Comments to Steve Sailer:
* Glad to see someone on the Dissident Right acknowledge the elephant in the room–that anti-immigration and populist-economics are on the same side and have the same enemy: Big Money.
* In the last election Washington Examiner columnist Tim Carney was practically begging Romney to go populist, and he has been predicting that the only way the Republicans can win is to attack Cronyism, to embrace Main Street over Wall St. etc. Of course that was during what Pat Buchanan just noted was the Republican Party’s “libertarian moment” which seems to have passed.
Nonetheless, Carney’s prescription seems to be validated by Trump’s success, as immigration is populist economics. So while Carney was attacking crony capitalism from a sort of libertarian theoretical view and suggesting that it be framed in an anti-elite rhetoric to attract those white voters Romney missed, Trump (and also Le Pen) bear out that such populist/nationalist messaging works and was being grossly neglected by people who claimed to want to win elections.
Peter Thiel says “monopolize a niche”. Trump has done just that.
* While iSteve was waiting until Sept. when the English translation was published, I had read it in Frog before the summer (grace a la biblio UT at Austin). No one in English has pointed to the sex scenes, first with Miriam who moves to Israel, later on with 2 Arab hookers. Miriam was/is a randy jewish girl. Guess which sex event was the transcendental over-the-top dislocation of self into the sublime land of fuck? H is great great fun to read in a sick sick way.
Marine Le Pen spoke for 8 minutes at the EU parlement with Merkel and Hollande both present. You should/will see Merkel’s expression as she listened. Le Pen’s French accent is the non-regional but (intentionally) not too Parisian of the educated class. (Segolene Royale OTOH spoke in an apparently self-invented French accent, different enough from high French to seem somewhat regional, but from no region (a Frenchwoman told me that). The YouTube available ~8 minute clip has English translation as subtitles. She speaks off-the-cuff at first and smoothly seques to reading her remarks. Then Hollande responds with the usual cliches – addressing the establishment of German French amity from DeGaulle and Adenauer on, after 2 world wars, as the justification for us to burying our heads in the sand. In effect, we are not to change in the face of a new challenge lest we betray our historically irrelevant pieties.
The kicker was in the applause. For Le Pen there was some energetic clapping. For Holland, the clapping was from most all the other elected members of the EU parliment from the EU countries. Not only did they continue to applaud, but they commenced standing-up and applauding. Check out the video.
* The rise of the Front National in France is entirely the fault of Europe’s liberal, “progressive” voices like The Guardian, Libération, Hollande and Corbyn. Their abject, total failure to live up to their own principles has needlessly handed the far-right a monopoly over one of the most pressing issues of our time.
Ever since 9/11, it’s been apparent that we are witnessing a growing global religious movement, which is implacably and murderously opposed to liberalism, democracy, free speech and secularism.
But the supposed guardians of these progressive values suffered a profound cognitive dissonance in the face of this threat – the Islamist revolution is anti-Western, and its adherents are primarily non-white people from the poorer regions of the world. As the world’s “oppressed”, they had to be defended, never challenged. To do so would be racism, or imperialism.
After each terrorist atrocity, it became more and more clear that these fanatics are driven by an apocalyptic religious idea, not geopolitics or anti-capitalism. But after each atrocity the morally bankrupt European “progressives” doubled down on their absurd interpretation of events, excoriating their own constituency for their “Islamophobia” if they dared to question the accepted narrative. It doesn’t matter that the Islamists themselves constantly tell us that they’re motivated by Islam. The Guardian knows better.
Theo Van Gogh and the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists gave their lives for the liberal, secular values that differentiate us from the religious fanatics. All the Guardian and the rest of the condescending, reactionary left could do is attack them for “offending” the religious sensibilities of the murderers.
When they felt they had to be seen displaying solidarity after the Hebdo attacks, they wheeled out some pathetic, safe platitudes about “free speech”, waving generic placards with a picture of a pencil, while running a mile from any discussion about what’s actually preventing free speech.
The 4th wave feminists that clutter up the Guardian will twitter-storm at the drop of a hat when someone wears a “sexist” shirt, or if someone is mis-gendered in their local Tesco, but they remain totally silent about the many millions of women and LGBT people world-wide who are systematically oppressed in the name of Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali lives under 24hr protection for daring to criticise Islam from a feminist perspective, but instead of supporting her, the Guardian run pieces attacking her.
After the 13/11 attacks in Paris, liberal secularists in Europe finally thought that our politicians and media will finally wake up to what’s going on. No such luck. Instead we got the now-familiar onslaught of condescending, absurd warnings about “Islamophobia”, and a faux-polite, mealy-mouthed silence about Islamist religious intolerance. That silence has become deafening.
Something had to give, and it was the duty of the Guardian and Libération to ensure that the inevitable questions were asked in the context of secular, tolerant, liberal values. Their inexcusable, shameful failure to do this means that the same questions will be asked in the context of old school, “blood-and-soil” race hate, like Trump and Le Pen are offering. What’s the Guardian offering?
* Attacking Trump’s proposal is a very dangerous game.
1. The attackers put themselves at the mercy of ISIS and every Farook in America. Another San Bernardino next October would completely Farook Hillary’s campaign.
2. The attacks bring Trump’s proposal to the fore, exposing masses of people to them, and make previously unthinkable thoughts thinkable. (The attacks themselves widen the Overton Window.)
3. Events in Europe have made it clear that the numbers are huge. The danger is tidal, not the blip from a single shooting incident. Attacking Trump looks like a naive denial of historical tides.
But what other option do they have? Even Hillary’s modest acknowledgement that we need to really, really carefully vet the “refugees” concedes most of the debate.
* When Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone:
United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law:
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris — car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons):
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam”– the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel.”
– Leon Uris, “The Haj”
It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France , the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots
* Exchange on O’Reilly Factor 12/8/2015:
O’Reilly: Mr. Cohen, you heard Donald Trump say no more Muslims in here. What was your first gut reaction to that?
Aaron Cohen: …You cannot bar all Muslims from coming into this country [U.S.]. I’m speaking as a Jew right now. It’s absolutely ludicrous.
O’Reilly: Israel doesn’t ban Muslims coming into Israel, right?
Cohen: No, we certainly do not. In fact we have a million Arabs who live in Israel. We work with the Druze, they serve in our defense force. The commander of our Golani elite infantry brigade is a Druze, he is an Arab. So we cannot alienate the Muslims. Number two, we are just going to create a more vicious cycle of anti-Semitism in this country which is not going to help anyone.
The concern for what is good for the Jews is primary for Cohen. It is understandable that Trump’s proposal would elicit concern among Jews and Muslims of the potential for a generalized anti-Semitism. Less understandable is the reaction when others might have different priorities.
* The answer isn’t (by the way) that the Jews want to destroy western civilization as revenge for the holocaust. Nor is it explainable simply by the drive for cheap labor – considering the welfare costs and other social costs felt by all segments of society, including the elites.
The reason they’re taking in refugees is they’re afraid that if they don’t offer a safety valve, the whole Arab world will go up into ISIS-style chaos. The chaos is driven by class struggle beheaded of leadership more than by religious fanaticism (which is the available outlet because it’s subsidized by the Gulf States and got a head start when it was the chosen instrument of U.S. imperialism in Afghanistan and Syria). Class-based political organization has been suppressed in the Middle East, privileging the mosque.
One thing nationalists miss, in their myopic focus on their own country, is the dependence of our elites on the Middle East. Ironically, opposing globalism will require international solutions.
* Borders are like a parachute: they should be opened rarely and for a specific purpose; keeping them open all the time is a real drag.
