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.
