* At the NY Times the Nazis are always just around the corner just waiting for an excuse to pounce.
* Funny that, considering how soft and appeasing the NYT was toward actual Nazis before WWII.
* Immigrant communities afraid of unlimited chain migration being cut off … that was never a stated reason for any of them wanting to come in the first place… rather strange for anybody to bring that up now.
* A Brandeis professor is holding out hope that the killers are blond.
“For the most part I do not see an immediate backlash,” said Jytte Klausen, a professor at Brandeis University who has written on domestic terrorism and the intersection of politics and religion in Western Europe. “Security forces know that these attacks are often the work of converts. We may well be looking for blonde killers,” she added in a phone interview.
* I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that the long-anticipated, never-seen backlash will happen in France. I think the French are far tougher than their freedom-fries/surrender-monkey image in the US. The French still have a nation, and I think they will defend it.
* It seems that there is no provocation by Muslims or other protected classes that the Megaphone would consider a legitimate cause for backlash. I’m certain that even a nuclear weapon or bio attack by “extremists” would not even qualify.
At the same time, the slightest current microaggression or ancient deed, no matter how fictitious, by a forebear of the traditional host nation stock is worthy of onerous laws/persecutions/moral panics/blood libels supported 100% by TPTB.
Had this tyranny been prognosticated 30 years ago, the reasonable person would have predicted a violent revolution well in advance of the current state. But still, people say that a counterreaction is inevitable.
I’m not so sure. Oppressive institutions, e.g, serfdom, have demonstrated centuries-long staying power.
The eternal boot in the face is now. And one can’t even advise “get used to it” since everyone already seems quite accustomed to living under this regime, albeit with a little anonymous Internet grumbling to let off steam.
* If instead of a sophisticated, military-style strike Wednesday on a French newspaper known for satirizing Islam, it was a strike on the Islam-enabling New York Times, and ten of its staff were murdered, would the surviving members of the editorial board take the same stance they do here? Is there a point at which the NYT could entertain the thought that perhaps Muslims don’t make good additions to Western societies?
* What’s the danger of a “backlash”? Does anyone honest-to-God believe that the French are going to start slaughtering Muslims by the score?
What would a backlash consist of? Ending future Muslim immigration and kicking out those who aren’t yet citizens. Following that, maybe they’d put on the hurt by doing things that indirectly reduced Muslim birthrates, such as cutting off welfare. Finally, if all else failed, perhaps they’d deport Muslim citizens.
If Muslims don’t really want to live in a Western country, with all its freedoms, then they shouldn’t move to one – and the West is under no obligation to accept them.
* The number of dead in Paris is similar to that in your own Fort Hood workplace insensitivity incident – and how much did that move the needle?
I foresee compulsory sensitivity training for the survivors, together with a push for real diversity in the world of satirical journalism.
* “Is there a point at which the NYT could entertain the thought that perhaps Muslims don’t make good additions to Western societies?”
And this my friends, is the prime example of why there is no backlash in the offing. As 9/11 happened, I was certain that the immigration idiocy would finally stop. But we know now it didn’t and actually ramped up.
There is no incident, and I mean none, that will provoke the masses to effecting meaningful change until widespread hardship/poverty – freedom coming from nothing left to lose – is rampant among the native stock. Rotherham? Your daughters raped on a widespread basis abetted by the authorities? Crickets.
There is perhaps some glimmer of hope in that another program of the elites is inflicting poverty on the middle class, but there is still a great deal of ruin left there, at least decades or a generation or two.
Get used to it, there will be no collective action anytime soon. The only rational/productive response is on the individual level, such as developing income situations that leave one less at the mercy of things like AA/doxing, expatriation to ignored areas, homeschooling (to include firearms training) for offspring, that sort of thing. If there is going to any change, it will be among our progeny, not us.
* I read up a bit on Charlie Hebdo and, well, they were really pushing it to the limit. Many of the cartoons are flat out obscene, such as depictions of Jesus sodomizing God, Marine Le Pen with a Hitler mustache for pubes, Mahomet presenting his anus for sodomy, etc. Additionally, their “serious” content was so far left it might as well have been an outhouse book for the New Republic crowd.
“Coco” (Corinne Rey), the woman who let the assassins in the office when they threatened her, had repeatedly lampooned French police as losers with some phallic inadequacy. I wonder how she feels now that two of them were murdered on the street for protecting her.
The Muslims chose a pretty unsympathetic target, which was strategically a savvy move. Just about the only thing I can say for publications editor Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier is that he was no coward, and he was an equal opportunity debaser of all things sacred. Given Charlie Hebdo’s persistent violation of taboos, including those concerning speaking ill of the dead (they were briefly banned in 1970 for mocking the death of Charles de Gaulle), these guys are fair game for criticism despite having just been slaughtered. I mean, what is the point of provocation except to provoke?
In comparison to his ideological fellow travelers, Charb was exceptional for not being a hypocrite, as those on the left are typically the most censorious of all these days when it comes to their own sacred cows. Charlie Hebdo was really an old-school counterculture magazine that is out of place in the contemporary Orwellian leftist atmosphere.
In a sense, one could say that the leftist mantra that “we cannot tolerate intolerance” is partially responsible for these killings. Not only do certain groups – egged on by white anti-racists – now feel legally entitled to respect, anyone with a grievance can now justify retaliation based on what they personally feel slighted by. Say, for example, someone in the US were murdered for portraying MLK taking it up the butt. Does anyone seriously believe that the victim would be held up by leftists as a martyr for free speech? And MLK is sacred only to about 0.03 times as many people as Mahomet.
That being the case, doesn’t it follow that Muslims would feel justified in taking action against those who offend them?
Maybe in the long run these guys at Charlie Hebdo did us all a favor by pushing the cult of the profane to the point of absurdity so that we can see it all the more clearly for what it was. Too bad Charb isn’t around anymore to draw a parody of his and his staff’s grisly demise — that would be a proper epitaph for the bygone era that gave rise to Charlie Hebdo. And I mean that in a sincerely nostalgic, if ambivalent, way.
* As a man, I have to admit that I found the sheer professionalism, bravery and efficiency of execution of that attack admirable.
* The Jewish Student Union has launched legal attacks against:
-Twitter (to obtain the identity of some users)
-the Front National
-nationalist news magazines
-the author and TV celebrity Eric Zemmour
and plenty of others for having expressed big bad thoughts about mass immigration
They’re a lobby that constantly tries to censor whatever they consider to be ‘intolerance’ and they’re openly politically active against the only party that rejects the mass immigration of muslims. And when they can’t censor their opponents they just slander them and the media is happy to participate in the hate campaign.
* Nothing says “emasculated society” like a candlelight vigil.
* As an aside, I must remind the NYT that Jews will be the biggest victims of a Muslim and third world dominated France.
I think they are of aware of it, but they can help themselves. Evolutionary psychology. Scorpion and the frog. It is a hard-wired hatred of Christianity and Christian culture and values.
* The NYT is playing brinkmanship. They will adjust the anti-white narrative only when they can see the whites of the Mohammedans’ eyes.
* I listen to NPR during my commute to the train station to hear what the other side is saying. Today’s coverage of the Paris massacre(s) was grotesque. If you’d listened only to NPR you would get the impression that a couple of crazed Frenchmen were protesting against excessive freedom of speech in La Republique. There were a few brief mentions of Mohammedanism and Mohammedans in order to reassure readers that this ideology and its ideologues have no real relation to the long series of on-going atrocities in France. In fact, the events of yesterday were treated as if they were an isolated and entirely unique episode. And, of course, no mention at all of immigration-related issues. The left-wing echo chamber is cavernous and has become devoid of all content except pink* noise.
* In foreign policy, we really do seem to be routinely shocked at the fact that all these ungrateful annoying foreigners despise foreign soldiers occupying their country and foreign bombs occasionally blowing their countrymen up. It’s hard to top that in terms of fundamental cluelessness about human nature.
In domestic policy, we seem to spend a lot of energy trying to suppress the (again, totally shocking and unforseeable) anger of people toward groups that disproportionately commit crimes or cause other social problems, mainly by insisting very loudly that anyone who feels this way is a bad person who should be silenced and shunned.
Now in both cases, the anger is often directed at the wrong targets. I didn’t bomb any weddings in Afghanistan, the Muslim guy who works down the hall from me didn’t shoot any annoying French cartoonists, the black guy who runs the local coffee shop doesn’t go around mugging people, etc. But human nature is what it is, not what we wish it to be–so if 13% of the population does 40% of the crime, or if a bomb with an American flag painted on it blows up a lot of random kids I your country, you are pretty reliably going to get that kind of reaction.
* Actually Europe is more like that fallen policeman, pleading for his life and receiving no mercy from the new arrivals.
* Why doesn’t anyone in the media say European women should have more children?
Ah, but that might be anti-feminist since it implies that ‘women should stay home and be mothers’.
But paradoxically, these pro-feminist voices see the savior of Europe in the anti-feminist or non-feminist Third World where women still have lots of babies.
So, it’s good that feminism won and white women have so few babies. But it’s also good that the non-West is still un-feminist and produces lots of people that can be exported to the West.
* Birth rates are dropping everywhere, including where blacks and browns are. Modernity and prosperity in combination make everyone have fewer kids except for an initial immigrant spike that dissipates among not-white immigrants to white countries.
The meme that only whites are moribund in their fertility is not terribly well supported by the data, which shows a global decrease in fertility.
* As others have pointed out, how much larger do they want the populations of European nations to become? Europe, Japan and others have the largest populations in their history. The problem, if it really is a problem, is that the ratio of old to young is getting skewed. So people are worried there won’t be enough tax payers paying into social security-type systems to support the increasing number of retired people.
So far the only solution being offered for this problem is increasing the population of nations who are already at historic population highs. And of the two ways to achieve this growth, immigration or having the natives produce more kids, clearly the former is the one preferred by the powers that be, so much so that even if the latter where taking place, they’d still find a reason to support more immigration.
But even if we lived in a sane world and the path of increasing the native birth rates were chosen, would this be the best solution? It seems that this would too be a ponzi scheme in that it would require a continuous above replacement level of birth rates. Given the longevity of modern first worlders, you would have to hit the population wall sooner or later. In other words this ever increasing population rate, on top of record population levels, with no periodic plague or famine to trim back numbers, is going to eventually become the problem.
With that said, other solutions that address this imbalance between retirees and workers must be explored. The current solution at best is going to lead to a severely overpopulated first world, and at worst to years of future strife between the natives and the colonists.
One more thing. Does anyone find it odd how the media can use Europe, or Japan for that matter, as either a positive or a negative depending upon which buttons they are wanting to push on the American people?
For example, when they want Americans to meekly accept immigration, they give us these articles about a ‘dying Japan’ or a ‘Europe that can’t get up’. Immigration is presented as a solution, and while Japan accepts none and Europe can’t or won’t assimilate them, good old America just keeps on taking ‘em in, thus our economy is performing better than theirs.
But when the media wants to squash any sentiment against small government, or gun ownership, etc., they paint a picture of a wealthy Japan or EU with their minuscule murder rates, generous national health care systems, workers compensation, unemployment benefits, maternity leaves, etc., etc. Why the streets and infrastructure in those nations are gleaming, modern marvels compared to the crumbling structures in America. If only we’d tax ourselves like those guys.
But when stories like this are presented, Europe and Japan are definitely not portrayed as the weak, dying bastards they seem to be when it comes to immigration stories.
* Following WWII, Japan had a great reset in their entire society, obviously. One conscious choice made by the leaders was encouragement of a “welfare society” as opposed to a “welfare state”. Results of this include things like the convention of lifetime employment, easy/useless jobs for the less capable, very low barriers to entry for small cottage businesses for part-timers/elderly and so forth.
This requires a homogeneous population that shares common values, empathy for one another combined with ethnic particularism, and so forth. Japan famously fits this description, but additionally it has been particularly workable in Japan as they’ve always been the purest feudal Confucianists.
The threat that immigration poses to this system underlies much of the Japanese resistance to immigration, something Westerners don’t really understand, preferring to think that Japanese are just Asian analogs to redneck hicks who just don’t want a broader choice of restaurants or something.
* Europe is like a junkie who will get on his knees and do what he has to do to get his next fix. But he’s having a hard time stomaching the taste of immivasion.
Europeans cannot conceive of living without the comfort and protection of a cradle-to-grave social-welfare system. When they look at the comparatively-modest (but still-extensive) U.S. welfare state, they say, “My God, have you ever seen such barbarism? How can they live that way?” But even the U.S. having serious problems figuring out how to pay for its own (relatively-)limited programs.
They know that the welfare state needs more payers than takers, and they know that they are not breeding enough young workers to pay the taxes to keep the benefits coming. But they also know that the the “vibrancy” created by immigration is diluting their human capital and destroying the fabric of their societies.
It’s a truly vexing dilemma, not easily solved. Can Europe be Europe (a continent whose governments provide generous benefits to their citizens) *and* European (a continent populated by white, nominally-Christian people)? We’ll see.
* Europe’s problem is that there are not enough young workers to pay for the old pensioners. Everyone is seeking ways to increase the supply of young workers. But it would be much easier simply to get rid of the pensioners, or to say, “Sorry, but you’re too old for us to justify spending good money on you. From now on, you’re on your own.”
It’s ghastly to think about, but if Europeans want Europe to stay white, they should take a good, hard look at Grandma and ponder whether she’s truly worth keeping around.
* When was Europe doing best? In the period up to 1960 when it had a population pressure relief valve in its post-Columbian hinterlands – America, Canada, Siberia, Argentina, South Africa, Australia. Even for that matter in the cross-Medditerranean colonies of Algeria, which were actually formally part of France. Once the options for European immigration to escape its own fecundity began to be closed off starting with the US 1965 Immigration law and following up with the deportations from Algeria and Portuguese Africa, the racial strife in South Africa and Rhodesia, the ending of the White Australia and White Canada policies, Europe quickly went into demographic crisis and began importing hordes of Muslims, starting with Turks to Germany and followed up by North Africa Muslims to France and Pakistanis to Britain.
It was of course not helpful to have the fight against Hitlerism reinterpreted starting in the 1960′s into a fight against racial discrimination of all kinds and especially a fight against the immigration and nationality policies of the European victors in maintenance of their national character and against all forms of segregation. However that is what happened, and sadly in the end, it is proving Hitler to be the prophet, and this is obviously the key intellectual turning point in recent European history. Anyone who resists the destruction of Europe today by immigration is automatically tagged as a Hitlerite. As if wanting to keep your country for your own kith and kin is the same as advocating the reopening of Auschwitz and the waging of mass wars of agression.