-approved ones: Diversity good, division bad.

But in Britain and Europe they sowed diversity and reaped division. Tthe ever widening division was sown by Mrs May and M Juncker and Frau Merkel and all the others who insist on importing more Abedis and more of those who turn a blind eye to the Abedis, day by day, year on year. Only when that ends can there be even the possibility of healing the division.

I still maintain that at least as important is the division between those of us who appreciate and are grateful for our precious Western cultural inheritance and the Progressivists who loathe and despise it, and wish to see it not defended but brought low—so much so that they’re willing to make common cause with primordial Muslim savages who will happily slaughter every last transgendered feminist gay libertine among them the moment the opportunity presents itself. Thus I repeat: until we defeat the Left, we can’t even begin to hope to eliminate the threat posed by the jihadists.

It’s Steyn, so of course you’ll want to read it all. Oh, and the Morrissey post Mark mentions is damned brilliant; I had intended mentioning it before now, but I’ve spent the last few days trying to install a washer connection and wire up a dryer while replacing a couple of fuel injectors in the car, so I didn’t get to it. Here ya go, and bless his heart; I was never a fan of Morrissey’s music, honestly, but an acquaintance of mine is his guitarist, and he’s a hell of a rockabilly player in his own right, and so all things considered I am willing to reconsider my previous position.

Ahem. How’s that for wandering far afield in a single paragraph, eh? Maybe next year Doug can include a category for Best Digression in the Blog Awards.

Share

Division

There is a great divide, all right.

You non-experts might think this a fairly crude sleight of hand – that concerns about “division” is a not so subtle way of suggesting that the real problem isn’t guys like Salman Abedi waiting with his nail bomb at the exit to the pop concert, but divisive types like you querying whether it’s prudent to keep importing more and more Islam into the western world. Well, screw you: if you disagree that the real danger here is the sowing of division, you’re just sowing even more division.

Pace The Toronto Star, I’m not sure it is “stating the obvious” to say that Monday’s attack was meant to “sow division”. What’s going on in Britain and Europe occurs because division has already been sown. It was sown by a careless political class that insisted there could be no questioning of a reckless demographic experiment. It is being reaped, as the division-sowing pop star Morrissey has divisively noted, by the political class’ hapless citizenry.

Britain is “divided”, perhaps fatally. It’s not so much the comparatively small numbers of suicide bombers, or even the support group of family and friends – the dad who works at the mosque pending his return to the battlefield, the sister who congratulates him on entering Paradise, the sister’s schoolmates who drop out to be become brides of Isis, the bomb-maker who lives down the street, the other friends and family who turn a blind eye to it all. Beyond all that is the larger comfort zone of “British” Muslims who support the ultimate goal of Salman Abedi – an Islamic state where once was England – and for the most part live their daily lives as if it’s already here. “Britain” has no purchase on them, and its “values” command no allegiance – even though, lest they give offense, non-divisive officials are careful never to spell out precisely what those “values” are”. Easier to chant the approved abstractions, and warn against the non-approved ones: Diversity good, division bad.

But in Britain and Europe they sowed diversity and reaped division. Tthe ever widening division was sown by Mrs May and M Juncker and Frau Merkel and all the others who insist on importing more Abedis and more of those who turn a blind eye to the Abedis, day by day, year on year. Only when that ends can there be even the possibility of healing the division.

I still maintain that at least as important is the division between those of us who appreciate and are grateful for our precious Western cultural inheritance and the Progressivists who loathe and despise it, and wish to see it not defended but brought low—so much so that they’re willing to make common cause with primordial Muslim savages who will happily slaughter every last transgendered feminist gay libertine among them the moment the opportunity presents itself. Thus I repeat: until we defeat the Left, we can’t even begin to hope to eliminate the threat posed by the jihadists.

It’s Steyn, so of course you’ll want to read it all. Oh, and the Morrissey post Mark mentions is damned brilliant; I had intended mentioning it before now, but I’ve spent the last few days trying to install a washer connection and wire up a dryer while replacing a couple of fuel injectors in the car, so I didn’t get to it. Here ya go, and bless his heart; I was never a fan of Morrissey’s music, honestly, but an acquaintance of mine is his guitarist, and he’s a hell of a rockabilly player in his own right, and so all things considered I am willing to reconsider my previous position.

Ahem. How’s that for wandering far afield in a single paragraph, eh? Maybe next year Doug can include a category for Best Digression in the Blog Awards.

Share

NOW you’re getting it

Do try and keep up, willya?

Washington (CNN)On Sunday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel uttered a single sentence that speaks to how fundamentally President Donald Trump has reshaped — and will continue to reshape — the world, and America’s place in it.

“The times when we could completely rely on others are, to an extent, over,” Merkel said at a beer hall(!) rally to support her campaign.

While Merkel made no mention of Trump specifically, she made clear that her realization had come “in the last few days” — a time period which overlapped with a G7 meeting in which Trump blasted America’s traditional European allies over NATO obligations and made clear that he was more than willing to go it alone on climate change and trade.

What Trump’s words — and Merkel’s reaction — reveal is something that sharp foreign policy minds have known since the start of Trump’s campaign: His true potential for drastic change exists in the foreign policy sphere.

Trump was right all along about NATO: it is an outdated alliance whose primary mission was rendered moot by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The European allies have long relied on us to foot the bill for their grand experiment in Nouveau Socialism by carrying the cost of their defense. But the old circumstances no longer apply. The Fulda Gap should no longer be the main cause of European concern; the Persian Gulf is where the real trouble lies.

Don’t kid yourself that Comrade Merkel is stoutly proposing that Germany (and Europe) get up on its hind legs and stand upright at last, shouldering more of the burden of their defense as they should—a bit abashed if not outright shamefaced, perhaps, but at last maturing from a dependent to a partner. No, what she’s doing here is whining about Trump’s “abandonment” of the archaic alliance—pissing and moaning about his reckless disregard for the Cold War status quo even as she imports all the barbaric Muslim “refugees” she can, and snarls viciously at anyone who dares to suggest this might not be such a good idea as regards Europe’s security.

We’ve already seen how that’s working out for them. Mutti Merkel is complaining about protection from an enemy that no longer even exists, while sitting idly back, doing nothing as she watches her beloved Europe going up in flames all around her as a direct result of her own politically-correct idiocy.

Hey, you guys manage to figure out what the motive of the Manchester murderer could possibly have been yet, perchance?

Share

He’s on a roll!

Schlichter, that is.

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

Get angry.

Because we have a right to be angry.

Because anger is the first crucial step to fighting back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official Lies update! Steyn:

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

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

The killer was the queen of England’s clan.

Rothschild Soros club.

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

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

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

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

Share

Another great VICTORY in the not-quite-a-war against random man-caused disasters which have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam!

We’re all MANCHESTER “STRONG”!™ now. This week. In another two or three weeks, it’ll be someplace else. But after we hold hands, sing a John Lennon song, light some candles, and have ourselves yet another good cry, we’ll all feel a whole lot better about our weak-willed cowardice. To the latest dead: so sorry, but your deaths will go unavenged, and we won’t be doing a single damned thing to lend them at least some meaning by seeing to it that the animals who slaughtered you suffer in full measure for their atrocities and will thereby be persuaded that it might be best to leave us the hell alone.

And now back to telling ourselves how STRONG!™ and invincible we all are; how resolute, how determined; and how DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH and WE STAND TOGETHER and YOU WILL NEVER DIVIDE US and all the rest of that meaningless, pathetic folderol. Strong hint to the mewling kittens of the enfeebled West: if you’re always the ones crying, you assuredly are NOT winning.

*spit*

Share

Taking Gillespie to school

Speaking of embarrassment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Demography is destiny

Steyn’s perspicacious old quote, elaborated on:

Thursday’s killer was 39 years old. That’s almost geriatric for the jihad. In France’s (and western Europe’s) population, the demographic cohort ten years younger has a significantly higher proportion of Muslims, and the cohort a decade younger than that a higher proportion still. Which means that there will be, statistically, a higher number of men who wish to do what Thursday’s killer did – and open fire on the careless metropolitan jollity of the Champs-Elysées.

During my time in France, I made a mordant joke that, where once Beirut was “the Paris of the East”, Paris was in danger of turning into the Beirut of the West. Not quite, not yet, but where else is that demographic ratchet headed? Late in the evening, as the waiters brought last cognacs and upturned the chairs on nearby tables, I asked almost everyone the same question: “What’s the happy ending here?” The sophisticates had no answer. The French prime minister and at least one presidential candidate Gallicly shrug and say: Get used to it. Get used to what? A terror attack once in a while? Or an increasing rate thereof? Or, as demography works its remorseless logic, less and less terrorism (because it’s no longer necessary) but more and more smaller and subtler curtailments of la vie parisienne – until there’s nothing left.

One candidate, Marine Le Pen, wants less Muslim immigration. Most of the others won’t even go that far – although, in truth, it’s not that far at all, notwithstanding that it would require withdrawal from the European Union even to attempt it. But, without an end to mass immigration, there is only demographic arithmetic.

And it adds up to…nothing good. But the only math we need to bother about is this: the more Muslims, the more terrorism. So anybody mind indulging me when I ask yet again where exactly the fancy fuck is the demand for the heedless, reckless importation of more of these primordial savages—unassimilable, hostile, murderous, barbaric, incompatible with Western values in every least way—coming from, exactly?

Share

Annnnnnd it’s Muslims

Another day, another inexplicable man-caused disaster whose underlying motivation we may never fathom. Vox’s take on the last one, only a few days ago in Fresno, is evergreen:

Inexplicable random mass shooting for no reason in Fresno
By man named Muhammed shouting “Allahu Akbar”…

I suppose we’ll never know why a white-hating Muslim named Muhammad shot and killed three white people. It will probably always be a mystery no one will ever be able to solve. But regardless, the real tragedy is that white Americans might look sideways at the next Muslim they encounter. So hateful!

Ace follows up:

This fresh terrorist shooting is going to knock the media’s non-coverage of the Fresno terrorist shooting right off of the bottom of page D23.

I lied. The Fresno shooting isn’t on D23 either.

More details to come as the media buries them and teams of forensic news archeologists sift through the artifacts of this soon-to-be buried non-event.

For myself, I’ll just repeat the question I’ve been asking for a while now: how many of us must die at the hands of these primordial swine before we satisfy the demands of Progressivist political correctness that we never, ever acknowledge the truth the rest of us all full well know?

How much blood is enough for you, libtards? How long will you cling to an insipid dorm-room fantasy, when the price of cosseting your delusions is measured in innocent human lives?

At the risk of seeming tedious to you CF lifers out there, I’ll repeat something else I’ve said many times: the Left fights US way, way more vigorously and bitterly than they ever will the jihadists. I expect they will go right on doing so—until their hairy-legged female grotesques are forced into burkhas, their gays and gender-addled are all killed, and the rest of them are forced into abject dhimmitude for good.

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



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