Terror In Brussels

Comments:

* Iraq, Libya, and Syria were stable before the West turned them into war zones.

When you create instability, it opens the way for radicals.

When Europe was shaken badly by WWI, it led to rise of Bolshies in Russia and Nazis in Germany.

When Japanese invasion messed up the KMT regime in China, it gave huge opening to the commies.

When North Vietnam and US destabilized Cambodia, it led to rise of Khmer Rouge.

I agree y’all that immigration is a bad, bad, and bad idea.

But the West has much to answer for for messing up the Middle East and North Africa.

A single drone strike killed many more innocent people in the Middle East than this attack in Brussels.

The West says that those drone strikes are meant to take out terrorists.

As far as I’m concerned, Western elites are no less terrorists for using lies and influence to destroy entire parts of the world.

And not just in the Muslim world but in Ukraine. Nuland is a terrorist.

Actually worse. The West, ruled by Zionists, have been into mass destruction of societies. They are destructionists.

Brussels looks bad, but look at eastern Ukraine. Look at Syria. Look at Iraq. Look at Libya. It’s total destruction.

Bush and Clinton and Obama are destructionists.

MORE:

* The neocon sabre rattling is all about Iran, which is not a real threat to Israel except indirectly through support of the Arabs in the West bank. It is very important to realise that Israeli politicians and the Lobby that take their cure from them, don’t dare mention what they see as the greatest threat. Supposedly Obama is the most anti Israel President ever, but that he has done absolutely nothing to stop settlements or restart the peace process does not mean he is doing anything good for Israel.

The official US policy supported by both recent Republican and Democrat presidents is for a process toward a new Palestinian state, which Israel and its Lobby have put into suspended animation. There isn’t enough unsettled land left for a meaningful new Palestinian state anyway. The West Bank Arabs will have to be given second class citizenship in what will be internationally recognisable as an obviously Apartheid regime, or full rights (either would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state within a generation).

The alternative, quietly longed for by many Israelis, is West Bank Arabs to fight against Israel and be relocated to the existing Palestinian state of Jordan during a wider war between ISIS and Israel. The counter-jumping chickenhawks of the Israel Lobby don’t dare suggest the aforementioned removal of Arabs, which happens to be the only thing that can keep Israel a Jewish country. Clinton would not let things (ISIS or similar organisation taking over Jordan and fighting against Israel) get that far, and she would not let Israel transfer the West Bank Arabs in any case. Trump is a very different kettle of fish.

Posted in Terror | Comments Off on Terror In Brussels

Steve Sailer: Hillary Speaks Out Against Walls Around America, Demands More Surveillance in America

Comments:

* I like how obtuse opponents are by focusing on a wall as if that is the only component to fighting the problem. If the political will ever comes about to adequately secure the southern border with proper fencing, then there most surely will be the political will to allow agents to conduct frequent workplace raids and deport those who overstayed a visa. Additionally such policies would also include not allowing illegals to open bank accounts and be issued with photo IDs or driver’s licenses. The wall/fence is just one component. By itself it won’t be highly effective, but in combination with the above it should make a noticeable difference.

* Michael Savage made the point today that Italians in the New York city police department worked against the Mafia in order that they would not have to live in the corrupt society that they left behind in Italy. Monitoring Italian neighborhoods did not alienate the typical Italian immigrant, they favored it. Thus, very plausibly, Cruz’s policy of monitoring Muslim neighborhoods would not lead to increased jihadism by Muslim – Americans. It’s a policy that would be favored by everyone not politically motivated.

COMMENTS:

* …how high does the wall have to be to keep the Internet out?”

The Internet can’t plant a bomb in an airport or shoot into a crowd of people at a concert. Muslims can rant for all they’re worth on Facebook if they’re at a safe distance from us in Syria or Morocco.

She’s again illustrating the choice we have when it comes to immigration. You can have tight controls of prospective immigrants, with intrusive probing of their private lives to see if they’re suitable candidates. You can also have blanket bans on races or religions who will never fit in. This will allow you to have a society with minimal surveillance of the citizens by the government (the libertarians’ ideal). On the other hand, you can have a laissez-faire immigration system combined with a police state to keep track of all the dangerous people (or their descendants) whose presence is the fruit your open-borders policy. You have to pick one or other of these combinations.

* There’s a certain logic to this madness.

Let’s say you’re a domestic company that receives nationals security-related contracts from the federal govt. The more Muslims enter the US, the more terrorism occurs. The more terrorism occurs, the more justification there is for your services.

Many of these contractors tend to donate very generously to our politicians, such as Hillary. They donate to political campaigns and also offer lucrative lobbyist jobs to retired politicians and military personnel. If she proposes more surveillance and more Muslim immigration, that benefits her contributors.

There’s another group of people who benefit. That group would be the “Deep State.” The more terrorism occurs in the US, the more of need there is for their. They’re invested in maintaining the system.

Of course, the system might have opponents. Let’s say you are an opponent. You’d be a very popular target for surveillance by a security contractor or intelligence operatives. If they found anything incriminating, they could easily blackmail you. Knowing Hillary, I bet there are lot of powerful people with a lot of dirt on her.

It’s not that mysterious why so many politicians, media figures, and other powerful individuals are so invested in Muslim immigration and domestic surveillance. It’s also not mysterious why they’re so invested in continued conflict overseas. This is why the “War on Terror” can never be won.

* The Wall connects thoughts to reality. Once one sees the sense of it, the thought propagates to other implementations. Ideas that there are things that differ in the world, and cell membranes. It counters the Floyd mush think.

* The Muzzies are just getting warmed up, if you look at their attacks, they are clearly evolving in terms of sophistication and targeting. This ought to scare the bright green piss out of folks.

Several years from now I suspect they will move onto infrastructure targets which will give them a massive return on investment. Read Matt Bracken’s latest article to get a feel.

Even if it’s not the scale he predicts, say they just take out the power grid that keeps the lights on and water flowing in Manhattan or D.C. by blowing up the critical transformers that keep the lights out for weeks or months. There goes the stock market and trillions in stock value, not to mention making these places unlivable.

Remember how they panicked over the Beltway Sniper(who were Muslims)? This would a 100x worse.

Modern civilization is very fragile, especially the cities.

Palo Alto, Greenwich, Aspen, Telluride won’t be safe, it’s just a fat juicy target loaded with men-boy geeks living in palatial estates guarded by rent-a-cops. Those palaces just say “hit me”.

* Mohammedan street crime is increasingly impacting formerly low-crime European countries. Get tough on crime initiatives are largely driven by NAM crime. I guess the short version is diversity or freedom, pick one.

* Listening to a few NPR programs this morning, I heard from a number of experts that Islamophobia is a barrier to dealing with terrorism. Me, I think Racismphobia is the real barrier.

Posted in America, Europe, Islam | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Hillary Speaks Out Against Walls Around America, Demands More Surveillance in America

Republican Establishment is increasingly prepared to lose with Cruz than hand the party to Trump

From Politico: “People think we lose with Cruz, but we don’t lose everything,” said the operative, who opposes Trump and asked to speak anonymously. “He’s still a real Republican. We don’t lose the House and Senate with Cruz. We don’t lose our soul as a party and we can recover in four years and I’m not sure people think we can recover from Donald Trump.”
Said one high-level operative inside the Koch network: “He’s the devil you know.”
Indeed, many establishment Republicans would rather lose with Cruz and play a long 2020 game than risk having their party and conservative principles hijacked by Trump—a candidate they do not trust even as they recognize his political dexterity and the possibility that he could be just cagey enough to win on Election Day.

“Donald Trump is a centrist,” said Ron Kaufman, a close ally of Mitt Romney and Bush who lives in Massachusetts. “You may not like him, but policy-wise he’s a centrist. He’s between Cruz and Kasich. If Donald Trump is the nominee, he’ll be far more centrist in language than he has been.”
Trump’s repeated requests for the party to recognize the new voters he has drawn into the Republican fold and embrace the possibilities of his candidacy have yet to convince most establishment figures; many are taking steps to emphasize their still implicit opposition to him.
On Wednesday, Paul Ryan used a 30-minute speech to argue against Trump’s brand of divisive identity politics without mentioning the candidate by name, urging the country to “stay unified” and dismissing the notion “that we’re going to win the election by dividing people.” Meanwhile, a top RNC official was meeting privately with several high-level anti-Trump activists to explain what an open convention might look like.
And on Monday, Our Principles PAC, a group founded by establishment donors to oppose Trump, sent a tracker to shoot video footage of members of Congress showing up to meet with Trump in an effort to intimidate more rank-and-file Republicans from showing any openness to his candidacy. Suddenly, the party establishment, which has long been stymied by the Tea Party movement’s demands of ideological purity, now has its own litmus test in Trump, demanding nothing less than rejection of the current front-runner for the GOP’s presidential nomination.
“No one thought we would be here at this time,” said Austin Barbour, who ran Rick Perry’s super PAC until he quit last year and then backed Bush until he, too, quit, and is now casting his lot with Cruz.
The unifying factor among the establishment Republicans now begrudgingly coalescing behind Cruz is a deep, visceral revulsion to Trump: to his divisive demagoguery that is so unmoored from traditional conservative ideology and, many believe, the party’s and country’s bedrock values. It has little to do with Cruz, who has simply done better than anyone else in the first two months of the nomination process.

Posted in Republicans | Comments Off on Republican Establishment is increasingly prepared to lose with Cruz than hand the party to Trump

The Fighter-Jock Doctrine That Explains Why Trump Is Winning

Jack Shafer writes:

Like the Republican candidates before her, Clinton was already caught inside Trump’s OODA loop.

OODA loop? What’s that? I had never heard of the OODA loop until Wednesday morning, when one of my editors, Blake Hounshell, introduced me to the concept. Originally formulated by fighter pilot and military theoretician Col. John R. Boyd to describe the mental cycles a successful dogfighting pilot navigates in bagging his prey, the thinking behind the OODA loop has since been applied to the world outside air combat by businessmen, athletes, diplomats and competitive types everywhere.
OODA stands for observation; orientation; decision; action—the four steps an individual goes through when reacting to an event. The key to military victory, Boyd preached, was to cycle through your OODA loop faster than your foe. In his June 2002 Fast Company feature about the OODA loop, Keith H. Hammonds explains that to win a dogfight, a pilot must find a way to operate “inside” his foe’s OODA loop, “acting quickly to outthink and outmaneuver rivals.”
“An effective pilot explodes his rival’s comfortable view of the universe,” Hammond writes, a statement that couldn’t be a better description of the way Trump has run his campaign. He’s rejected most of the etiquette that accompanies political campaigns, taunting and name-calling his opponents (“Lyin’ Ted Cruz,” for a fresh example) to instigate publicity-attracting feuds. But feuds are only a part of Trump’s OODA loop strategy. Upsetting opponents’ OODA loops with unexpected and rapid emanations from his own gives Trump the constant advantage of surprise. His ability to change mental course inside a media moment—from “perhaps there are two Donald Trumps” to “I don’t think there are two Donald Trumps”—would sound like a contradiction coming out of any other politician’s mouth. But Trump has been normalizing contradictions since the beginning of the campaign, with no loss of political support.
Who before Trump convinced TV hosts to accept lengthy phone-ins from a candidate? The practical advantage of doing phone-in interviews is it affords him maximum exposure with a minimum of physical effort. It also conditions TV bookers to call him when news or controversy breaks: He’ll be there to take the call. By making himself more available to the news media than almost any candidate, he’s got an edge in determining the terms of the debate, and his media ubiquity also makes him look like the leader and the other candidates like followers. While other candidates are composing expensive TV ads about their plans to solve the political crises of yesterday, Trump is on television screens across America, at no expense to his campaign, talking about how he will address today’s catastrophe. He’s already made his move. He’s inside their airspace.
Where did Trump come by these OODA loop skills? Although he owns a fleet of aircraft, including a Boeing 757-200, a Cessna Citation X corporate jet, two Sikorsky S-76B helicopters and, for a short time, owned Eastern Airlines’ shuttle service, he’s no fighter pilot. Maybe he learned the art of quick thinking at his developer father’s knee, or in military school dorm fights, or in New York real estate deal making, or while divorcing his first two wives. (I suspect all of the “wit” displayed on his TV show was scripted.)
There’s something Zen about one source of Trump’s power. He’s able to maneuver faster than the other candidates because, unlike them, he’s unencumbered by the polls and important advisers that slow the OODA loops governing other candidates. In this sense, his famously unplanned, unstructured campaign operation is a huge advantage. He’s a one-man fighter jet; his opponents are lumbering bombers, still painstakingly running through a weapons checklist while they’re viciously strafed from behind.
Unlike your average candidate, Trump doesn’t require facts to make an argument. He doesn’t even need an argument to make an argument: He possesses the confidence to shoot straight from the lip on any topic at any time, filling the air with chaff. For every critic who tut-tuts, “Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” four or five people in TV land nod their head in agreement with him. By the time the fact-checkers arrive to assess the damage Trump has done to the truth, he has skipped on to several new subjects. He’s inside the fact-checkers’ OODA loops, too, moving too quickly for them to catch him.
It’s anybody’s guess which of Trump’s observations, acts of orientation, decision making and action are conscious and which are intuitive. Cartoonist Scott Adams of “Dilbert” fame writes of Trump’s great skill at simplifying the complex, which, when you think about it, is as sharp a time-saving tool as exists in any politician’s OODA-loopbag: Where other candidates devote whole speeches to how they’ll get things done, Trump merely states he’ll get the best people on it and they’ll finish on time and under budget. “Trump is talking directly to people’s subconscious. Everything else he says is just a carrier signal,” Adams writes.
Adams also calls Trump a master of the “linguistic kill shot,” citing the candidate’s ability to take out other candidates with a word or two that contains a resonance of truth. For Jeb Bush, the phrase was “low energy.” For Carly Fiorina, the word was “robotic.” For Ben Carson, “nice.” For Marco Rubio, “little.” (For Ted Cruz, the word is shaping up to be “Lyin’.”)
Did any of the vanquished candidates see Trump rocketing up from behind just before he shot them down?

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on The Fighter-Jock Doctrine That Explains Why Trump Is Winning

Bedouin Saying: ‘I Against My Brothers. I and My Brothers Against My Cousins. I and My Brothers and My Cousins Against the World.’

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Arabs, Afghans and their ilk believe in concentric circles of loyalty and trust while White, post-Christian and especially Germanic women believe in leapfrogging loyalty. Two two groups are just now meeting one another in large numbers under field conditions. I wonder how it will go? Early reports are not promising.

* The situation regarding collusion in crime differs in many ways between the races. Sex crimes by whites are usually committed by a lone perpetrator, whereas non-whites often do it in packs.

* I think one reason Muslims rely on close relatives to make up their terror teams is that they quite rightly don’t trust anyone they don’t know intimately. This probably helps explain their love of suicide bombing as a technique. They know that if you want something done properly in their culture, you’ve got to do it yourself.

* Since they lack esprit de corps, fighting with family/clan is about the only way to make them into good fighting units. Even when they’re good one on one fighters, they’re bad in large numbers. Family ties are about the only thing that ensure unit cohesiveness. That and buggering each other Theban style.

As for losing kids, their wombs are their greatest weapons.

Posted in Arabs | Comments Off on Bedouin Saying: ‘I Against My Brothers. I and My Brothers Against My Cousins. I and My Brothers and My Cousins Against the World.’

All Marines will get “unconscious bias training” to prepare for women joining combat units

Comments:

* This is something Trump or Cruz should run with. This is all the result of executive decisions and could easily be reversed by the next President. Right now Trump has pretty good military support. If he announced that he was going to overturn these policies his military support would go through the roof. Most military guys are not happy with this, but are too afraid to speak up, or even parrot the party line, e.g. General Casey.

* It’s hard to know what the ruling elite wants. It certainly wants a strong US military to invade and destroy whatever country happens to be next on the neocons’ hit-list. On the other hand, this “bias training” makes it obvious that it doesn’t want optimal military efficiency either. I suppose they feel secure in the belief that the US armed forces will always have the advantage of being financed by the world’s largest tax base.

* Unless you are some super duper Alpha/Sigma dude, you basically will either fall in love and/or feel protective of women you work for/with, even if they be super beatches. It is just the way we’re wired. Of course, instant conflict if guy A and B both fall for chick C who is in their platoon – just add guns! Recipe for disaster.

* Keep in mind this story is about the USMC. I imagine far worse has happened to the US Army. And frankly that is the bigger issue because in any major war the Army IS the ground component of our military.

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on All Marines will get “unconscious bias training” to prepare for women joining combat units

Most Reform & Reconstructionist Temples In America Celebrate Purim On The Wrong Day

Most of their rabbis know the correct day (it begins tonight, March 23) but they also know that few of their congregants will show up on a weekday, so they reschedule it for sometime easier.

Pacific Palisades Reconstructionist temple Kehillat Israel’s website says:

Purim Extravaganza!

March 25, 2016 | 5:00 PM
Wristbands $15 through March 24 ($20 at the door)

Circus performers, games, the JEC Youth Board sponge toss, flash tattoos, face painting, PLUS a tot carnival in the ECC! Dinner included! Special thanks to Zuniga Entertainment for their DJ services!

Posted in Judaism | Comments Off on Most Reform & Reconstructionist Temples In America Celebrate Purim On The Wrong Day

‘Europe is safe and secure, thanks to their multicultural diverse Defense Ministers.’

CeNL1Y8WwAAAKpU

Posted in Europe | Comments Off on ‘Europe is safe and secure, thanks to their multicultural diverse Defense Ministers.’

Left-Wing Jew Peter Beinart: To Keep Muslims Already Here from Wanting to Kill Us, We Must Import Lots More Muslims

If you found poisonous snakes in your bedroom, who would you hate? The snakes or the people who put them there? Peter Beinart and company want to fill your home with poisonous snakes.

From The Atlantic:

Right after the attacks in Brussels on Tuesday, Donald Trump did something bizarre. He spoke the truth. Appearing on Fox and Friends, the GOP presidential frontrunner declared that, “This all happened because frankly there is no assimilation.”

… Which is why the proposals that he and Ted Cruz offered in response to it are so idiotic. Soon after decrying Belgium’s lack of “assimilation,” Trump reiterated his call for temporarily banning Muslims from entering the United States. It’s hard to think of a proposal more likely to push America in Belgium’s direction. Today, American Muslims are far more integrated than Muslims in Europe. According to a 2011 Pew Research poll, only 20 percent of American Muslims surveyed would prefer to “be distinct” than to “adopt American customs.” … Compared to countries like Belgium, the degree of acceptance that American Muslims enjoy represents a form of American exceptionalism.

Banning Muslim immigration would almost certainly undermine this. A 2014 study found that Muslim immigrants in states that experienced more anti-Muslim hate crimes were less likely to intermarry with non-Muslims and learn English. Trump’s demonization of Muslims has already fostered more of these anti-Muslim attacks, and were he to try to implement his ban on Muslim immigration, Islamophobia would likely spike even higher, undermining the very integration of American Muslims that helps keep America safe.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Left-Wing Jew Peter Beinart: To Keep Muslims Already Here from Wanting to Kill Us, We Must Import Lots More Muslims

Trump Was Right About Stopping Islam

Ann Coulter writes: Immigration is the new “No Nukes/Save the Whales” movement, only with more body bags.

After the mass murder committed by Muslims in San Bernardino, which came on the heels of the mass murder committed by Muslims in Paris, Donald Trump proposed a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

Explaining the idea on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” he talked about how Muslim immigration was infecting Europe: “Look at what happened in Paris, the horrible carnage. … We have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that the police are afraid for their own lives. We have to be very smart and very vigilant.”

Trump’s reference to London’s no-go zones was met with a massive round of sneering, which is what passes for argument in America these days. Jeb! said Trump was “unhinged,” Sen. John McCain called him “foolish,” and former vice president Dick Cheney said Trump’s remarks went “against everything we stand for and believe in.” (Based on Trump’s crushing primary victories, Cheney is no longer qualified to say what “we” believe in.)

To prove Trump wrong, reporters called British authorities and asked them: Are you doing your jobs? They responded, Why, yes we are! The head of London’s police said, “Mr. Trump could not be more wrong,” and London mayor Boris Johnson called Trump’s comments “utter nonsense.”

Within days, however, scores of rank-and-file London policemen begged to differ with their spokesmen, leading to the following headlines:

UK Daily Mail: ‘TRUMP’S NOT WRONG — WE CAN’T WEAR UNIFORM IN OUR OWN CARS’: Five Police Officers Claim Donald Trump Is Right About Parts of London Being So ‘Radicalised’ They Are No-Go Areas

The Sun: ‘THERE ARE NO-GO AREAS IN LONDON’: Policemen Back Trump’s Controversial Comments

UK Daily Express: ‘TRUMP IS RIGHT!’ Police Say Parts of Britain Are No-Go Areas due to ISIS Radicalisation

Then, in January of this year, Trump talked specifically about the Muslim invasion of Brussels on the Maria Bartiromo show. “There is something going on, Maria,” he said. “Go to Brussels. … There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Sharia law … There is something bad going on.”

The New York Times headlined a story on the interview: “Donald Trump Finds New City to Insult: Brussels.” News is no longer about communicating information; it’s about imparting an attitude. Trump is rude, so whether he’s right is irrelevant. As the saying goes, “Better dead than rude.”

Indignant Belgians took to Twitter, the Times reported, “deploying an arsenal of insults, irony and humor, including images of Belgium’s beloved beer and chocolate.” Liberals have gone from not understanding jokes to not understanding English. When Trump talked about unassimilated Muslim immigrants demanding Sharia law, I don’t think he was knocking Belgium’s beer and chocolate.

Rudi Vervoort, the president of the Brussels region (who evidently survived this week’s bombing), rebuked Trump, saying, “We can reassure the Americans that Brussels is a multicultural city where it is good to live.”

After multiculturalism struck this week, Vervoort said, “I would like to express my support to the victims of the attacks of this morning …” Twitter bristled with supportive hashtags, the Belgian flag and professions of solidarity. The Times editorialized: “Brussels, Europe, the world must brace for a long struggle against this form of terrorism.”

All this would be perfectly normal if we were talking about an earthquake or some other natural disaster — something humans have no capacity to prevent. But Muslims pouring into our countries and committing mass murder isn’t natural at all. It’s the direct result of government policy.

It’s as if the government were dumping rats in our houses, and then, whenever someone died of the plague, those same government officials issued heartfelt condolences, Twitter lit up with sympathetic hashtags and the Times editorialized about effective rodent control, but no one ever bothered to say, Hey! Maybe the government should stop putting rats in our houses!

When people are killing in the name of their religion, it’s not an irrelevancy to refuse to keep admitting more practitioners of that religion.

But this is the madness that has seized Europe and America — a psychosis Peter Brimelow calls “Hitler’s revenge.”

Apparently, what we have learned from Hitler is not: Don’t kill Jews. To the contrary, the only people who openly proclaim their desire to kill Jews are … Muslims.

What we’ve learned from Hitler is not: Don’t attempt to seize hegemonic control over entire continents. The only people vowing to conquer the world are … Muslims.

And what we’ve learned from Hitler is not: Beware violent uprisings of angry young men. The only hordes of violent, angry young men are, again … Muslims. (And Trump protesters.)

But instead of learning our lesson and recoiling with horror at this modern iteration of Nazism, we welcome the danger with open arms — because the one and only lesson we’ve learned from Hitler is: DON’T DISCRIMINATE!

Posted in Ann Coulter, Donald Trump | Comments Off on Trump Was Right About Stopping Islam