* Donald Trump should AT LEAST have the decency to insult someone’s wife through a plausibly deniable proxy and not just say it outright!
* There is strong evidence to suggest that many of Trump’s most engaged social media followers object to the genocide of white people.
* We must stand with Europe in their resolute refusal to excise the cancer of Islam from their body politic.
* The lesson of #Brussels is clear. If we don’t want our own peaceful Muslims blowing up airports, we must rein in Trump’s divisive rhetoric.
* Muslims HAVE to live in our countries. That’s a non negotiable. So we just nuke their ancestral homelands until they stop radicalizing, duh!
* This is fine. Everything is FINE. People need to stop pretending Western civilization is in some sort of crisis; it only strengthens Trump.
* Our enemies are not discrete groups of people responding to concrete geopolitical realities. Grow up! The enemy is “hate” and “extremism.”
* New challenges require new thinking. I say we pivot towards a combo of Mid East destabilization and immigration from the countries affected.
Posted inConservatives|Comments Off on Conservative Pundit: The challenge of Muslim extremism is real, but we can meet it with humanity, courage, and an omnipresent totalitarian surveillance state.
* You’ve hit it: multikulti requires a police state. And the more multi it gets, the more strict the state.
Iraq, very multi with Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, and Kurds and Arabs required extreme policing, which they got with Sadam Hussein.
Libya, all Sunni, with a few minority non-Arabs, survived with the more moderate Gaddhafi.
Syria is also very multi, and Assad Sr. ran a tight ship. He likely would have stamped out the revolt that has turned into a civil war.
The percentage of Muslims in the US is still pretty low. Just give it time. They tend to have big families too. They easily outbreed the natives in Europe.
* What measure does Max Boot use to claim that the US does a better job assimilating our Muslims than other countries? How about by death toll per capita? 3,000 people were killed on September 11 alone. Then there was Boston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, and several others.
The US has about 30 times as many people as Belgium (pop. 11.2 million), but has lost about 90 times as many people due to terrorism (3000 vs. 34). We have ~5 times as many people as France, but I doubt France has lost anywhere close to 600 people due to Islamic terrorism. Etc, etc.
As a share of our population the US has far fewer Muslims, but our death toll per capita is higher than every other Western country. It may seem like cheating since 9/11 was one very large event, but given all the other terrorist acts that have occurred here there’s no reason to take comfort in the idea that we do a better job assimilating Muslims.
My guess is that there are two things holding down Muslim extremism in the US. First, the fact that Muslims comprise a much smaller share of the population than in most Western European countries. That gives them no chance to “own” neighborhoods and oppress their neighbors the way they do in so many parts of Europe.
The second reason is the Second Amendment. Muslims wouldn’t dare try a lot of the shit they’ve tried in Europe because Americans are armed. Lose the Second Amendment and quintuple our Muslim population and our problems would be every bit as bad as in Europe, if not worse.
There are effectively two kinds of Islamic terrorism. The first is the overt terrorism as exemplified by 9/11, Bataclan, Boston, and the Brussels bombing. The second, more insidious kind, is the kind where Muslims criminal networks that drive non-Muslims out of entire cities and oppress the non-Muslim majority – think Rotherham. This is the kind that needs a critical mass that America does not yet have, but there’s every indication that Muslims would be happy to do it here, if they could.
* Our terrorism problem would be far worse if our share of Muslims were higher, but there’s definitely something to be said for employment holding extremism in check. I’ve noticed in life that the more free time people have on their hands the more inclined they are to bitch and obsess about how badly they have it, no matter how well off they actually are. College students, the unemployed, and the elderly. A rough equation for fanaticism may be:
Fanaticism = F * T^2
Where F = free time, T = testosterone levels, with overt fanaticism declining somewhat with both age and lack of free time. Passive aggressive fanaticism is more constant with age. Elderly Muslims are probably more than happy to bitch about non-Muslims – where do you think the younger Muslims get their attitudes about Westerners? – but they’re less inclined to go blow themselves up over it.
* A better comparison would be with America’s black population – in terms of numbers, social pathology and ‘lack of integration’ – and, oh, the fact that America’s black population hasn’t ‘integrated’ in 400 years, and is, in fact, only diverging and isolating more from mainstream America.
Posted inDiversity, Islam|Comments Off on Multi-Culti Requires A Police State
Amir Tehiri writes after the Paris attacks: This is how Sheikh Abu-Bakr Naji, the late theoretician of the Sunni version of the Islamo-apocalyptic movement, put it: “No one should feel safe without submitting, and those who refuse to submit must pay a high price. The aim of our movement is to turn the world into a series of wildernesses in which only those under our rule enjoy security.”
According to the sheikh, in a world dominated by “Crusaders,” it is not possible to create a proper Islamic state in a single country. He cites as example the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Although a proper Islamic regime, it did not survive “infidel” attacks and opposition by Afghan elements. The Islamic movement must become global, fighting everywhere, all the time, and on all fronts. He wants neo-jihadis to create an archipelago of “wildernesses” in non-Muslim countries, especially in the West, turning them into parallel societies alongside existing ones. They do not set up formal governments that could be vulnerable to economic pressure or even military attack.
But they could also exist within cities, under the noses of the authorities, operating as secret societies with their own rules, values and enforcement mechanisms.
The “wilderness” will provide cover for operational bases. Jihad would be everywhere rather than in just one or two countries that the “infidel” could hit with superior firepower.
The sheikh recommends “countless small operations” that render daily life unbearable rather than a few spectacular attacks such as 9/11. The idea is that the “infidel,” leaving his home every morning, should not be sure whether he would be alive in the evening.
The sheikh believed that, if subjected to constant intimidation and fear of death, most non-Muslims, especially in the West, would submit to Islam in exchange for a minimum of tranquility.
Posted inIslam|Comments Off on The jihadis’ master plan to break us
Central Europe, chiefly Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, remain largely safe from the terror threat, despite the former in particular being a Nato player in the Middle East. It is precisely because the reasons for this are so obvious that they cannot be mentioned. Poland is 0.1 percent Muslim, most of whom are from a long-settled Tartar community, Britain is 5 percent, France 9 percent and Brussels 25 percent, and those numbers are growing.
For all the goodwill shown by the vast majority of people in Europe, Muslim and non-Muslim, and for all those things that shouldn’t have to be said – that most Muslims hate this monstrosity – these statistics correlate to terrorism risk. That’s not something people want to hear when they have a desperate urge to feel solidarity, but it is true nonetheless. …
Central Europeans have become the new target for liberal snobbery in the past couple of years, their antediluvian attitudes to Islamic migration making them the new hillbillies; low-status whites it’s okay to mock on account of their views. But looking at what is happening in Brussels, London and Paris, is it not rather rational for them to look at Merkel’s open-borders policy and the whole multicultural thing with some scepticism? I suspect those flags will be back at half mast soon enough.
Comments to Steve Sailer:
* Eastern Europeans’ cohesiveness, resistance to immigration, skepticism about homosex, etc. are legacies of the Soviet-Warsaw Pact period. These are exactly the things that the neocons fought the Cold War to eliminate. As those older generations are replaced by newer, more Westernized (in a bad way) generations, those countries will get on board the multi-culti train.
* If I were to judge Islamic terrorism by the results, I’d say it works very well. There’s an avalanche of Muslims that have been invited into Europe and put on welfare by liberal Europeans. If your goal is being able to put your feet up, relax, and watch the grass grow while someone else supports you, and that someone enables you never having to put up with your own crappy rulers in your own countries again while nice, civilized, educated Europeans run thing things the smart, proper, and ethical way, then Muslims have achieved it.
Therefore, it makes sense to set off more bombs, if this is how Europeans buckle in the face of militant Islamic terrorism both at home and abroad.
Soon, the modern Islamic mega-state (ahem, Europe), is going to resemble the Ottoman Empire back in the days in which the cowed white Europeans (kidnapped Mamluks) did all the civil service work and kept the economy going to support their brutal Islamic overlords in the style to which they had become accustomed.
* Listening to CNN today, still hearing the usual palaver. “We need to get moderate Muslims to cooperate with us, etc.” Hard to believe that some “moderate” Muslims weren’t aware that the wanted terrorist, Salah Abdeslam, was hiding in plain sight in their enclave for several months. Maybe someday the moderate Muslims will throw us a bone. We probably need to beg them more pathetically. The danger, as one CNN commentator noted, is Trump. “His rhetoric will push Muslims in the opposite direction.”
If the opposite direction is back to the lands from whence they came, who’s complaining?
* Here’s an alternate plan: How about we prevent Muslims from coming to the West and expel as many as we can. Then it won’t matter what they do or think, because they won’t be here.
As has been pointed out so many times around these parts, terrorism is merely the most visible aspect of Muslim dysfunction. They are parasites feeding off of the West. Disturbingly, terrorism may be what saves Europe. If Muslims were identical to how they are now minus the terrorism the European frog would probably be well and truly boiled. But maybe terrorism will some day wake them up.
* I think Eastern and Western Europe are so different today because of policies taken in the West in the late 1960s and into the 1970s. That was the era of Enoch Powell’s famous series of speeches on immigration, then the OPEC oil shock, going off the Bretton Woods agreement and France and Germany changing their immigration policies to allow “family reunification” for foreign guest workers. This may seem like a jumble but they do form a greater whole. This was the time the leaders of Western Europe decided to follow the American “nation of immigrants” model in order to artificially maintain the postwar trend of growth that would otherwise have come to an even sharper end than it did.
Enoch Powell was the first of many politicians who were ganged up on because he didn’t get it; he didn’t get the enforced consensus on this. Once this course of action had been chosen by the G7, Davos, Bilderberg consensus then a whole culture of bullying, peer pressure and happy talk had to develop to maintain and promote it. Policies quickly became self-fulfilling facts on the ground. These policies weren’t carried out in the East Bloc and so they don’t have several generations of consensus thought saying it’s all a wonderful thing that the West has. Again, it was the early 1970s when the two parts of Europe diverged when it comes to multiculturalism, immigration and all that comes with them.
* Ask a friend if they have an upper limit on how large they want the Muslim population to become. Will America still be America if it is 60% Yemeni-American. Most will say no. Everyone I’ve tried this on has some upper limit in mind.
Once they’ve arrived at their own personal upper limit, ask them to explain how they will cap the Muslim population at that proportion. No one has a good answer.
Next ask them if it will be easier to cap Muslim population growth when Muslims are 1% of the population or when they’re 40% of the population?
Next ask them if taking a hands off policy and allowing the Muslim population to grow will make America better for their children and grandchildren or maybe we should nip the problem while it’s still small and manageable.
The problem, of course, is that people are rationalizers rather than reasoners. Only a few were comfortable with the reasoning, the others didn’t like the conclusions and got agitated. Now though they have a little burr under their saddle and hopefully it will irritate them over time.
* A tweet by a Dutch yoga teacher. Translation according to r/the_donald:
“How are you supposed to continue teaching in your class if muslim children are applauding [the attacks]? #attacks #Zaventem”
“3 [Dutch] police officers on my front door because of my tweet this morning. Asking to not do it again. #Brussels #attacks #Zaventem”
* I have used that upper limit trick with people about immigration overall.
I start by noting that America currently has about 330 million people here now. And point out that there are over 3 billion people worldwide living in extreme poverty. I ask if all 3 billion should be allowed to come here? If America would be improved by that?
When they say no, I have some fun calling them bigots, xenophobic, pointing out that those 3 billion only want to make a better life for themselves, to do the jobs American’s won’t do, etc…
I then confirm that they agree that there should be a limit to how many people we allow in, and establish some set of standards. So ask them what that limit should be. Very few can do so, and most people get so agitated that I drop the conversation.
But hopefully I at least plant the seed in their mind that immigration should have some theoretical limit, and create a negative mental image of themselves surrounded by foreign hordes.
Once people break through the propaganda & stop seeing immigration as a sacred good there is hope for them.
* I really do not see how civic nationalism and white nationalism can coexist, since both are philosophically incompatible, and one must be destroyed for the other one to survive, in fact you could think of Islam and the United States as competing schools of civic nationalism. Of course it is best if the liberals and civic nationalists destroy each other. The fact that the United States was founded on civic nationalism makes its very existence incompatible with the aims of WN. A propositional nation and a ethnonationalist nation based on blood ties are polar opposites of each other ideologically, and one must be destroyed for the other one to be able to survive.
* ‘…to ourselves and our posterity…”
The United States was founded on blood & soil. It’s right there in the Declaration.
By the 1770’s the American ethny was well established. Many colonists were three generations removed from the Old Country. Some were five removed and some more. And they were almost all from England.
* I brought up the Brussels attack with my eye doctor this morning during a check up. I said something about this being a big issue for Europe. He said not all Europe, that he just got back from Poland. I nodded and said it certainly makes Trump’s message resonate. He said absolutely. For New Yorkers who take the packed subway twice a day, there’s a knowing nod. For all the talk of Trump and Hitler, you know who the real fascists are.
Then cooking dinner there was a Georgetown professor on the radio. She’d been to Brussels and lamented that this might make Belgians even more anti-Islamic. Even more? They seem tolerant enough to me. She said she was shocked by the attitude of cab drivers there. Oh sure. Cabbies, at least where they take licensing seriously enough to keep employment up for local map-reading proles, always an affront to university professors on tour.
* Eastern Europe is never going to get on the diversity train. Only Western countries that are too wealthy for their own good get on this train. Eastern Europeans know how hard life can really be and how diversity just makes things more difficult.
* It is almost as if the more Muslims a country has, the more Islamic terrorism it is likely to experience. But surely that can’t be true. After all, the media keeps telling us that Islam is the religion of peace and the media never lies.
Posted inEurope, Immigration, Islam|Comments Off on Why Is Central Europe Free From The Islamic Terror Threat?
Since the 90s, Japanese women have been playing otome (“maiden”) games, which allow the player to pursue virtual relationships with several virtual hunks. In the interest of journalism, I spent over $60 flirting with emotionally manipulative anime characters, and it fucking ruled.
So what kind of virtual boyfriends do nipply Nipponese and sassy statesiders prefer? Take one guess.
When I asked Gray which character types tend to perform best, she told me that the “sadistic but charismatic” archetype is beloved in both Japan and the US.
She pointed to Eisuke Ichinomiya, which she says is the most popular character in Kissed by the Baddest Bidder, Voltage’s top-grossing game in the US. […] On Eisuke’s character profile, he is billed in glittering pink and purple script as a “cold-hearted narcissist.” His quote is “I’m going to make you mine. And you don’t get to say no.”
What’s revealing about this dating simulation (aka female pornhub) is that it is essentially the female version of sex dolls for men. Women aren’t aroused as much by the visual and tactile inspection of men’s bodies as they are by the emotional and psychological inspection of men’s personalities. And when choosing male archetypes, the jerkboy narcissist is number one pulse amplifier in the arterial transverse between a woman’s heart and vagina. This is why real world feedback continually proves the efficacy of Game to the goal of seducing women: Game is the creation of sexier male personalities.
“Usually [this character is] sadistic and mean to you, but sometimes, when you and him are alone, he becomes so sweet and very kind to you,” Gray explained.
Vulnerability Game. A girl wants a challenging man (i.e., a man with a lot of poosy options) who can’t help but occasionally, and reluctantly, succumb to her erotic charms.
Also like Voltage’s millions of other customers worldwide, I was really only interested in the mean and sadistic gentlemen—which is weird, because I actively avoid mean and sadistic men in real life.
Fantasy is inward projection of outward sexual desire. We know this because no woman in the history of the world has ever fantasized about a reliable beta male in pleated khakis. Hence, the reason there’s a maxim stating “watch what women do and ignore what they say”. The details of female desire are quite disturbing to idealistic minds when seen up close, so much so that even women recoil from a cogent awareness of their own sexual urges. Which is why women are gifted with an ability to flim flam themselves whenever they are asked about what they want romantically.
This woman quoted above, when alone with her virtual tingle generator, chooses a badboy for her stimulus. “In real life”, she claims otherwise. But that’s the source of the fantasy’s power; in real life, most women don’t have the goods to attract and tame the badboys who turn them on, so in moments of introspection they fall back on sour grape-isms to rationalize the parade of dependable boring betas that is their lot in life. Or, oppositely, they have been burned by badboys so often in the past that avoiding them must be an “active” process rather than the more natural, unplanned pursuit that doesn’t require active effort typical of women who don’t have a dating history littered with alluring assholes.
Gray insisted that most of Voltage’s users “think that their real life and romance in our apps are totally different.” However, in the same response, she acknowledged that an elision between fantasy and reality does often take place. “The user who has a boyfriend plays our app to fill in the unsatisfied part of her boyfriend. Playing the app makes her happy and it helps to prevent fights with her boyfriend,” Gray told me.
Virtual alpha widows. Literally cucked by an anime lothario.
There is no bottom to the romantic humiliations that beta male boyfriends can suffer.
Posted inSex|Comments Off on The Sadistic But Charismatic Archetype
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
