The Paris Terror

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Anatoly Karlin writes: Some preliminary thoughts on the latest terrorist attacks that have claimed 128+ lives in Paris.

(1) The usual cucks have wasted no time in making political hay of this tragedy

So don’t be shamed by traditional social conventions about avoiding making political points out of respect for the dead. Like it or not but the information age and the 24 hour news cycle have made this genteel habit obsolete and indeed, maladaptive.

Spread the anti-“Invite the World” propaganda far and wide (Liveleak version in case YouTube shuts it down).

Note as Whyvert points out that Marine Le Pen, leading the opinion polls and the one politician who might have materially reduced the chances of this happening, is currently on trial for Islamophobia. The globalist elites don’t play fair and neither should you.

(2) It’s probably not even gonna cost you much, if anything.

For instance, here is what Wikileaks – an impressively redpilled organization – Tweeted soon after the attacks.

Contrary to their numerous detractors in the comments, this is an entirely brave and entirely appropriate Tweet. It’s the exact time and place because nobody would pay any attention otherwise.

Moreover, I took note of their follower count when they made this Tweet. It was at 2.81 million. A few hours later, it was still at 2.81 million.

Note that this in spite of the SJWs having attacked Wikileaks for politicizing these terrorist attacks but not the the likes of establishment journalists like Ezra Klein. But apart from confirming SJWs as the mercenary attack dogs of the neocons that they are, this didn’t even have any substantial effect on Wikileaks’ follower numbers, which goes once more to show that the SJWs are more bark than bite.

(3) The globalist elites are pure unadultered evil so do not take anything they say at face value.

assad-on-western-hypocrisy

And now we come to the “Invade Whe world” part.

The Syrian Civil War was a primarily US sponsored project to weaponize their Islamist lackeys to break up Syria for make benefit of Israel. And ever since Sarkozy it should be borne in mind that France has become even more “American” than the Americans, as seen in Libya, and in the ferocity of their demands to oust Assad.

COMMENTS:

* We got blown up in Boston by Muslims we support in this city the same way France got blown up by the Muslims they support in Paris. There is no yet, it’s already happened and they’re still here plotting the next B/S stunt. They are out there preparing. And there isn’t a thing we can do about it because not only aren’t we getting Muslims out, we’re bring more in. Already the liberals are warning the racists like me not to point out the religion of peace as a factor even though the religion of peace claims credit. See, to liberals, it’s just that bad-boy 1% of Muslims causing all the trouble. If only we could just be tolerant they would love us.

We have to get used to the idea that until we surrender the country to them, we have to get blown up once in awhile. These are simple things. Paris will surrender, the French will leave Paris to Muslims one day. Muslims are willing to wipe us out, we are not willing to wipe them out. Strongman wins, checkmate and they aren’t interested in the feminist multiculturalism of the West except for how easy it makes their “work”. How’s that feminist multi-cultural thing working, are we ready to abandon that? Until we do, they’re going to rack up the “wins”.

We’re surrendering our culture and country to them. It’s not a Democrat thing it’s white guilt. The French? They don’t have to stomach to fight back any more than we do. If they did, they would have flushed Muslims out of their country. No, instead, there will be a migration out of Paris the same way there has been a migration of whites out of Detroit, DC, Baltimore, Atlanta, etc. We abandon our cities, we don’t fight back. It’s a surrender. Pretty simple, actually. Different cultures take over the cities here from the culture that will take over Paris, London and the rest over there in Europe, but cultures aside, it’s the descendants of the same African continent. Simple Demographics and it has nothing to do with Democrats. It has to do with Culture vs. Culture. And ours is weaker than theirs. Until I see evidence to the contrary, this will not change. Perhaps Islam and Hispanics will wage war for supremacy, I don’t know. It won’t be whites and feminists, that’s certain

I see no hope, only a slightly different time line between the US and Europe, although if we import our enemy in greater numbers, we shorten the time line to surrender. But we aren’t going to wage war on our own soil. They are willing, we are not. Strong culture wins. Bye bye, lights out.

* This problem has been brewing for decades in the western cities as a result of mass immigration and the gradual creation of sharia compliant enclaves, takeover of schools, rape as a weapon of ethnic cleansing etc – all covered up by the media.

It’s true the neocons have stirred the pot and also true that Hollande, Cameron etc will try and use these attacks as an excuse for a war against Assad but the West was slowly breeding a civil war before that.

The neocon solution: invade the world, invite the world, is the worst of all.

The liberal solution: invite the world, ends the same way, just slower.

The solution is don’t invite the world.

* How the Middle East disaster has started:

The US neocons had intentionally removed all clear heads with the knowledge about the Arab world from the position of influence, in order to implement the grandiose Middle East plan of total butchery. A sampling: Mr. Feith in his power of under-secretary of defense for policy in the US government, had been assiduously weeding our Arabists that could be an obstacle to the neocons’ project for the Middle Eastern countries:
“…career U.S. intelligence officer Patrick Lang recounted a job interview he had with neocon war architect Douglas Feith. Lang, who had previously run the Pentagon’s world-wide spying operations, “was put forward as somebody who would be good at running the Pentagon’s office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, i.e., counterinsurgency.” So he was interviewed by Feith:
“He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me,” Lang recalled, “which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers — they always had briefing papers, you know — about me.
“He’s looking at this stuff, and he says, ‘I’ve heard of you. I heard of you.’
“He says, ‘Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?’
“And I said, ‘Yeah, that’s really true.’
“That’s too bad,” Feith said.
“That was the end of the interview,” Lang said.”

* John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in 2006:

If there were no Israel Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act and U.S. policy toward Damascus would have been more in line with the U.S. national interest.

Israeli leaders did not push the Bush Administration to put its crosshairs on Syria before March 2003, because they were too busy pushing for war against Iraq. But once Baghdad fell in mid‐April, Sharon and his lieutenants began urging Washington to target Damascus. On April 16, for example, Sharon and Shaul Mofaz, his defense minister, gave high profile interviews in different Israeli newspapers. Sharon, in Yedioth Ahronoth, called for the United States to put “very heavy” pressure on Syria. Mofaz told Ma’ariv that, “We have a long list of issues that we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians and it is appropriate that it should be done through the Americans.” Sharon’s national security advisor, Ephraim Halevy, told a WINEP audience that it was now important for the United States to get rough with Syria, and the Washington Post reported that Israel was “fueling the campaign” against Syria by feeding the United States intelligence reports about the actions of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Prominent members of the Lobby made the same arguments after Baghdad fell. Wolfowitz declared that “there has got to be regime change in Syria,” and Richard Perle told a journalist that “We could deliver a short message, a two‐ worded message [to other hostile regimes in the Middle East]: ‘You’re next’.” In early April, WINEP released a bipartisan report stating that Syria “should not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam’s reckless, irresponsible and defiant behavior could end up sharing his fate.” On April 15, Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled “Next, Turn the Screws on Syria,” while the next day Zev Chafets wrote an article for the New York Daily News entitled “Terror‐Friendly Syria Needs a Change, Too.” Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the New Republic on April 21 that Syrian leader Assad was a serious threat to America.
Back on Capitol Hill, Congressman Eliot Engel (D‐NY) had reintroduced the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act on April 12. It threatened sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, give up its WMD, and stop supporting terrorism, and it also called for Syria and Lebanon to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel. This legislation was strongly endorsed by the Lobby—especially AIPAC—and “framed,” according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, “by some of Israel’s best friends in Congress.” It had been on the back burner for some time, largely because the Bush Administration had little enthusiasm for it, but the anti‐Syrian act passed overwhelmingly (398‐4) in the House; 89‐4 in the Senate), and Bush signed it into law on December 12, 2003.
Yet the Bush Administration was still divided about the wisdom of targeting Syria at this time. Although the neoconservatives were eager to pick a fight with Damascus, the CIA and the State Department were opposed. And even after Bush signed the new law, he emphasized that he would go slowly in implementing it.
Bush’s ambivalence is understandable. First, the Syrian government had been providing the United States with important intelligence about al Qaeda since 9/11 and had also warned Washington about a planned terrorist attack in the Gulf. Syria had also given CIA interrogators access to Mohammed Zammar, the alleged recruiter of some of the 9/11 hijackers. Targeting the Assad regime would jeopardize these valuable connections, and thus undermine the larger war on terrorism.
Second, Syria was not on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq war (e.g., it had even voted for U.N. Resolution 1441), and it was no threat to the United States. Playing hardball with Syria would make the United States look like a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Finally, putting Syria on the American hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to pressure Syria, it made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first.
Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws to Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israel officials and pro‐Israel groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act and U.S. policy toward Damascus would have been more in line with the U.S. national interest.

* The “liveleak” video that was posted here was also up on Youtube on the 11th of November, it was already taken down by the 13th. I wish I had copied it to my hard drive as liveleak provides no way (that I can see) to download this video, which is a shame. Moral of the story; when you see something like this posted on Youtube, copy it to your hard drive immediately. That way, if you are so inclined, you can re-upload it to Youtube as soon as they take it down. BTW; this video got over 1 million views in the 3 days that it was up, which says a lot about why they took it down as fast as they noticed it.

* White men are completely demoralized. Look at the full Yuri Bezmenov interview (clip included in video above). This all began as a Soviet effort to demoralize the West. It worked. Our left is multicultural socialist and our right is cuckold fetishist. None will lift a finger to defend our most important asset, our women and children, from the invading Islamists and Africans. 65 years ago, in 1950, white western men would have burned the Islamist areas to the ground and expelled every last one of them. Today, they are beaten. Beaten by communist inspired feminism, queers, and negro lovers. They’ve been forbidden from speaking truth for at least forty years. Thus the “men” who should do the defending are all feminized twats who cry at a skinned knee or perceived microagression toward a thug illiterate negro. They have no idea what competition is, they’re all “winners,” and unable to defend themselves let alone their wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers. In fact, they look to these women to defend them!

The white MAN has been dead for two generations. Where isolated pockets of his race remain, in rural and exurban areas, he is shooting his guns at trees, crashing his motorcycles, and avoiding contact with the society which hates him. It is over for him. That’s the irony, that the USSR won even as it collapsed in ruin.

* It’s been said that the reason why the West made greater progress than the Muslim World is because the West went through the Renaissance whereas the Muslim World didn’t. It’s been said that Islamic culture held back freedom of thought and discourse.

But here’s one big problem. The Byzantine Civilization. The Greek-led Byzantine civilization was Christian. Also, unlike Western Europe that lost the culture of antiquity due to Germanic Barbarian Invasions, Byzantine civilization survived and preserved its memory of the classical past.

Then, why did the Byzantines fail to make the kind of progress that Western Europe did? Why did Western Europe that came under barbarian rule eventually grow richer and stronger whereas the Byzantines, which preserved the classical heritage, grow weaker and weaker, eventually being invaded by Venetians and then by the Ottomans?

One great result of the Germanic barbarian invasions was that it stopped the Roman agenda of diversity-propagating all over Europe. The classical dream of the original EU as spearheaded by the Ancient Romans was to racially muddy all of Europe. Romans brought slaves and merchants and workers from all over the world—Africa and Near East—and sought to spread them all over Europe. Romans conquered much of Northern Europe and built roads that would have connected Cairo and Damascus to Paris and London(whatever they may have been called back then). Had the Roman Empire not been brought down, European race might have been muddied into something like North Africans long long ago.

But the white Germanic Barbarians destroyed the imperialistic Romans, and thus they racially saved Europe.
And that kept Western Europe white. Of course, there were incursions into Southern Italy and Spain/Portugal by the Moors and other swarthy folks later on. And Russians fell under Mongol yoke and Greeks came under Ottoman Rule.
But the heart of Western Europe remained white.

Another great thing for the white race was the arrival of Muhammad and the spread of Islam. As a result, Christianity came under the challenge of non-white Muslims. Mongol Tatars turned Islamic. And all of Near East and North African came under Muslim rule.
If all such non-white peoples had been converted to Christianity(and had Islam never appeared on the scene), it’s possible that the Catholic Church back then(as it tries to do today) might have sought to create a world empire defined by faith than by race.

If indeed faith in Jesus should be the prime allegiance for a people, then white Europeans should feel as brothers with yellow Christians, brown Christians, and black Christians. But thankfully, Muhammad came along and created a new faith that won the hearts and minds of non-whites all over.
So, Christianity became the defacto the white religion and Islam became defacto the swarthy/black religion. Of course, there were white Muslims and non-white Christians, but Europe became predominantly Christian whereas the Near East, Central Asia(ruled by Mongols and Turkmens), and North Africa became predominantly Muslim. The Islamization of the world outside Europe made white Europeans more race-conscious as Christianity became synonymous with defending(and later spreading) white civilization. But this would not have been the case if there had been no Islam and if all of North Africa and Near East had become Christian. It’s possible that the Catholic Church might have sided with non-white Catholics against European Protestants. After all, there were times when Europeans even allied with Muslims against fellow Christians. This would have been even more likely if the Middle East and North Africa had turned Christian.

Perhaps, one of the problems of the Byzantines was racial. Since they ruled over much of the Near East, they often rubbed shoulders with less intelligent non-whites. So, there may have been less intellectual firepower regardless of whether the people there were Christian or Muslim. After all, even secular Arab nations haven’t been able to achieve much in the 20th century. Arab IQ is simply lower, and the Byzantine empire ruled over too many not-too-bright people. So, the problem could have been racial than cultural/religious. In contrast, Western Europe had more high-IQ people. This isn’t to discount the power of culture which is important, but we shouldn’t discount the power of race and biology.

Another reason why the Byzantines might have faltered and declined is because their civilizational continuity led to loss of vigor, to boredom and apathy. Paradoxically, it may have grown weaker in the long run(when compared to Western Europe that fell to Germanic barbarians) because it remained intact as a civilization.
Sometimes, a thing has to be rediscovered to spark curiosity and imagination. The Renaissance had a powerful impact on the West cuz the old was made ‘new’ again. It was reinvigorated as something to fire up the imagination again.
It’s a tragedy to lose one’s heritage and past, but there is also the mythic excitement of rediscovering it again through chance and imagination. The Renaissance wasn’t just an imitation of the rediscovered past but an inspired act of using its fragments—as too much of it had been lost forever—to envision something even greater and grander and richer.

So, the lesson for the Alt Right shouldn’t just be heritage and tradition. It needs to be the power to re-imagine the past and its lessons in a spirit of renewed vigor. It’s like sticking with the GOP is like trying to keep the Byzantine civilization going. It has lost its vigor. It’s about the likes of George Will and Bill O’Reilly arguing over Reagan’s mental health. It’s like Soviets in the 80s still trying to keep up the holy myth of Lenin that had turned into a mummy.

It would be stupid and crazy for a people to reject their own heritage. But mere clinging to heritage leads to dissipation, boredom, and enervation. The past must be retold and re-imagined and reinvigorated to inspire new visions of the future.
This is why Jews win. They use Hollywood and other industries to re-imagine and re-create the past in their own inspired manner(that is good for their power but deadly to their enemies, the white race).
With a culture of reinvigoration, one’s culture and identity turn into museum pieces, into mummies.

* The regime change in Syria was a ‘Israeli Project’ from day one.

On July 4, 2011, a conference of Syrian anti-regime groups was held in Saint-Germain in France. The meeting was attended by 200 people representing none of the Syrian groups calling for reforms in Syria – the ‘Democratic change in Syria’. The meeting was organized by La Regle du Jeu (The Rule of the Game) magazine and website which is headed by Zionist Jew Bernard-Henri Levy. The other Zionist Jews who attended the meeting included Bernard Kouchner, former French foreign minister, Frederik Ansel, a member of Israel’s ruling Likud Party, Alex Goldfarb, former Knesset member and adviser to Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak and Andre Glucksmann, an Islamophobe French writer.

After the destruction of Africa’s richest country and most secularist regime in Libya, Bernard-Henri Levy, told a meeting of French Jewish Lobby CRIF, that he convinced French president Nicolas Sarkozy to remove Qaddafi because had become a threat to the security of Israel.

* Leading members of the George W Bush administration along with Blair and the leading neocons/Israel firsters must be brought to justice. The names of the leading neocon figures are:

Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Lewis Scooter Libby, Michael Ledeen, The Kagan clan, including Victoria Nudelman, The Kristol clan, The Podhoretz clan, Elliot Abrams, Eliot A. Cohen, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, John Bolton, Jennifer Rubin, Joshua Muravchik, Michael Rubin, Daniel Pipes, Marc Grossman, James Woolsey, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich.

Posted in France, Islam, Israel | Comments Off on The Paris Terror

Going Modern Orthodox

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

A Chabad friend who’s gone Modern Orthodox says the hardest part is all the women (who let themselves go after marriage) want to hug and kiss you. A traditional Jew does not touch women (outside of his wife and family).

Chabad women tend to take care with their appearance. They tend to work out and dress fashionably. Modern Orthodox women in Los Angeles, from what I’ve seen, tend to pack on the pounds once they’ve landed a husband and they give up all pretense of caring about their looks.

Christopher Donnellan How do they ‘work out’? By making babies every other year?

Adam Parfrey this post will encourage them to work out for your approval

Steven Ben-Off Abrams You can meet lots of young, eligible Orthodox women at the Weight Watchers meetings near Beverly and Fairfax

* A baal teshuva friend who was dating a couple of decades ago found the Chabad women more open, more interesting, and more kooky than the MO women.

Posted in Chabad | Comments Off on Going Modern Orthodox

Winston Churchill’s Brutal Takedown of Islam Means More Today than Ever

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Link:

From Churchill’s unabridged The River War:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on Winston Churchill’s Brutal Takedown of Islam Means More Today than Ever

Islam: “Poorest Form Of Theism”

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Link:

Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, tr. E. F. J. Payne, vol. II (Dover, 1966), p. 162. This is from Chapter XVII, “On Man’s Need for Metaphysics” (emphases added and a paragraph break):

Temples and churches, pagodas and mosques, in all countries and ages, in their splendour and spaciousness, testify to man’s need for metaphysics, a need strong and ineradicable, which follows close on the physical. The man of a satirical frame of mind could of course add that this need for metaphysics is a modest fellow content with meagre fare. Sometimes it lets itself be satisfied with clumsy fables and absurd fairy-tales. If only they are imprinted early enough, they are for man adequate explanations of his existence and supports for his morality.

Consider the Koran, for example; this wretched book was sufficient to start a world-religion, to satisfy the metaphysical need for countless millions for twelve hundred years, to become the basis of their morality and of a remarkable contempt for death, and also to inspire them to bloody wars and the most extensive conquests. In this book we find the saddest and poorest form of theism. Much may be lost in translation, but I have not been able to discover in it one single idea of value. Such things show that the capacity for metaphysics does not go hand in hand with the need for it . . . .

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on Islam: “Poorest Form Of Theism”

Terror In Paris

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I’m also very afraid for Syrian refugees, and Afghani refugees, and Iraqis and Iranians and anyone else who has run to Europe. Suspicion is bound to be cast upon them, and there may be backlash. Wickedness breeds wickedness in others.

* Ann Coulter was tweeting that “Trump got elected tonight,” which is wishful thinking. I think though that this may be a game-changer in the EU in their dialogue on immigration and the national question. They just aren’t used to things on this scale in modern times, and Paris is the city in Europe that everyone, whatever their nationality, feels like they’ve visited.

* I wonder if Frau Merkel the cabbage-farting Cuck Queen feels any trace of remorse over the hundreds of broken bodies blasted into the streets of Paris tonight, courtesy of the Religion of Peace. I wonder if she suddenly grew a bit panicky about the thousands of “missing refugees” wandering about her own country, the whereabouts of whom are not currently known. I wonder how the teeming train stations and refugee housing centers will be looked at now by the hapless citizens of Germany, betrayed to their doom by a tyrannical Brunhilde wielding an insidious strain of Eurocrat globe-improving insanity. And I wonder how much longer the European Union will remain viable while its ideological operating system continues to crash by the day.

One thing I do not wonder about, though: France will be very, very pissed off. I know it’s become fashionable in recent years to bash the French as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” but in reality Frenchmen can become quite effective and brutal soldiers when the occasion calls for it, and this occasion certainly calls for it. The election of Marine Le Pen is all but assured now, and it won’t be very much longer before nationalism is openly acknowledged as Europe’s only hope.

Europe must now face the difficult task of containing and deporting hundreds of thousands of potential enemies whom it foolishly welcomed into its own midst. I read with thankfulness that President Holland, in an uncharacteristic display of common sense, has ordered the French border closed; but I cannot help but think of how this catastrophe could have been averted had that entirely sensible measure been taken years ago.

A final word to the immivasion-promoting creatures from Brussels: You don’t stand a chance now. Your European dream will never be realized; it was just blown out of the water by the maniacs you tried to replace us with. This isn’t going to just blow over. Everybody saw what happened in Paris tonight. Everybody knows exactly what happened and why it happened, and what to do about it. Your high-water mark has been reached and is now passed. The revolt against the Left has begun.

* When are the people responsible for mass Muslim immigration going to be viewed as the fifth column they are?

Judging from my facebook feed, there are a lot of hashtags and prayers going around, but no talk about rethinking immigration policy, or deporting the many bad apples already there. Just like the Charlie Hebdo attack, we’ll hear lots of flaccid slogans about unity, and next week Gary Trudeau will tell us the terrorists were just “punching up” to make their voices heard over the Syrian war, and the West will get back to flagellating itself over how evil it is.

* Gee who could have imagined this if you let in without papers, without visas and without any background check thousands of young men from war-torn terrorist infested territories…

One can still have compassion for the many innocents displaced by civil war. But that doesn’t mean that one should abandon precautions that would keep out potential trouble-makers. I’m considerably more friendly to immigration and newcomers than many of our fellow readers among Sailer’s audience. However even I had to shake my head at the folly of “welcoming” any and all comers to Europe, as long as they are strong and motivated enough to come on foot. Unfortunately I expect more of this kind of thing as well reprisals in addition to the epidemic of individual small scale criminality, (robberies, assaults, rapes, etc) that they are already experiencing perpetrated by an idle bored bunch prohibited from working or engaging in other constructive activity.

By now it should be clear that the left’s odes to diversity are really empty pieties. We really need to patiently make it clear to them that diversity is a serious challenge and if the hosts and the newcomers aren’t willing or able to rise to this challenge it will end badly… very badly Unfortunately the left condemns any expectation that newcomers adapt or assimilate is racist. So I guess the only thing left is for the host population to adapt. The mistake the left makes is that they assume that the “diverse” newcomers are just like them… NPR-listening, LGBTQetc. loving, Whole-Foods shopping, SWPLing BoBos. Unfortunately real diversity entails genuine differences in culture and values. These are much more than any kind of superficial skin-deep stuff. Differences in attitudes about family, education, hygiene cause real tensions, stress and mistrust and can’t be simply waved away by naive diversocrats.

* After this … nothing much will change.

The journos will do their heavy breathing for a couple of days and the story will quickly take a back seat in the media. In a week or two it will be just one of those things.

The politicians already have released carefully worded statements to show their Deep Concern without offending any group.

The thumb sucking commentariat will remind us that the deeds were done by a handful of extremists, not to be confused with the great mass of moderate Muslims. That will become the standard talking point, because there is a grain of truth in it. Most Muslims, especially those already settled in or migrating into Western countries, are content to let ISIL, Al Qaeda, etc. do the dirty work. But they approve the motive, if not the means.

Only one way will this madness end.

It’s been said before. It’s worth saying again.

The terror will stop when every Muslim fears non-Muslims more than they fear ISIL and similar.

* These Muslims have to be the dumbest terrorists ever. The time to start pulling this sort of thing is when you have at least a majority of military age males already in the host country. Against demographically superior peoples, angering them is likely to recruit a resistance. Every time an occupier sloppily lashes out, he recruits friends and relatives of those attacked. Some of them will be powerful, influential or effective… or your former allies even.

* Every time an event like this massacre happens, it changes some views. Some people on the fence are converted to our side. Others have their liberal resolve weakened a bit. A few hardened cat ladies will refuse to see logic until the bitter end. The changes from 2000 to 2015 can be likened to small quanta, little blips, in an overall summation. This was a big blip right here.

Most people are herd oriented. When the herd eventually starts pointing the other way, they will line up appropriately mooing all the while.

* If flying planes into buildings, destroying a New York City landmark, and killing nearly 3,000 people did not dissuade our government and elites from importing the third world, these attacks in France will have no effect on their government and elites, which are at least as wed to the multi-cultural suicide cult as are ours.

The only thing that will result from this attack will be even greater curtailing of civil liberties for actual citizens; especially in France, but probably elsewhere as well.

* As long as you can have sex with the new immigrants why does any of this matter?

(I’m not bashing white women here, I’m mainly bashing white men.)

If I can have sex with whoever I want then at the end of the day immigration and separate countries is just so Passe.

* Try to put yourself in the shoes of these ‘barbaric’ Muslims for a minute.

What political conditions have brought them to the West? Is it not the destruction of their civil societies? And how did this destruction happen? Let’s look back.

Was it not the West that incorrectly invaded and destroyed Iraq starting in 2003? How many Iraqis have died?

Estimates vary but some put the number at 500,000. By comparison, a total of just under 3,000 Americans died on 911. Yet Washington invaded Afghanistan (and is still there!) even though the perpetrators were primarily Saudi and it’s leader (Bin Laden) was killed in Pakistan. Make sense?

And how many Iraqi civilians has Washington turn into refugees?

Some estimates put the number at over 2,500,000. That’s enormous. Does it matter?

And Washington’s unjust and illegal Iraq War (it was never authorized by the UN) contributed directly to the emergence of ISIS and the spread of Al Queda. That was kind of a big mistake, wouldn’t you say?

Was it not NATO (with French help) that destroyed Libya in the name of Democracy? How many Libyans have died since? How many lives destroyed? Libya lies in ruins. (OOPS?)

Both Libya and Iraq were highly-functioning societies before Zio-America imposed ‘regime change’ on them via high-tech WMD. Democracy, anyone?

Is it not the West that continues to support the Zionist project in Palestine unconditionally? How many have died there? How many have been pushed out? How many are suffering right now?

But there are no TV cameras covering that ugly drama. In America and the West, unseen is unimagined.

Is it not the West that is destabilizing Syria and fomenting war there so that the Assad regime is toppled? More death and destruction in Syria on behalf of unidentified, imperial forces.

But some people have noticed. And they’re boiling hot mad. This is what happens after state-sponsored mass murder occurs continuously. Thus–despite what you hear on the ‘news’–the anti-West ‘Jihad’ is about political injustice, not theology. Just count the dead.

That’s why the terrorists are targeting the interventionist West, not countries like China, Switzerland, Finland or Japan. The Jihadists hate us for our meddlesome destruction, not our alleged ‘freedoms’. Sorry but you are parroting the lies of our Zionist-friendly, dominant media. The West is not blameless though it pretends to be.

Zio-America routinely imposes unequal treatment under the law and commits itself to savage warfare. It’s how we do business over there.

What our lesser Mideast subjects see and feel is series of aggressive wars and based on nepotism and influence. They see it and feel it first-hand. And many hate us for it. Can you blame them?

This is why victims of US-EU-Zionist policies seek revenge on soft, Western targets. They’d surely prefer to strike a US or French or Israeli military installation, but those targets are too well-fortified.

The Muslims are here because we’re there. So why not get the hell out of their countries and allow them self-rule? After all, we demand it for ourselves.

Meddlesome America has wrought enormous damage and extreme dislocation on numerous populations throughout the Middle East. Terrorism is blowback for these terrible policies. Why is that so hard to understand?

Until Western policies change, expect more armed resistance. It’s what humans do when attacked.

* No Muslims in France = no terrorist attacks in France. Simple as that.

Of course, if you bomb their countries, and then invite thousands of them to come to your country, this makes things worse.

It’s true, the French/NATO should not have bombed Libya. America should get the fuck out of the Middle East. And it is likely that all those wars were planned to have exactly that effect – war and terror in Arab countries and then on European soil.

But the main problem, from a practical perspective, is really having millions of Muslims in Europe. Get. Them. Out. Now. While. You. Can.

Screw Iraqis. Screw Saudis. Screw Syrians. Screw Libyans. Screw Palestinians. I don’t care if most of them are pacific. I don’t care if their countries were bombed. I don’t care about any of them. Just get them out of Europe, out of the US, out of Canada, while you still can.

This is not revenge for being bombed or invaded. The US is, if anything, helping ISIS.

It is exactly the opposite of what they say. All this chaos is a feature, not a bug. Create chaos in Arab countries, then in Europe. Sow terror and pain. This is the plan of our beloved elites.

* The French could have elected Le Pen in 2012. They didn’t. The British could have elected Nigel Farage. They didn’t. The Dutch could have elected Geert Wilders. They didn’t. The Swedes could have elected the Sweden Democrats. They didn’t. When given the choice western European voters have consistently chosen pro-immigration pro-multicultural parties.

Up to a point you can blame the elites but the monumental stupidity, short-sightedness, selfishness and emotionalism of ordinary people has allowed the elites to destroy Europe.

I doubt that very much will change after this tragedy.

* The Hungarian rejection of EU imposed massive third world immigration must be seen in the light of this attack.
Let’s be blunt about it.
All Hungary is attempting to do is to insulate itself from this type of horror.
The EU, the UN, The Economist and all the rest want to impose this type of horror on Hungary.

* Some statistics from polls taken in Britain over the last ten years or so-

Agree that suicide bombings can be justified against civilians in Britain: 7 percent. (Among 18 to 24-year-olds: 12 percent.)

Agree that suicide bombings can be justified against the military in Britain: 21 percent. (Among 18 to 24-year-olds: 28 percent.)

Think it was right for Al-Qa’eda or those sympathetic to Al-Qa’eda to attack Western targets: 4 percent.

have any sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried out the London attacks: 20 percent.

Support there being areas of Britain which are pre-dominantly Muslim and in which Sharia Law is introduced: 40 percent.

I’m sure similar statistics can be found for ‘French’ Muslims too. There are about 3 million Muslims in Britain, and if 7% agree with suicide bombings, then that equates to over 20,000 people. Do you think security services are geared towards monitoring numbers of this magnitude who wish to destroy it? I guess Europe is discovering why the Egyptians have found it tough to screen out potential terrorist sympathisers amongst their baggage handlers. In a nation that is 90% Muslim, the number of potential sympathisers is limitless. There will always be plenty of new, young recruits who have not yet been picked up by the security services and are not on the radar coming through. And so as Muslim immigration increases in places like France, we have the same problem. And of course every time a Muslim is suspected of terrorism and it turns out to be wrong, like Ahmed and his curious clock, then there is a clamour amongst Muslims to scale down whatever measures we might use amidst accusations of ‘Islamophobia.’

It’s not just a matter of people taking part in actual terrorist attacks. They are surrounded by communities that give them support, both moral and logistical. They give them areas into which they can disappear and become invisible. They create a large body of public opnion which makes it difficult to discuss problems with Islam or make it difficult to deport actual extremists without potentially causing riots or further stoking ethnic tensions.

And whilst only a small number of Muslims may take part in actual attacks, they are useful for the more conservative elements of Muslim society in Europe, as groups are defined by their extremes. Whereas Christians are routinely castigated for being insufficiently supportive of gay marriage, there is a large degree of tolerance for intolerant Muslim views because people are simply grateful that they are at least not blowing people up. In such a way Muslims can push debate and society in their direction. Muslims may open their own schools in which they teach their children that Christians are subhuman and do not deserve the same rights, and will probably attract little criticism because people will regard them as being relatively harmless by Muslim standards. It’s kind of a ‘good cop bad cop’ routine.

* Just a few months refugee policy of several countries was altered because of a pic of dead Syrian boy on a beach. The deaths of scores of Parisians at the hands of Muslims, some of whom maybe recent refugees, will have not have any impact on refugee policy.

These are the times we live in.

* And this comment was also printed in the Grauniad, believe it or not:

“A very sad but, it increasingly seems, true fact: if France now deported and henceforth refused entry to all Muslims, this kind of event would almost certainly never be repeated. What was yesterday an obviously unreasonable idea, immediately to be dismissed, today seems not entirely without merit, and deserving of at least reasoned rather than kneejerk opposition.”

This is the sort of comment I used to make that would get blocked by KOMMENT KONTROL as some here put it. Today it gets printed in the GUARDIAN. Yes, IN THE GUARDIAN. With 130 upvotes. Now, tell me attitudes haven’t changed significantly and aren’t changing right now. Rightist comments are maybe 50:50 or thereabouts but are overwhelmingly popular. Guardian pick is of course leftist.

* Does the attack in the theater remind anyone of Inglorious Bastards scene?

* No Astute, the lesson is that Muslims will eventually try to kill you if you keep them near.

Not all, not even most, but enough of them. It is what Islam is all about. The Koran teaches psychotic superiority and domination.

With exceptions Muslims feel a frisson of excitement when some of their brothers are sticking it to the Infidel for whom they have strictly limited empathy.

Among the small percentage of Muslims in the West who do really get the point are many who are, in truth, apostates who cannot admit that.

Syria’s fracture came from within. Bush’s idiotic wars notwithstanding, the problem here is the nature of the beast…

* German media report the following story: On Thursday a week ago Bavarian police stopped some guy from Montenegro in a routine control, found his car to be full of weapons and explosives and arrested him. Documents found in the car indicate he was bound for Paris.
If this is confirmed and turns out to be connected to yesterday’s attacks, it might have really momentous repercussions for Germany’s standing in the EU and for Merkel’s chancellorship. If German naivite and laxity has enabled that terrorist attack, Germans will soon have something new to feel guilty about.
Another thing: Judging from reports there must have been at least a dozen terrorists, probably more (about 20?). The only thing this is remotely comparable to is the Mumbai attacks. I don’t believe these were just self-radicalised French citizens, they must have had training in the Mideast, and this was really organized.

* In a U.S. context, making it hard to immigrate here from Muslim countries with a lot of terrorists doesn’t require scratching out inconvenient bits of the constitution or massive scary new powers, it just requires exercising the powers we’ve always given the Feds. That’s why it was so striking that our response to 9/11 leaned so much less on that (which might have prevented the 9/11 atracks) than on huge new bureaucracies and spying on everyone and fighting a bunch of (sometimes secret) wars.

* Many Muslim terrorists in the West are born and bred in the West. The refugee you let in today may be fine (if by fine you mean that he’ll sop up a lot of welfare benefits but he won’t kill anyone) but 30 years from now his son will be alienated from Western culture and may become a terrorist (or maybe he’ll just set cars on fire or become a drug dealer or a pimp, if you are lucky). Even if this happens to “only” 1% of the Muslim refugees, who needs this headache?

Maybe 100 years ago, the West still had enough confidence in its civilization that it could let foreigners in and achieve good results with assimilation. But two world wars destroyed the West’s confidence in the superiority of its civilization and now with modern cultural Marxism you are pretty much assured that immigrants aren’t going to assimilate and will form a permanent irritant – at worst they are going to be terrorists, at best they are going to make all sorts of demands for their own “safe spaces”. So again, who needs this headache? Is Europe short of people so that it needs more? Is Paris not sufficiently crowded and costly to live in already?

* Merkel’s final act as chancellor will be to have assured a wave of right-wing victories across much of Europe, and perhaps cause enormous changes in immigration policy for the better. If that was actually her secret plan – to show to the world the reality of multiculturalism before we were slowly boiled to death – then she has succeeded brilliantly.

* Recently, I was eating at a well-known, fairly upscale family-friendly restaurant, part of a national chain, in SoCal. Not too far away was a young family: Dad well-groomed in a polo shirt, shorts, leather sandals, and gold watch and ring; toddler boy in upscale toddler clothes; Mom in a full burqa, covered from head to toe, only her eyes showing. I’ve seen Muslim women in the headscarf before, but never a full-on burqa, not in person, not in coastal SoCal. The contrast between the dad in his expensive 21st century Western togs and the mom in her 7th century purdah was the definition of obscene. People who can embrace that contradiction will never be compatible with the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

* Somewhere I came up with the idea that everybody knew that the key to the rise of Britain was a “settled distribution of property” — after, say, 1688 there was no chance Catholics would get back what was taken from them by Henry VIII, so investment flourished and Britain started down the path to a modern economy and the Industrial Revolution.

You can see something similar in the Austrian Empire on an external scale: after 1683, there was no chance of Turkish conquest of Vienna, so investment flourished.

But most Google mentions of “settled distribution of property” come from me, so I must have misread something.

But still … it kind of makes sense to me that the “sunlit uplands” that Churchill foresaw in 1940 involved a Settled Distribution of Territory.

And, we are pretty close to that world where the borders existent by the end of the 1940s are still pretty much in place. And that’s why Israel’s takeover of land in 1967 and Russia’s takeover of the Crimea in 2014 are disturbing symbolic disruptions of the message that you can’t change borders except to make countries smaller.

This is actually where the punch up / punch down distinction is useful. As the supreme puncher downer, the United States, as heir to Britain’s hold on that position, has an interest in nobody getting bigger and stronger.

The U.S. State Department has generally been nominally opposed to Israel formally annexing its 1967 conquests. For example, from just this week:

US Won’t Recognize Israel’s Annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights
White House: Netanyahu Request Puts Rebels in Awkward Position
by Jason Ditz, November 12, 2015

Reacting to Monday’s comments by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the White House ruled out calls to formally recognize the Israeli occupation and subsequent annexation of the Golan Heights away from Syria, saying they weren’t sure if Netanyahu was even serious but that the US had no intention of changing its position on the occupation.

This is the kind of State Department stuff where a President Trump’s off-the-cuff style could be a problem.

Posted in Immigration, Islam, Terror | Comments Off on Terror In Paris

How About A White Boycott?

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* A Christian boycott, now that’s an interesting idea. Of course it will never work. The last time anything remotely like that had any effect was when John Lennon said the Beatles were bigger than Jesus — and a few records got smashed on the sidewalk.

May I suggest a white boycott? Anyone who’s read Atlas Shrugged remembers when John Galt went on strike and the world fell apart. It would be like that.

It’s a shame we can’t all move to Mars and look back and laugh.

Anyway, these protests, like most, are all camera angles and staging. Ron is right (as always): It’s a Hollywood trick, like using a small group of extras to create the illusion of a vast crowd.

Life goes on as we who make the world go ’round keep getting up every morning and going to work.

* Some guy on Reddit performs an age cohort analysis on Swedish migration flows and notes that they’re approaching the point of having 16 year old male Swedes soon becoming a minority thanks to the disproportionate numbers of unaccompanied male minors.

To summarize, there were 52,562 sixteen-year old boys in Sweden, but 30% of them were immigrants, leaving 36,793 Swedish boys or 2nd generation+ immigrants boys. In the week under study, 2,164 unaccompanied children arrived, 91% of whom are male and if patterns from previous years hold, then 32% of the children are 16 years old, resulting in 630 male refugee 16 year olds added to Sweden per week.

When these new invaders are added to the 15,767 male immigrant 16-year olds, then after 33 weeks of similar invader flows, male 16 years old Swedes become a minority in their own nation.

Bonus finding – 91% of unaccompanied minors are male, so this should make the Chinese and Indian sex imbalance ratios minor footnotes to the immediate sex imbalance that Sweden is going to face.

* The mizzou protests were indeed selected out by the powerful corporate media and promoted to high visibility in order to advance an agenda of the media and their corporate advertisers (which fund the media). Since we are talking about corporations in action here, let me suggest that money has something to do with it all. Imagine that. That money might influence corporate actions.

Now, tonight we have yet another example of how the corporate media selects a few opinions and presents them as some sort of tidal wave of grassroots, populist outrage.

When france closed its borders today, Rob Lowe took to twitter and said something to the effect of “NOW France closes its borders.” An opinion totally in line with the paleo/dissident Right online zeitgeist, of course. I would guess Rob Lowe reads some of the same sites many of us do.

Anyway, the media reacted immediately to Lowe’s transgression by selecting a few tweets in response to Lowe’s statement. The tweets selected by the media were of course anti-Lowe, and the gist of the media slant on Lowe’s statement is that Lowe was taunting France.

Again, we see the corporate media enforcing ideological hegemony, punishing high-status offenders quickly and effectively.

Really, Lowe was not taunting france, but its leaders. And we know that leaders are separate from the people.

Anyway, yes, the media, academia and govt and hollywood and all the big corporations use a small population of SJWs (typically funded via nonprofit foundations that are funded by the plutocrats, big corporations, K street lobbyists, etc). The media presents SJW opinion as representing some populist groundswell, when of course these SJWs are simply tools of the media and its corporate advertisers. The media encourages black protests because these protests serve the economic interests of the corporate media and its corporate advertisers.

And what agenda does the media have? Economic growth, GDP, profit growth, all of which come from population growth, at least to a large degree. And how do these “refugees” and other immigrants figure into increasing the population growth? An exercise for the reader….

* What is happening in Yale and Mizzou is actually more important than Paris, strange though that may seem.

US academics have been the biggest single threat to the West for two generations, far more than ISIS.

Now at last, they are feeling the heat and their minority friends have just discovered how much fun they can have on campus at their expense.

* UCLA’s student body is 2.9% black. Yale’s student body is 6% black. UCLA is twice as Hispanic as Yale is, though.

But generally, it’s absolutely true that the average student couldn’t give a damn. Particularly since most of them are Asian with decidedly non-PC views of blacks.

* See if you can watch Friday night’s Real Time with Bill Maher – if you don’t have HBO, maybe a friend who does can show it to you on demand, or you can find it online. That episode touches on the Missouri nonsense, immigration, the attacks in Paris, and the White Death. It was pretty extraordinary.

The nominal conservative on the panel was the black former Lt. Gov of Maryland / Senate candidate / RNC head Michael Steele, and the other two members were Jay Leno and the former CNBC / MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan. In an nutshell:

– Steele was (surprise!) sympathetic to the black college activists.

– They all thought Trump’s invocation of Ike and Operation Wetback was beyond the pale. Jay Leno said 88 Mexicans died during the deportations.

– In the final, “new rules” segment, Maher mentioned White Death and mocked whites for killing themselves when they have it so easy.

* I’m a professor. I spend most of my time on university campuses, either my own, my alma mater, or ones hosting conferences. I have seen many, many protests. I have never seen more than a few hundred people at them; usually it’s closer to ten or twenty. The analysis in the post is accurate. The vast, vast majority of students and faculty don’t care enough to get involved.

* If you look at the broader numbers in Germany, there are about 10 million men between the ages 20-40 (I.e., of prime reproductive age). Of course those 10 million already include lots of non-whites. The estimates are that 1.5 million refugees will arrive by the end of the year, 75% of whom are men between about 20-40. That means that, almost overnight, these mostly Muslim really migrants will comprise 10% of the men in Germany of prime reproductive age.

The median age of men in Germany is 45.4. The median age of women in Germany is 47.6. For the purposes of reproduction over half the population of Germany is effectively dead.

Posted in America | Comments Off on How About A White Boycott?

France’s Immigration Disaster

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Well, Steve, French immigration policy has been an utter disaster for 50 years or more.
There is no point in reminding readers of the genesis of the disaster – the apparent need to import ‘cheap’ labor to fuel an economic boom – a boom that has petered out to a bust for the last 40 odd years.
The jobs went, but the ‘migrants’ plus then some, stayed, to the point where they will comprise a majority of births sometime in the coming decade.

A moral lesson, in glorious technicolor, one would have thought. But oh, no, neither the EU or The Economist take a blind bit of notice.
Instead, they take the typical cowardly bully’s sadistic pleasure in bashing Hungary for being ‘unEuropean’, for the crime of wishing to keep Hungary ethnically Hungarian, ironically enough, at every possible opportunity.

* The FT’s Simon Kuper, who a few weeks ago was advocating more Syrian immigration into France so he’d have a home health aid when he gets old, was at the soccer stadium during the attacks on Friday. Now he wonders whether he can stay in Paris.

* Kuper is like lots of lefty South African Jews, Illana Mercer being the rare exception having now seen the light, having spent their whole lives preaching multicultural and feminist “Jewgenic” warfare against white Christian Europeans, they scratch their heads and wrap themselves in Jewish victimology when the result of the very policies they advocated in anyway touches them.

Hey Kuper if Paris is too rough for you now why not try settling in the West Bank?

* Simon Kuper Financial Times two months ago:

A manifesto for open borders. Europe has room to spare. Many of its cities sprawled in the age of the automobile, and are now sparsely populated. Only about 2.5 per cent of the EU’s land is used for housing. There is plenty of room for migrants in Europe’s labour markets, too: “European countries are turning into old people’s homes. In 2050, I plan on being 80. Either I’ll be cared for by a robot or by a Syrian”

Simon Kuper last night at the Stade de France:

But tonight, for the first time, I am asking myself whether we can stay in Paris. Bataclan, the popular café-cum-music hall where dozens of people seem to have been gunned down tonight, is a few hundred metres from our house. (It’s also around the corner from the old Charlie Hebdo headquarters attacked by gunmen in January.)

* Europe has lots of disused cathedrals that could be leveled and replaced with council flats.

* Israel: We’ll keep Golan Heights, and you-ropeans take all the refugees (created by Wars for Israel).

Qatar: We’ll host World Cup, and you-ropeans take all the refugees (created by Wars for Sunni power against Iran and Syria).

Pattern Recognition – Jewish Semites and Arab Semites have a similar worldview.

* Lawrence Auster: Liberals do not expect mass murders to happen and are utterly shocked and surprised when they do happen. They think everything in their world is fine. They cannot take in the fact that there is a great deal of evil and madness afoot in our society. Why this blindness? Why this recurrent shock at a recurrent type of event? I think it’s because liberalism consists of blocking out all the vast sectors of reality which contradict liberal belief. One of the major sectors of reality which contradict liberal belief is evil (not counting, of course, the delusory evil of those modern witches, white conservative Christians, an evil which liberals fully believe in and are obsessed by). If evil exists, then evil is worse than the good, which contradicts the liberal belief in equality. In the world of liberalism, there cannot be any fundamental distinctions among men, such as whether they are good or evil. The only fundamental moral distinction that liberals acknowledge among men is whether they are liberal or non-liberal, with the non-liberals, who believe in moral distinctions, consigned to the outer darkness. But when it comes to real evil, as distinct from the imaginary evil of white conservatives, liberals block it out, and so they are always shocked by its repeated manifestations.

I’ve often said that liberalism, proceeding from its ideal of perfect equality, blocks out all the vast sectors of reality that contradict that ideal—sex differences, racial differences, black violence, the tyrannical agenda of Islam, the objective moral good, the conditions for the creation of wealth, and on and on. Well, since liberalism at its core consists of blocking out reality, it is no surprise that liberals also block out the fact that by blocking out reality, they are assuring the destruction of their own civilization.

* Back in August-September, when the invasion started, someone posted an article from a British newspaper which contained a still shot of the “Syrian refugees” disembarking from the ferry which carried them to Athens (Piraeus, really) from Lesbos. I found the photo so chilling that I believe I used the word “insanity.” Well, today, Anatoly Karlin has posted a blog on unz.com which contains a 19-minute video, starting with the disembarkation at Athens. http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-paris-terror-attacks/ The video makes the scene even more disturbing. Further in (starting around 0:50 mark), the video shows a Greek woman on Lesbos understandably reacting in a very distraught manner to the “invasion” of the refugees. This video stands in stark contrast to the BS we were being fed by the American MSM. I recall former co-host Melissa Block interviewing one of her Greek husband’s cousins who happened to live on Lesbos on ATC on August 10. A more upbeat and positive report you couldn’t find. All propaganda.

* This isn’t fair to most ‘refugees’ who are certainly not terrorists.

And Drudge who is Jewish ought to be careful. After all, there were Jewish terrorists and anarchists among the immigrants who came to the US, and later a vast Jewish network shipped Stalin the secrets to the Bomb.

At any rate, the bigger problem is that most refugees or migrants or whatever are NOT killers. As Richard Spencer said in NPI speech, it would be better if all the invaders were hostile and dangerous. The fact is most are not. So, that makes Europeans complacent and accepting. But that is the real danger.

Suppose all the Africans and Muslims were smart people, diligent, and law-abiding.
Suppose there were no HBD-IQ or economic reason to keep them out. Suppose most will become good workers and tax payers.

Here’s the thing.

They would still pose a racial and demographic problem cuz Europe will no longer be European if it’s taken over by non-Europeans, no matter how hardworking and law-abiding they are.

Look at Palestine. There is no doubt that Jews are better builders of economy than Palestinians/Arabs are. Palestine/Israel is richer cuz Jews arrived en masse.

But for Palestinians, that is no consolation to the fact that they lost their ancestral lands forever. Who cares if the economy improved if you don’t even own the land of your ancestors?

So, we need to realize… most refugees are NOT killers.. and that is the bigger danger.
This will pass over, and Europe will go back to welcoming refugees as future workers and etc.

In the end, the Mexers were dangerous not because they are killers but because most of them are not. Many are okay people. So, gringos put down their guard. The result? Gringos lost CA to Mexicans, and Texas is headed in the same direction.

How nice if all Mexicans acted like Santa Anna. But they acted like Guillermo, so white folks didn’t see the threat and just saw nice lettuce pickers.
But it seems meeksicans have inherited CA built by gringos.

* I know two South African Jewish couples like this. They supported the regime change and then bugged out, and are living the upper middle class good life in SoCal. When you talk to them about their former country they kind of hedge around the issue, walking on eggshells, obliquely admitting that they had to flee before it got too late. One thing though is that even when circumspectly admitting that things went into the crapper, they still have a devotion to the memory of St. Mandela.
The working class Boers living in poverty and marginalization don’t have the money to get out, and even if they did, they still think it is their country too, and don’t want to leave. The people who fled never regarded SA as their true country.

Posted in France | Comments Off on France’s Immigration Disaster

David Brooks Pushing For More Immigration

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* “Building a physical wall across the southern border is not reality.”

Is that wall along the Israeli border just a mirage in the desert, then? Maybe Brooks should ask his son, who’s serving in the Israeli Defence Forces.

* Brooks is right that the Republican Party is at an immigration crossroads. So is the United States, if it has not already started down the road to Brazil-style developing world status.

But why does anything need to be “passed.” Laws passed by Congress are so 20th Century! Has not Obama shown us the way by expansive executive orders, statutory rewriting masquerading as interpretative regulations, and prosecutorial discretion as affirmative immigration policy?

Donald Trump needs to be prepared to govern extra-constitutionally and defy the courts and Congress (“Mr. Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it,” statement by Andrew Jackson). It’s a drastic remedy but nothing less will save the United States, if it is not already past saving.

* Brooks is the left’s favorite conservative rather like Aunt Jemima is the klan’s favorite negro. He seems to believe that presentation is everything, and if he comes across as extremely erudite, nobody will notice his inconsistencies. Or wrong calls.

* As a lawyer whose practice includes some but not all aspects of immigration law, I assure you Brooks really is a moron as the poster above wrote. He has no clue as to the multiple facets of immigration law and his perception of it is likely limited to Mexicans. The entire system does not need reform. In fact, most of the problem lies in the enforcement area where we sometimes have an utter lack of enforcement; a lack of lawful enforcement or erratic enforcement by local level functionaries varying widely from location to location.

As one example, all visa applicants from whatever country must provide documentation of an American financial sponsor. Sometimes, the sponsor must provide tax returns as proof of ability to support the applicant so the applicant doesn’t become a supplicant while visiting. But none of that applies to illegal aliens present in the country. As every visa applicant knows, getting here is the problem because once here, it is difficult to be deported. The process of removal takes years via the immigration courts and, often, the alien just disappears before his case is even adjudicated. If ever located, the process is re-started.

Reformation is not needed so much as consistent enforcement of the body of law as written.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on David Brooks Pushing For More Immigration

Who’s To Blame For The Paris Massacre?

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I suggest the investigation into said complicity start at the top with Mr. Hollande, Sarkozy and the host of other elites who have opened up Europe.

* According to the dictionary, a xenophobe is “one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.” Is there any such term for those who have an unduly amount of self-hatred for their own kind? It seems one is needed since this crisis was not caused by xenophobes, but rather those of the self-hating variety.

* European voters can be pretty myopic and forgetful, but it’s pretty hard to ignore that there has been such recent controversy about letting this vast wave of immigrants into Europe, and now it has borne bitter fruit so soon. And they are still coming. What chance the Eastern Europeans taking any now? How can liberals in the West really tar them as racist Islamophobes when they refuse to accept them as a security risk? And how are the hundreds of thousands already here now going to be processed and checked? What responsibility will Angela Merkel and Germany have to take? Just how many potential terrorists were there amongst the recent influx? What moral authority does the EU have left when it comes to negotiations with Britain (or anyone) over EU membership and the border arrangements that go with it?

* Every time some right-wing gentile nut carries out violence, we should say, “It could also lend weight to Europhobic arguments of Jewish supremacists like Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, and George Soros.”

Don’t blame the right-wing killer. Blame those shameless and unscrupulous Europhobes who would dare to exploit the issue for political gain.

* Below is a fairly easy to understand argument, one I’ve not heard before, in favor a moratorium on further mass Muslim immigration into the United States:

Stereotypes are useful when the sample size is large.

Thus while it is true that the overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants and their children do not fit the stereotype of being potentially violent jihadis or jihadi sympathizers hostile to the West, a not insignificant minority do, around 10% according to Pew. Like all stereotypes — or, at least, all stereotypes that become widely shared — this one too contains a kernel of truth.

It follows that if we go forward and allow ten thousand Syrian refugees into the country as the Obama administration has already started to do (http://goo.gl/P67urG), we are likely to be letting up to a thousand future terrorists and terrorist sympathizers into our midst.

Is this something any responsible politician would want us to do?”

I hope Trump uses this argument in the weeks ahead.

* I wonder how many victims of this attack were Jewish? The Bataclan Theater is Jewish owned and has been attacked by Islamists in the past. Similarly, the rock band Eagles of Death Metal have often visited Israel and one of their members is a self-confessed neo-con.

Although the band members escaped injury, this attack may be bad news for Jewish business interests in Paris. After this, whenever Parisians go out on the town they are going to start asking themselves if the place they are going to is Jewish owned. If it is, they may decide it’s safer not to go there.

Posted in France, Immigration | Comments Off on Who’s To Blame For The Paris Massacre?

The Paris attacks show that barbarians are at the gate

Posted on November 13, 2015 by Luke Ford

Douglas Murray writes: But the real problem this should remind us of is the central problem for modern Europe – a problem which is only growing. We don’t know who is here in our continent, and among those who are here there are too many who are active enemies of our societies and our way of life. They hate us when we are involved in the Middle East and they hate us when we are not. They hate us when we stay in our countries and when we leave them. They attack us when we are in Paris and when we are on holiday in North Africa. We need to wake up to the fact that the problem is not us – it is them.

There will be a lot of analysis in the coming hours and days, but governments must formulate a response. The only proper response is to have the same response at home as we do abroad. Our societies face serious and determined enemies. So far we have pretended we can tackle these people only by engaging them on foreign battlefields. And by having a half-hearted talk about ‘radicalisation’ here at home. That is quite wrong. There are barbarians are inside the gates. To defeat them we need to confront them over here, not just over there.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on The Paris attacks show that barbarians are at the gate