Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

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:


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



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.



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.


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?


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.


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.


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.



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?


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?


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.



Suffering from self-inflicted wounds.

Europe as we have known it for over five decades has been a stable and prosperous place at peace with itself, famous for its museums, cafes, classical architecture, and graceful retirement from history. But today, it’s under assault. The greatest refugee crisis since World War II is overwhelming the continent, while Jews flee by the thousands. Populist parties so outrageous that they make their American counterparts seem like milquetoast centrists are winning or almost winning one election after another. One of them—Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz—has already transformed Hungary into an authoritarian state. Russian President Vladimir Putin is swaggering like a conquering warlord and winning applause for his exploits as far west as Great Britain. The European Union has already begun to unravel and could be replaced down the road by God only knows what as an aloof United Kingdom decides to go it alone while Europe circles the drain.

Journalist and author James Kirchick lived and worked in Europe for six years, and in his bracing first book, The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, he dives deep into the continent’s turmoil. The cumulative effect is sobering and alarming, but also perversely comforting if misery truly loves company. The book makes it clear that America’s political crisis is part of a larger crisis of democratic liberalism and institutional legitimacy that stretches from Seattle to Athens, and Kirchick does his American readers an invaluable service by informing them, in a can’t-put-it-down style, that they aren’t going through this alone.

Connecting Europe’s seemingly disparate troubles is a continent-wide cratering of the political center and collapsing confidence in the liberal European idea. “In the wake of World War II,” Kirchick writes, “when Europe was divided, both the political left and right valued very highly what the West had and the East coveted: an environment of political and economic freedom, religious openness (even if it often shaded into religious indifference), and peace.” Western Europeans were far more dependent upon the military power of the Pax Americana than they liked to admit, but it paid off for all of us when the Soviet Union finally imploded, calcified communist police states withered away, and Europe’s eastern half rejoined the West.

But a unified liberal Europe only lasted a generation, and the Russian bear is no longer hibernating.

Michael is a lot more worried about Putin’s ambitions than I am, but then I don’t live in Eastern Europe, either. For my money, the far bigger worry is here:

Why is Europe’s political center collapsing? For a couple of reasons. Near-zero economic growth over ten years never does ruling parties any good. The European Union’s overbearing micromanagement, its notorious democratic deficit, and the entirely sensible belief almost everywhere that local democracy is better than distant bureaucracy are coupled with the near-refusal of mainstream parties to address these concerns. And to top it all off, mainstream parties both left and right have been jamming their fingers in their ears and socks in their voters’ mouths for years about immigration.

Xenophobia is stalking Europe—again—but at the same time, in fairness, all societies are strained when a massive number of newcomers show up at the same time, and not every person feeling that strain is by definition a bigot. So when German Chancellor Angela Merkel green-lit the entrance of a million Syrian refugees, that strain should have been as predictable as it was inevitable. How would you like to live in the village of Sumte—with a population of just 102—and be told by the government in Berlin that you can and will find room for 750 Syrian refugees?

And as Kirchick points out, when Merkel invited a million refugees into Germany, she effectively invited a million refugees into Europe’s entire Schengen Area without consulting any other head of state, let alone voters elsewhere in Europe.

“What made Merkel’s decision to open Europe’s gates to an untold number of Muslim migrants so problematic,” Kirchick writes, “is that the continent has done such a poor job integrating the Muslims who already live there.” Even the European-born children of immigrants tend to be thought of and treated as guests in Europe rather than permanent residents and citizens. The United States, like Canada, does a much better job assimilating immigrants than Europe does and it always will.

The real problem is not Europe’s (or our) failure to “assimilate” Muslims; the real problem is that they are unassimilable, being entirely uninterested in assimilating anyway. They prefer to cling absolutely to a pseudo-religious ideology wholly incompatible with freedom—not just alien to Western ideals of how a free and democratic society should properly order itself, but implacably hostile to them. That’s what renders Merkel’s near-incredible folly more than merely “problematic”—what it is, culturally, is suicidal.


There’ll always be an England?

Another fine Steyn music post, about a song I always did like.

Not when she sang, though. It’s not a creamy voice, like GI Jo Stafford’s. There’s something rawer in there, and in those early records a very real emotional clutch. The sound of Britain at war is Vera Lynn singing, whether “There’ll Always Be And England” or “We’ll Meet Again”. And, with either number, despite the notorious British antipathy to audience participation, she never had to cajole the Tommies or anybody else into joining in.

On that rather strained luncheon with Princess Margaret, Dame Vera seemed a delightfully near parodic embodiment of Englishness. (She sent back the avocado with the words, “This foreign food disagrees with me.”) Afterwards, we had a little chat about her songs. “They still like ‘We’ll Meet Again’,” she said (I seem to recall a couple of laddish telly pop stars had just had a Number One cover version with it). “But ‘There’ll Always Be An England’ is what they call ‘controversial’,” she added, lowering her voice, lest someone might overhear.

By “controversial”, she meant that the very concept of “England” was now officially discouraged. “There’ll Always Be An England” is conspicuous by its absence on her 100th birthday album and her other hit CDs of this century. With one of her two signature songs all but banned from the airwaves, the survivor was imbued with a kind of pathos it had never had during the lowest moments of the Second World War. It came to symbolize simultaneously both Britain’s wartime defiance and a resigned acceptance of remorseless decline. To me, Dame Vera’s original near-eight-decade-old recording sounds sadder with every passing year.

We’ll Meet Again
Don’t know where, don’t know when
But I know We’ll Meet Again
Some sunny day.

Will we? You can see what Dame Vera means about the “controversial” nature of “There’ll Always Be An England” at the Blairite website set up after the 2005 Tube bombings. Its object was to try to identify British “icons” around which a roiled nation could unite. In the comments responding to “There’ll Always Be…”, a reader who identifies himself as Alex rages that the song is “an appallingly syrupy anthem to petty nationalism and ‘little Englanders’. Haven’t two world wars shown us that nationalism is a scourge, a hangover from the tribal groupings of the Dark Ages? I’m a citizen of a united Europe, and proud to be so.” On the other hand, Margaret Stringfellow says, “The EU is hell bent on destroying England as a country, by replacing England by the Regions. There will not always be an England unless the English people wake up.”

I’ve mentioned it here before, and I’ve searched and searched for it over the years and never have been able to find it, but I distinctly remember a quote from some Englishter, a government official of some type, not long after 9/11 that I thought was piercing indeed. Asked by a reporter if our Cousins across the pond remained able to respond forcefully to such hideous aggression, the guy pointed out that it was the wrong question; the truly relevant question, he said, was “whether England remained England.”

Depressing, innit? But all prospective cracks from me about “Londonistan” aside, who knows; perhaps the same stark division we’ve seen here between the iniquitous multiculti surrender-monkey derangement in our urban areas and the stouter, sterner, more sensible mindset prevalent in flyover country will yet hold true in England. They—and we—had better hope so, at least.

But perhaps not; Steyn just about puts paid to it with his closer:

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

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

It’s different now.

Lots of things are, to our great detriment. We’ve lost much, and thrown away even more. It remains to be seen whether we retain enough to bring us back from the brink of disaster and destruction. Personally, I have some small hope. But I have to admit it probably ain’t the way to bet.


London calling

What losing a war looks like. More accurately, refusing to fight it in the first place, or even acknowledge you’re in one at all, when it’s being waged against you at every imaginable turn—with not just the usual weapons, but with anything ready to hand: hammers, knives, screwdrivers, garden tools, ordinary vehicles, matches—random bits of paper and plastic and string, gobs of hair. Only then will the Left finally understand their childish folly, and the sort of enemy we’re facing. Not a moment before; their delusions are far too precious to them to admit error before the horror leaps out at them from every conceivable source, and renders them incapable of clinging steadfastly to their pathetic denial.

This place is just like Sweden. Terrified of admitting the truth about the threat we face, about the horrors committed by the migrants we failed to deter — because to admit that we are sinking, and fast, would be to admit that everything the liberals believe is wrong.

That multiculturalism has not worked. That it is one big fat failure and one big fat lie.

President Erdogan of Turkey said there is a war being waged between the crescent and the cross. But he is wrong. Because the cross is not strong. We are down on bended knee, a doormat to be trodden on, a joke only funny to those that wish us harm.

The war is between London and the rest of the country. Between the liberals and the right-minded. Between those who think it is more important to tip-toe around the cultures of those who choose to join us, rather than defend our own culture.

How many more times?

And how many more attacks must pass before we acknowledge these are no longer the acts of ‘extremists’? That there is no safe badge with which to hold these people at arm’s length, in the way the liberals casually use the term ‘far-right’ for anyone who has National pride.

These events are no longer extreme. They are commonplace. Every day occurrences.

These people are no longer extremists. They are simply more devout. More true to their beliefs. Beliefs which will be supported endlessly across our state broadcaster for the next few months until we buy into the narrative that one religion is not to blame.

That in fact we should blame Brexit supporters. For believing in a Britain. As it was before.

Anything but the truth.

I will walk over the river tonight and look to the Thames, to the Union flag lowered at half mast, and the Parliament below, and I will wonder, just how much longer we can go on like this.  

Why, until the Progressivists are defeated, discredited, cowed, crushed, and marginalized to the point of abject humiliation…and not one moment before. Until they are openly scorned for their pathological adherence to unreality—their cowardice and blank stupidity recognized as nothing more than a lodestone guiding an entire culture to degradation and defeat—to the point that they dare not even speak their puling bullshit in public for fear of savage mockery at the hands of sensible people.

But read the comments and you’ll see that even in bloody London, after this most fresh of a whole slew of hideous attacks over recent years—before the blood has even congealed—they’re nowhere near that point. The fools profess shock, confusion, and disgust over this most elementary blast of common sense; they reel in horror at the idea of admitting the truth that isn’t merely staring them in the face, but clubbing them over the head—killing them, literally fucking killing them, in job lots.

And so I raise the question again: how much blood must be spilled before the Left is willing to confront its failure, its ignorance, its muttonheaded, moist-eyed belief in a total equality among men that in no way represents our harsher reality? How many more of us must die before they admit that their adolescent fantasy is nothing more than just that? How much wanton mass murder must we tolerate before they are willing to let go of their puerile daydreams and acknowledge the world as it exists, rather than clinging so desperately to an ideology that fundamentally misapprehends—brushes off, dismisses, actually—the darker aspect of human nature right out of the gate?

And the answer keeps coming back: MORE. More yet, more still. Not enough, not quite yet.

Which presents another, perhaps more vital and relevant question: how much Progressivist foolishness, their cowardice and juvenile self-indulgence, will WE tolerate before we take effective steps to end this patent madness? When will the sane majority finally decide that enough is truly enough and refuse to grant them and their inane, PC psychobabble serious consideration? When will we shove them aside and deal with a barbaric enemy in the rough and ruthless fashion that is our only hope of ever harnessing the primordial, atavistic belief system that is Islam?

When we will decide to defend our culture, our way of life—our actual, physical LIVES, ferchrissakes, individually and collectively—in the way merited? To stop being ashamed of our flaws, mourning our failures, apologizing for our missteps, and start protecting our precious civilization against a savage enemy who will neither cease nor rest at any point short of our complete annihilation?

I beg your indulgence here, folks, for I am about to say it yet again: In order to defeat our Muslim antagonists, we must first defeat the Left. There is no hope of achieving the one without first achieving the other; as long as Tranzi, multiculti, PC Leftism is still taken even remotely seriously by anything more than a handful of shunned loons skulking quietly about in a few urban enclaves, we will continue to endure the occasional appalling slaughter in our very heartland. We’re still a long, long way from it. In the end, we’re going to have to recognize that, no matter how many of them are massacred, there will always be a certain number who would rather die than fight back; who would rather embrace a failed pipe-dream of an ideology than ever admit error, even in the face of the most direct and dire evidence of said failure imaginable.

Well, so be it. Too bad there isn’t some way to ensure that the troglodytic “refugees” they insist on importing can’t be salted into the wealthy urban enclaves housing the only people clamoring for us to “do something” to “help” them, rather than quietly shipped out to Middle America for us to deal with, to be forgetting until another one of them kills as many of us as he can manage. Put a few tens of thousands of them in the heart of Hollywood, Brooklyn, Chicago, Austin, Seattle, and San Francisco and let the fur fly, rather than forcing those of us in the heartland to cope with them, I say.

You want ’em, libs? Well, dammit, you got ’em, then. And then we can all sit back and see how that works out for ya.

Blind, deaf, and above all dumb update! This comment would seem to be fairly representative:

Oh grow a pair Hopkins. The IRA terror campaign was far worse and before that we had the Blitz. Stop whining and just get on with life like the rest of us.

I won’t even bother trying to dissect or analyze any of that. Just bask in liberal idiocy of the purest ray serene for the nonce; this is The Pure, the golden mean, the 190-proof elixir that can’t be further broken down or distilled, and is so toxic it will corrode everything it touches in time. It’s all there in this one, folks: arrogance; historical ignorance; condescension; smug assumption of personal impunity; disregard for anything but ideological purity; resignation to an intolerable reality in favor of the protection of cherished illusions; wholesale thoughtlessness about what the end-state of these beloved assumptions might be.

And realize once and for all that they care far, far more about protecting their cherished delusions than they ever will care about protecting their country, their countrymen, their family and friends, their children, their future, or even themselves.

And THAT’S how deep Progressivist insanity goes, folks. I repeat yet again: if we ever hope to defeat Islam, we must first defeat this. Truly, utterly, and completely.


Ohhh, we REALLY got him now!

Another day, another attempt to undermine and sabotage the duly elected President that has blown up in their faces.

The furor about the Trump presidency has gotten to the point that people are literally (and I don’t mean figuratively literally, I mean literally literally) seeing and hearing things that aren’t there, just as in the video.

The truly glaring example this week was the succession of articles about Trump “lying” about a terrorist attack in Sweden. It’s been widely reported, even on the one paragon of truth in American politics, PJ Media.

There’s only one problem.

It didn’t happen.

Oddly, to most of the press, that doesn’t even seem to matter.

Of course it doesn’t. They’re using the same old playbook, throwing any and everything at the wall hoping against hope that something will stick. They’ve been doing it for two years now: Trump says something, they lie about what he said, wait for the OUTRAGE!, and…the truth comes out, and Trump’s popularity goes up. As it happens, this one worked out particularly badly for them:

Riots broke out on Monday night in the suburb of Rinkeby, where a majority of residents were born overseas, just hours after the country’s Prime Minister attacked U.S President Donald J. Trump for linking mass migration with rising violence in Sweden.

The riots, in which cars were set ablaze and shops were looted, resulted in the Stockholm suburb looking “like a warzone” according to a journalist who was at the scene.

Worried about the nation’s image abroad, state broadcaster Sweden Radio last week aired a piece in English which claims that ‘no-go zones’ — dangerous suburbs where police fear to tread — don’t exist in the country.

However, a report last September revealed that 80 per cent of police officers were considering switching careers due to the danger they face in the field.

Swedish police Sergeant Peter Larsson said: “The violence against us in the police and the paramedics and firefighters, has become much worse. We’re talking about stone throwing, violence, fires. It has become much worse in recent years.”

Um. Oops. One more liberal-media narrative destroyed by reality, coming right up. Unlike most of the others, though, this one’s a twofer: not only does it make them look like fools by proving Trump correct, it also undermines their pro-immigration, peaceful-moderate-Muslim, “Islam is the religion of peace” fairy tale. But does it get even worse for them, you might ask? Why, of course it does:

Reports of rapes in Sweden jumped 13 percent in 2016 compared to the previous year, and reports of sexual assaults were up 20 percent, according to preliminary data from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Recent migration to Sweden hit its peak in 2015 with more than 160,000 asylum applications. It dropped to almost 30,000 in 2016.

Oops again. Well, hey, can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right? I’ll let Trump say it in his own words:

“Sweden. They took in large numbers [of refugees],” Trump added at the Florida rally. “They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

Sweden’s official Twitter account – which is operated by a different user each week – tweeted at Trump on Monday morning: “Hey Don, this is @Sweden speaking! It’s nice of you to care, really, but don’t fall for the hype. Facts: We’re OK!”

Well, for certain values of “OK,” I guess. But not ones I’d care to have to live with, pay the freight for, and see dismissed, ignored, or covered up by so-called “leaders” who are supposed to have my own nation’s best interests foremost in mind.

Y’know, if the consequences for the rest of us weren’t so deadly serious, the hapless Progressivists’ ongoing Keystone Kops routine would be perfectly hilarious by now.


Green card? SO?

Vet ’em. As extreme as you like.

In September 2009, for example, the FBI and NYPD uncovered a plot to stage simultaneous suicide attacks on the New York City subway system to coincide with the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The ring-leader was Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-born Green Card holder who lived in Queens. He and his two fellow conspirators had been trained in bomb making at an al Qaeda camp in Pakistan. Senior al Qaeda commanders had overseen and directed the operation, which was linked to another set of attacks planned for April 2009 in Manchester, England.

I borrowed and expanded Bill’s boldface there, and for the same reason; as he says:

There is a notion being peddled by those who prefer wide open borders to the safety of everyday Americans to pretend that Green Card holders should be, ipso facto, utterly free of vetting on return if they leave the US.

Obviously, if this particular Green Card holder had been successful in his plot to bomb the NYC subway system, the ludicrousness of this position would be very hard to deny.

Oh, but deny it they would, and we all know it. Here’s the rub, though: how many of these Muslim slimeballs left the country to head for some ISIS stronghold for advanced terror training, only to slip back into the States trouble-free, with barely a glance from those charged with protecting our borders, but hamstrung by politically-correct idiocy? We won’t know until they put that training into action and slaughter a bundle of us. Then the Left morons will all act greatly surprised for a day or two, before sweeping it all under the rug and never mentioning it again.

And the Left is just fine with all that. They would prefer to see American corpses stacked like cordwood than to see their one-world open-borders project slowed even slightly. And hey, since all the world’s problems and all the mindless Islam-driven hatred is our own fault anyway, we deserve what we get. Right, libtards?

Well, fuck that, and fuck them. You want less Muslim terrorism? You’re gonna need to arrange for fewer Muslims.

Every absurd Islamic terror plot broken up by law enforcement, the type of thing dismissed by the media and ridiculed by commentators, launching rockets at planes, underwear bombs and blowing up trains, contained the seed of a horrific terrorist attack just like Orlando, Boston or Nice.

When you turn on the evening news and see a running death toll, it’s because one of those absurd and ridiculous terror plots actually succeeded. And it’s happening more and more often.

The reason is simple. Unlike classic Islamic terrorism which required organization and infrastructure, the new brand of Islamic terror only needs one thing… Muslims.

There is no way that the FBI or other law enforcement agencies could begin to monitor even a fraction of the Islamic settler population sympathetic to terror. The FBI alone has almost 1,000 active ISIS cases it was investigating last year in all 50 states. It does not have nearly the resources it needs to handle them.

The source of the problem is Islamic immigration. That is the only possible solution. The only way to reduce the growth of the lone wolf Islamic terrorism problem is to reduce or end Muslim migration.

If this is how bad it is when Muslims are only 1% of the population, what happens when the Muslim settler population doubles and then doubles again?The source of the problem is Islamic immigration. That is the only possible solution. The only way to reduce the growth of the lone wolf Islamic terrorism problem is to reduce or end Muslim migration.

If this is how bad it is when Muslims are only 1% of the population, what happens when the Muslim settler population doubles and then doubles again?

This Islamic immigration privilege must be withdrawn. Muslim immigration must at the very least be scaled back to a level that law enforcement can cope with. At best it must end entirely until the Muslim world manages to stabilize its way of life to the extent that it can peacefully co-exist with non-Muslims.

Muslim immigration makes Muslim terrorism worse.

Bingo; nailed it. And along those lines, I repeat: where exactly is the demand for as many of these ignorant, unassimilable savages as we can possibly import—hundreds of thousands of them? What skills do they have that we need? What do they bring to the table—how exactly are they going to improve life in America generally? What do they have to contribute? Bigamy, child marriage and incest, “grooming,” gang rape of non-Muslim women, an irrational loathing of dogs and pigs, female genital mutilation, honor killing, hatred for homosexuals, oppression of women, the Muslim “call to prayer” blared over loudspeakers in quiet communities fifty times a day, harassment of Christian ministers, summarily chopping the hands off of petty shoplifters, stoning rape victims to death, and killing the infidel in job lots most assuredly do NOT count.

The Left is fond of disguising their destructive open-borders impulse by bleating that “we’re a nation of immigraaaants!” But the present-day Muslim colonizers can in NO WAY be compared to the hordes of Irish, Italian, and other immigrants who came here in the earlier decades of the 20th century. Those people came here for an opportunity to make their own way and better their lot in life, not to soak up government handouts in perpetuity. They came with not only the intention but the profound desire to assimilate and become true Americans; back then, the best way to provoke a brawl with, say, a recent Italian immigrant on the Lower East Side was to refer to him as an “Italian-American,” rather than an American. They may have been quietly proud of their heritage and their ancestors, sure; they certainly had great love and reverence for the family members they left behind in the Old Country. But what they wanted most of all was to forge a new life for themselves AS AMERICANS.

And that’s what they did. They eagerly learned English; the thicker their accent when speaking it, the greater their embarrassment over it. Not that they really needed to be, of course, and not that very many native-born pointedly shamed them for it; no, we enrolled them in English classes and tried to help with making their American dream come true.

Most Muslim immigrants and refugees, on the other hand, have no desire at all to assimilate. They tend to sequester themselves in their own closed communities, living very nearly the same lifestyle they left behind in their own dysfunctional nations, by rules that are in direct conflict with those of the West, often flouting Western laws in favor of sharia with near impunity. God help any outsider who might wander into a Muslim community at night, most particularly if it’s a woman. There have already been honor killings in upstate New York, Texas, Arizona, and other places; in fact, there are an estimated 27 victims of honor killing A YEAR.

In AMERICA, ferchrissake.

And being in the main unskilled, ignorant, untrainable, semi-literate, primitive, supremely indifferent to learning our language and unswervingly hostile to our values, and…well, frankly, stupid, it’s not as if they’re going to contribute by seeking and landing any sort of productive job. In fact, 90 percent of recent “refugees” in the States are on food stamps and other benefits. And there most of them will remain.

Tell me again what it is that you expect them to contribute to American society, libtards. Explain again where the demand for their presence in our country might be, and the reasons why it might exist.

No, most of the dimwit liberal rank and file just want to feel good about their “compassion,” misplaced though it is. For the more dedicated Leftist, the Muslim invasion represents another means to a long-standing and far more sinister end. They’re as unconcerned about what contribution the Muslim barbarians may or may not make than the invaders themselves are. But they DO share a common goal. And you can be sure that it doesn’t add up to anything good for you, me, or our country.

Keep right on going, Mr President. Your “temporary pause” ought to be just the smallest of first steps in the direction of tightly restricting Muslim immigration, before we find ourselves in the untenable position half of Europe now finds itself mired in. We don’t need them. We don’t want them. And they have no right whatsoever to be here. Let the Seditious Left scream; if they descend into riot or insurrection over it, lock them the fuck up, for a good long time. We’re at nearly-open war here, and the only way they can win is if we let them.

Update! Spengler:

We can’t send in American soldiers to fix these countries. We can’t import their problems by admitting a horde of refugees who bring with them the pathologies that ruined these countries in the first place. We have to draw a bright line between the United States of America and the failed states of the Middle East. There are lots of little things wrong with the refugee ban but one very big thing right about it: It sends the message that we will not prejudice American interests in a Quixotic effort to fix the unfixable problems of other peoples.

As fully on board as I was at the time with Dubya’s idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East, I realized long ago how very foolish that impossible dream was, although it would surely be nicer if it were possible. Goldman just spelled out the harsh reality of it, and the rest of the piece is well worth a read.

Kinda-sorta on topic, a little: a thing I continue to be annoyed by is the ongoing characterization of Trump’s inaugural speech as “dark,” mostly because of his emphasis on putting American interests first. Who but a muttonheaded Leftist truly hostile to this nation, openly desirous of bringing about its ruin, could possibly characterize such a statement as “dark” or in the least way objectionable—most especially coming from an American President?

But they do. I heard ’em batting that shriveled little turd of an idea around on NPR just today.

For God’s sake, you stupes, he’s not the president of the WORLD; he’s not even the president of the UN. He’s the President of the United States of America, and nowhere else. IT’S HIS FUCKING JOB TO PUT AMERICAN INTERESTS FIRST. Yes, always, just like he said. Just like the leader of every other nation does, and damned well ought to.

It’s been awhile since we had a President who even bothered lying about it. In fact, it’s a large part of why we elected Trump: not only is he unafraid to say it, but he also seems to believe passionately and deeply in it, and intends to follow through on it.

But see, that’s the whole problem for them: he doesn’t care about being a Citizen of the World—unenlightened, boorish pig that he is—and therefore isn’t going to be promoting their Tranzi ideal of global government, with no borders and free everything for everybody and peace and harmony all over the place and no cars and no factories and no competition and no corporations and nary a dissenting opinion to be found. Everyone will live in harmony with nature and grow their own food on a small family farm and we’ll all stop eating meat and we’ll all compost and recycle and be kind to animals and trees and walk gently on Mother Earth and have a low carbon footprint.

Well, except for them, that is. A good many of them will still expect to live in Brooklyn or the Haight and eat at ethnic restaurants and sit in coffee shops all day and hang out in the bars all night. Don’t ask ’em where the food and electricity and heat in winter and trendy clothes and cool shoes will come from; they have no earthly idea, and don’t wish to disturb their idyll by thinking about it.

Oh, and there will still be cabs to take them to Manhattan now and then, naturally.

Oh, and there will be no football, either. Just soccer. But no keeping score. That would ruin everything.


One last knife between the shoulder blades

Aimed at Israel, held by the UN, steadied and driven in by Obama.

The Jewish people have a legal, historical and moral right to live anywhere in the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean; and the only sovereign power in this region is Israel, the state of the Jewish people. Here is why:

From a legal point of view, the land was originally a part of the Ottoman Empire, which ceased to exist at the end of WWI. “Palestine” was set aside for the Jewish people by the Palestine Mandate, which was supposed to be administered for their benefit by Britain, which then tried to subvert it for its own interests. It’s clear that while the intent of the Mandate was that all residents would have civil rights, rights to a “national home” were reserved for the Jewish people, who were also explicitly granted the right of “close settlement on the land”. This was affirmed for all the land from the river to the sea by the representatives of the international community in 1923.

The partition resolution of November 1947 (UNGA 181) was non-binding – a recommendation for a permanent settlement after the end of the Mandate. But it was never implemented. In 1948, the Arabs rejected the UN’s partition resolution and invaded the territory of the former Mandate, blatantly violating  the UN Charter in an attempt to acquire the territory for themselves. The 1949 ceasefire agreement that ended hostilities was not a peace agreement, and both sides insisted that that the ceasefire lines were not political boundaries. Their only significance was to mark the locations of the armies when the shooting stopped.

The 19-year Jordanian annexation of the territory it controlled that followed was illegal, only recognized by Britain (and maybe Pakistan). This occupation did not change the status of the land in any way.

Israel’s practical acquisition of sovereignty over all the land in 1967 is thus entirely legitimate. And since Israel did not occupy land belonging to any other sovereign power, it is incorrect to refer to Judea and Samaria as “occupied territory.” Naftali Bennett’s statement that “you can’t occupy your own land” is precisely correct.

There are some on the alt-Right who are pleased to express strongly anti-Semitic views at best, and outright frothing Jew-hate at worst; some of them even go so far as to suggest that Israel should be abandoned in favor of cultivating friendly relations with treacherous Muzzrat shitholes like, say, Iran.

I will never be one of them. Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, a strong ally of the US, and deserving of our unequivocal support. If you’re not up on both the Israel/barbarian-savage conflict and its backstory, this one is a must-read. And yet another cheering development was Trump’s Tweeted response to Obama’s betrayal: “Things will be different after January 20th.” Yes indeed, thank God.


ISIS makes good on Christmas threats

The traitorous Obama/Merkel “strategy” bears more bitter fruit.

Europe was warned that ISIS planned terror attacks at Christmas markets 25 days before the Berlin atrocity.

Police have said at least nine people died and more than 50 have been injured after a lorry ploughed through a Christmas market killing and injuring shoppers.

Is there more, you ask?

Isn’t there always?

ISTANBUL — Russia’s ambassador to Turkey was assassinated at an Ankara art exhibit on Monday evening by a lone Turkish gunman shouting “God is great!” and “don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria!” in what the leaders of Turkey and Russia called a provocative terrorist attack.

Authorities confess themselves baffled as to any possible motive. As usual. Vox says:

Enough. It’s time to bring back Christendom and start banning religions again. The Enlightenment is not only over, it failed.

How many more people need to die for multiculturalism and diversity? Angela Merkel should be arrested and put on trial for treason.

No non-Western refugees should ever be allowed into the West for any reason. Help them there or don’t help them at all.

Amen to that. I’m still not seeing where the demand is for all these sub-literate, unskilled, unassimilable, and implacably hostile Muslim immigrants. Let them sit and rot in the countries they’ve forged into primitive hellholes forever for all me. Help them? Help them what, pray tell? Let them abandon their savage death cult and civilize themselves at long last…or let them eat sand until they choke to death on it.


Build the damned wall, and I don’t care WHO pays for it

A Muslim immigration pause? A border fence? Enforcing the immigration laws, re-establishing borders, deporting illegals? If you think these things “aren’t who we are,” well, it’s who we better become pretty damned quick.

A smuggling network has managed to sneak illegal immigrants from Middle Eastern terrorism hotbeds straight to the doorstep of the U.S., including helping one Afghan who authorities say was part of an attack plot in North America.

Immigration officials have identified at least a dozen Middle Eastern men smuggled into the Western Hemisphere by a Brazilian-based network that connected them with Mexicans who guided them to the U.S. border, according to internal government documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

Some of the men handled by the smuggling network were nabbed before they reached the U.S., but others made it into the country. The Afghan man was part of a group of six from “special-interest countries.”

It’s unclear whether the network succeeded in sneaking other “special interest” illegal immigrants by border officials, but the documents obtained by Mr. Hunter confirm fears of a pipeline that can get would-be illegal immigrants from terrorist hotbeds to the threshold of the U.S.

You can bet your life that these piddling few who got nabbed were a mere drop in the bucket. In fact, if you’re planning to vote for The Shrew or some third-party loser destined to go down to defeat—or for anybody but Trump, who is the sole reason we’re even discussing tightening border controls at all, and who has admirably stuck to his guns despite the slings and arrows of no-borders Democrat Socialists and their GAGA Republican collaborationists—you ARE betting your life. Yours, and sane people’s too.


“I should have known better”

It ought to be tattooed onto the foreheads of liberals everywhere. By law.

The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West.

Phillips, a former elected member of the Labour Party who served as the Chairman of the EHRC from 2003-2012 will present “What British Muslims Really Think” on Channel 4 on Wednesday. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals: 

  • One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;
  • 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband;
  • 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife;
  • 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
  • 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament.

Writing in the Times on the issue, Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.”

Oh, don’t kid yourself, bright boy; some of us knew it all along. It’s just that you supergenius smart guys, oh so superior to everyone else in every way, wouldn’t listen. After all, it’s not as if Muslims themselves haven’t been telling you all along, in the plainest imaginable language and with no obfuscation whatsoever, exactly what they intended for you: conversion, subjugation, or death. It’s specifically spelled out right there in the Koran–many times over–for anyone with eyes to see, for God’s sake. And now it’s too late for you. Too bad, so sad.

“It’s not as though we couldn’t have seen this coming. But we’ve repeatedly failed to spot the warning signs,” he admits.

You damned sure have. I suppose we should all be happy to see this, though; it’s one of the only known instances of a smug liberal wrecker admitting error, rather than doubling down on stupid and furiously demanding more of it as they usually do.

Via Ed, who also points us to this perfect flashback: “Labour’s ‘secret plan’ to lure migrants–The Government has been accused of pursuing a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration for its own political ends.” Chickens: home to roost. May you have joy of your well-earned dhimmitude, you idiots.


The crux of the problem

Is that it isn’t a problem, but a process.

For a week now, experts of all kinds have been trying to understand the reasons for the attacks in Brussels. An incompetent police force? Unbridled multiculturalism? Youth unemployment? Uninhibited Islamism? The causes are numerous beyond counting and everyone will naturally choose the one that suits best their own convictions. Law and Order fans will denounce the haplessness of the police. Xenophobes will blame immigration. Sociologists will rehash the evils of colonialism. Urban-planners will point to the evils of ghettoisation. Take your pick.

In reality, the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale.

And originally implemented by the fascists of the Goosesteppin’ Left, it must be noted. The Muzzrats are just taking advantage of a program already long-established.

Our noses are endlessly rubbed in the rubble of Brussels airport and in the flickering candles amongst the bouquets of flowers on the pavements. All the while, no one notices what’s going on in Saint-German-en-Laye. Last week, Sciences-Po* welcomed Tariq Ramadan. He’s a teacher, so it’s not inappropriate. He came to speak of his specialist subject, Islam, which is also his religion. Rather like lecture by a Professor of Pies who is also a pie-maker. Thus judge and contestant both.

No matter, Tariq Ramadan has done nothing wrong. He will never do anything wrong. He lectures about Islam, he writes about Islam, he broadcasts about Islam. He puts himself forward as a man of dialogue, someone open to a debate. A debate about secularism which, according to him, needs to adapt itself to the new place taken by religion in Western democracy. A secularism and a democracy which must also accept those traditions imported by minority communities. Nothing bad in that. Tariq Ramadan is never going to grab a Kalashnikov with which to shoot journalists at an editorial meeting. Nor will he ever cook up a bomb to be used in an airport concourse. Others will be doing all that kind of stuff. It will not be his role. His task, under cover of debate, is to dissuade people from criticising his religion in any way. The political science students who listened to him last week will, once they have become journalists or local officials, not even dare to write nor say anything negative about Islam. The little dent in their secularism made that day will bear fruit in a fear of criticising lest they appear Islamophobic. That is Tariq Ramadan’s task.

Take this veiled woman. She is an admirable woman. She is courageous and dignified, devoted to her family and her children. Why bother her? She harms no one. Even those women who wear the total, all-encompassing veil do not generally use their clothing to hide bombs (as certain people were claiming when the law to ban the burqa was being discussed). They too will do nothing wrong. So why go on whining about the wearing of the veil and pointing the finger of blame at these women? We should shut up, look elsewhere and move past all the street-insults and rumpus. The role of these women, even if they are unaware of it, does not go beyond this.

That’s from Charlie Hebdo, who one presumes might just know whereof they speak. Being Leftists, they know what a “vanguard” is, how it’s used, and what its purpose really is. And I’d expect them to know one when they see one. MG Oprea picks up the ball and runs a little further with it:

The Charlie Hebdo editorial correctly points out that in Europe the dominant liberal culture has pounded into us that we must adapt to Muslims who come to our country, and never ask them to adapt to any of our ways. Doing so would be colonialist and wrong. It’s a double standard, of course. As the welcoming countries, Europeans must suppress their own culture and ideals for those of the Islamic immigrant population. But when they go abroad to non-Western countries, either to live or to visit, it’s considered offensive not to adapt to their ways of life.

No one who found the Charlie Hebdo op-ed so offensive would ever suggest Morocco ought to welcome McDonalds or Wal-Mart with open arms. They would say the country is being ruined with Western culture. They want non-Western countries to remain exactly as they are—preserved and frozen in time-while the West must endlessly adapt to anyone who makes it their home.

Asking immigrants to assimilate doesn’t mean white-washing their culture and religion, asking them not to wear the hijab, or demanding that they eat pork. But it does mean asking them to accept, to some degree, the culture of the country to which they have willingly moved. These are things like women’s rights, tolerance, free speech, or criticism of religion. It also means not having to apologize for having a culture of one’s own.

Europeans have been lulled into accepting that it’s wrong to criticize Islam or scrutinize it in any way. The Charlie Hebdo editorial points out that it’s a slow process, an insidious wearing away of what is and isn’t acceptable to say or think. The process must be slow, because few people would accept a proposal dictating what topics they’re not allowed to discuss. So, you gradually shame them into it.

In the end, it all boils down to the same thing: Islam is incompatible with Western civilization. So is Leftism. If Western values are to survive, both will have to be defeated utterly. They can continue in their own enclaves in uneasy coexistence with the values of freedom and democracy; as long as they’re fearful enough of the likely result of attacking us to refrain from doing so, we can safely refrain from attacking them. Which leads us to this:

All politicians say (at least after they get past the primaries) that we’re all in the same boat, and we should unite around our shared values and goals. Which is true to a degree. But it’s also true that we’re increasingly trying to create two very different countries in the places we live.

That divergence is enabled by the fact that the two parties have become both more ideologically extreme (though Republicans have moved farther to the right in many ways than Democrats have moved to the left {complete horseshit, of course–M}) and more ideologically coherent. Half a century ago both a Northern liberal and a Southern segregationist would call themselves loyal Democrats, but there’s much less diversity of perspective within each party today. And with the differences heightened and clarified, when one party gains power, its leaders move with as much urgency as they can to transform the place they control.

While we often lament this geographic sorting that divides us, the farther Red America and Blue America move apart, the more logical it is for any given individual to make that a factor in where they choose to live.

Our contemporary media also exacerbate this trend by enabling any issue, no matter how small or local, to get national attention. That allows us to feel connected to people who share our beliefs anywhere and everywhere. If we find ourselves in a place that doesn’t jibe politically, we can ignore the people around us and seek community from those we connect to electronically. Or maybe just pick up and move. And each step the two Americas take away from each other makes moving even farther make more and more sense.

Again: Leftism is incompatible with Constitutional values specifically, and Western ones generally. It is an ideology requiring an over-powerful and enormous central State to micromanage our lives as its first principle, its Prime Directive. “Moving farther” isn’t the answer. But political separation, painful and complicated as it is, might be.

If libtards really want to live in a society in which the Superstate runs their lives and is totally responsible for protecting them from all threats, with no individual initiative allowed–a State with strict gun control, where no criticism of jihadist ideology is countenanced, with open borders and a profligate welfare apparatus geared towards supporting “refugees” while forbidding their assimilation–maybe we should let them. Or force them to, as the case may be.


A question for “liberals”

So Steyn and Nigel Farage debated two typical empty-headed-nitwit libtards in Canada on immigration. They do a poll both before and after the debate, which before the debate was 77 percent pro the libtard position, and 23 percent pro common sense. After, the positions shifted to 55 pro cultural suicide, and 45 against lib-guilt insanity. Which, as the author of the linked piece says, is a pretty fair chunk of effective persuasion tossed by Steyn and Farage at the libs. All of which brings me to my question:

What the hell do you people find so damned funny about child rape, anyway?

To some audience members (not to me, but for example to my furiously tweeting companion, a young colleague who happens to bear the same last name as me), Steyn dwelt excessively on the sexual crimes we’ve all read about in Cologne, Hamburg, Malmö and elsewhere. So it apparently seemed to Arbour and Schama, because they mocked Steyn for it in their rebuttals. Arbour sneered at both Steyn and Farage as “newborn feminists” (she got a laugh), while Schama disgraced himself with “I’m just struck by how obsessed with sex these two guys are, actually. It’s a bit sad, really.” (That got a very big laugh.) I took one look at Steyn’s glowering face after that remark — Schama will regret having said it to his dying day, I know it — and I kind of felt sorry for those two liberals, because I knew what was coming.

Steyn slowly rose and riposted, in a tone of withering contempt, “I wasn’t going to do funny stuff. I was going to be deadly serious. (But) I’m slightly amazed at Simon’s ability to get big laughs on gang rape.” Vigorous applause. He went on, “Mme Arbour scoffs at the ‘newfound feminists.’ I’m not much of a feminist, but I draw the line at a three year old … and a seven year old getting raped.” Vigorous applause.

I think that was the moment those of the audience who did change their minds got it. The pro side was happy to talk about “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses,” because they’re abstract images, which liberals like. The words were fresh and meaningful then, but today merely a nostalgic homage to a 19th century immigration adventure with no deep similarities to today’s situation. They’re feel-good words but that shouldn’t make the poet who wrote them in 1883 the author of global refugee legislation in 2016. When Arbour and Schama didn’t like the opposition’s message — no images, just descriptions they interpreted as racist — they chose to shoot the messenger with ridicule, a debating error and an intellectually dishonest strategy.

Well, hey, it’s all they got. I’d bet against Kay’s assertion that Liberal Nitwit Number 2 will ever truly regret dismissing brutal assaults on women and children as “just sex,” though. That would assume a decency, integrity, and ability to feel shame that very few “liberals” possess. Much more here; full video, here. Steyn provides his own post-mortem:

Yes, yes, it’s poor form to review one’s own debate performance, so all I’ll say is that I think Barbara Kay is not quite right, but Tamara is: It wasn’t the moment when the crowd swung to our side, but it was the point at which the cartoon labels fell off and the crowd started listening to us as human beings, and evaluating our arguments on the merits, rather than simply dismissing them because we’re “cartoons”. Some changed their minds, some didn’t. But labeling sneers about pseudo-feminist sex-starved paedo-fantasists no longer cut it.

I don’t know the numbers, but I have a suspicion that in the exit poll more Toronto ladies changed their votes than men did. Certainly at least one chap in the house was unmoved: While the distaff side of the Kay family thought Simon Schama had “disgraced himself” with his response, Barbara Kay’s son Jonathan found it “spirited”. He didn’t hear the blithe dismissal of mass gang-rape and child-rape for what it was. And, if he’ll take a bit of advice from an old comrade, he might like to ponder why that is.

We’d all like him to, sure, but he won’t. That would assume a self-reflection and humility that very few “liberals” etc.


Requiem for civilization

Remember the other day when I said they were just laughing at us now?

Well, now even I’M laughing at us.

Brussels (AFP) – The organisers of a “March Against Fear” planned for Sunday to mark the Brussels terror attacks said they had cancelled the event after the authorities asked them to do so because of security fears.

And before anybody jumps on me for saying “us” instead of “Europe,” allow me to remind you that A) it’s not as if we’re very far behind them in decline, decay, and depravity, and B) we’re running just as hard as we can to catch up. Exhibit A for that:

America’s largest mosque complex, officially known as Turkish-American Culture and Civilization Center, was built with Turkish funding under the supervision of the Turkish religious foundation (Diyanet). The $100 million mega mosque in Lanham, Maryland, will soon be open for Muslim worshipers in the Washington, DC area, as Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdoğan and US President Barack Obama are expected to open the mosque.

Remember, this is the same worthless, lazy “president” who couldn’t be bothered to attend Scalia’s funeral, Nancy Reagan’s funeral, Margaret Thatcher’s funeral, the sad parades after the first and second Paris attacks, or basically any other big event that doesn’t take place on a golf course or isn’t celebrating communism and/or Islam. For the thousandth time: if he WAS an America-hating Muslim, what would he be doing differently?

Personally, I think they should have built this future-terrorist training academy and bomb factory exactly in the middle between the Capitol and the White House. If we can’t clean the DC rat’s nest out, maybe they can.

And in other “questions we really don’t need to bother asking” news: where are all the moderate Muslims anyway, and why are they so hesitant to speak out against violence in the name of Islam?

“Good Friday and a very Happy Easter, especially to my beloved Christian nation.

“Let’s follow the real footstep of beloved holy Jesus Christ and get the real success in both worlds.”

In previous posts, he also called (for) “unconditional real love for all mankind”.

Three guesses how it ended up.

Asad Shah, 40, a devout Muslim originally from the Pakistani city of Rabwah, had his head stamped on during a savage attack, according to one eyewitness.

“One was stamping on his head. There was a pool of blood on the ground. It was horrific.

“The police arrived in minutes and the poor guy was getting CPR at the scene. I really hope he pulls through.”

He didn’t. He was by all accounts a thoroughly good and decent man–and he was brutally murdered in the very streets in broad daylight in a supposedly Western city by vicious, barbaric swine for the sin against Allah of calling for love, tolerance, and goodwill among all men. You can be quite certain that NotMyPresident Barry Hussein Oshithead won’t be attending his funeral either. Steyn says:

Pace Mr Shah, Scotland is not much of a “Christian nation” these days. Instead, it is “tolerant”, “diverse” and “multicultural”. But a “tolerant” society determined to tolerate the avowedly intolerant won’t be in business for long. Men like Asad Shah’s killers are everything the safe-space pansies accuse us “white privilege” types of being: It is Shah’s co-religionists who cannot abide the other. They won’t tolerate Christians, they won’t tolerate Muslims who convert to Christianity, and they won’t even tolerate a devout Muslim who commits the sin of offering neighborly greetings on a Christian holiday. And so they killed him by “stamping on his head”.

Not all Muslims are like these savages. Some (albeit not enough, for understandable reasons, given his grim end) are like poor Asad Shah. But, as my late compatriot George Jonas liked to point out, what matters in any population is not the numbers but who makes the running, who has the energy, who has the wind at their backs. And in Islam (in part thanks to the supine cringe of Cameron and other western leaders) the wind is not with Mr Shah but with the blood lust of his ravenous killers, and those who killed this week in Baghdad and Brussels and beyond.

You can have pluralism or Islam, but not both. Mr Shah thought he could have both, and so they killed him.

Rest in peace, Asad Shah.

Indeed, dittos, and amen.

Mo’ bettah brutality update! More happy Easter from the “religion” of “peace”:

The Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, issued a statement claiming he could confirm that Islamic State jihadists crucified 56-year-old Father Tom Uzhunnalil, an Indian Catholic priest, on Good Friday.

Father Uzhunnalil was kidnapped from a home for the elderly run by Mother Teresa’s Missionaries for Charity in Aden, Yemen on March 4. The location has been described as “the only Christian presence” in the city of Aden, where the internationally-recognized government of President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi has established operations after the Shiite rebels knowns as Houthis took over the nation’s capital, Sanaa.

Four Indian nuns were murdered during the attack on the home by Islamic State militants, along with two staffers, a guard, and eight elderly residents.

The UK Daily Mail reports that several religious groups received threatening messages last week claiming that Father Thomas had been tortured, and would be crucified on Good Friday, but it was Christoph Cardinal Schonborn who confirmed the heinous deed had been carried out.

Not to worry, the idiot Current Occupant of the Vatican is on the case:

“Three days ago, there was a gesture of war, of destruction, in a city of Europe by people who don’t want to live in peace,” he said. “Behind that gesture there were arms manufacturers, arms traffickers, who want blood, not peace, who want war, not brotherhood,” he said.

No word from this left-wing moron on the fact that the Brussels bombs, like most of the ones used to carry out Muslim terror attacks, were homemade and not built by any “arms manufacturer.” And that’ll be yet another funeral that Hussein Obama won’t be going anywhere near, or even publicly acknowledging.




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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options


If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards


RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments


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