The Worst Is To Come

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steven writes: I have this dreadful feeling that a truly apocalyptic act of Islamic terrorism will occur in our lifetimes. A nuclear or biological attack that will kill thousands or hundreds of thousands. This is what ISIS and Al Qaeda want – a world-historical, civilization-ending confrontation. They will do everything they can to force it on the world. They want to destroy our corporate consumerist post-religious secular world order and replace it with holy war, and then world Islamic theocracy. Genocidal mass slaughter is what they want, and I fear they’ll eventually manage to pull it off one day. The thing is, I am fairly sure the majority of the world’s Muslims are good people who just want the same things in life as everybody else. But I fear they don’t have enough courage and enough sense of righteous outrage to definitively root out their jihadi co-religionists. When they see Islamic-inspired atrocities they do a lip-service condemnation but they still see “Islamophobia” and countering possible stigma from the actions of their religious brethren as more important than shutting down the jihadis. They seem easily cowed by displays of ruthless violence (as exemplified in the ISIS snuff videos) The good ones run away because their families are more important to them than ideologies. The bad ones fight, kill and happily die because they feel empowered by being the shock force of Allah. The Jihadis have everybody scared because they love death. Normal, good people love life, but the self-appointed warriors of Islam worship death, and because death is effortless and permanent and life is demanding and temporary, they could win.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on The Worst Is To Come

David Boren: ‘Zero Tolerance Is the Only Way to Stop the Cancer of Racism’

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Not a Jew, praise God!

Chaim Amalek: “Social control can win the day. Accused racists (and an accusation is as good as trial and conviction in this matter) should be shamed, stripped of health and other social benefits, and then rendered both unemployed and unemployable.”

From Time.com:

Today, all of our students receive sensitivity training to help them better understand and respect each other. There is a new university Vice President for the University Community. There is a new academic department of Native American Students. Each college has a multicultural director reporting directly to the deans. Minority freshman enrollment went up by 8% and African American freshman enrollment went up by 10%.

We are still a work in progress, but we are determined to send a message to the rest of America that zero tolerance is the only way to stop the cancer of racism. Each of us has an individual responsibility to speak out every single time we encounter discrimination and racist remarks. We cannot remain silent. Often we say to ourselves, “Why can’t we all just love and respect each other?” We can—but it’s up to each one of us to take action.

Posted in Race | Comments Off on David Boren: ‘Zero Tolerance Is the Only Way to Stop the Cancer of Racism’

Ann Coulter Says Paris Attacks Guarantee Donald Trump’s Presidency

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Ann: They can wait if they like until next November for the actual balloting, but Donald Trump was elected president tonight.

From the Washington Post:

Republican political consultant Alex Castellanos said Trump is the candidate who most speaks to the moment on a visceral level. “We want a president equal to our fears, big scary fears about holding the world together and survival,” said Castellanos, who is not affiliated with Trump’s campaign. “All of this has just been accentuated in the last 24 hours, now even more so. Now that strong leader is even more imperative.”

Trump — who said recently that he would “bomb the s— out of” oil fields controlled by the Islamic State — opened his rally Saturday by leading the crowd of several thousand in a moment of silence in remembrance of the more than 120 people killed in the Paris attacks. Trump also erroneously asserted, as he has before, that Obama planned to allow 250,000 refugees into the United States.

“You have to be insane,” Trump said of resettling Syrian refugees. “Terrible.”

Trump said in late September that if he is elected, he will force all Syrian refugees to leave the United States. He has said that these refugees could be a terrorist army in disguise and that they cannot be trusted. Such comments have resonated with rally crowds nationwide and did so again in Texas on Saturday.

From Ann Coulter:

The “universal values” we share w/ 3d World: Muslim terrorists went to back of theater to shoot ppl in wheelchairs.

Maybe guard the border before the massacre

Merkel: “We are crying with you.” http://nyti.ms/1PH5Zns Maybe a little less crying and a little more deporting.

Merkel, who invites terrorist murderers to EU, says to Germany: “We are crying with you.” http://nyti.ms/1PH5Zns

They can wait if they like until next November for the actual balloting, but Donald Trump was elected president tonight.

@AnthonyCumia @AnnCoulter call Chelsea Clinton if you want to know the truth.

Why does NO ONE say the obvious thing on TV?! It’s insane. Don’t want terrorism in US? Stop importing Muslims!

TRUMP 2016! Ann Coulter added,
EdAsante @EdAsante77
Where are the great men? Who will step up & do what needs to be done? Anyone?

So, what video upset the murderers in Paris?
#Hillary2016

100% of TV talk is @ fighting ISIS–IN SYRIA. Bomb away, but isn’t there something else we should consider? Like not letting ISIS move here?

What’s the upside of letting millions of Muslims migrate to western countries?

Can we all agree now? No more Muslim immigration. How is this making life better for us? But the mass immigration machine churns on …

Every year, the US imports 100K more Muslims to live here permanently. Rubio says he wants more. Why would anyone support him?

Too bad there were no concealed carry permits … anywhere in Europe … since 1818.

Posted in America, Donald Trump | Comments Off on Ann Coulter Says Paris Attacks Guarantee Donald Trump’s Presidency

Yossi Klein Halevi: Next, Turn the Screws on Syria

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Luke Ford

Why did the West create a mess in Syria, which is in turn flooding the West with Syrian immigrants? In part, because of the pressure of intellectuals such as Yossi Klein Halevi, who wrote in the Los Angeles Times April 15, 2003:

JERUSALEM — Though Syria was conspicuously omitted from President Bush’s “axis of evil,” the regime of Bashar Assad has now replaced Saddam Hussein as the Arab world’s leading supporter of terrorism and stockpiler of weapons of mass destruction.

Syria is the only Arab country that actively backed Hussein, reportedly encouraging suicide bombers to cross into Iraq, sheltering Iraqi war fugitives and possibly storing nonconventional weapons for Hussein.

By focusing on those provocations, the Bush administration is correcting a serious flaw in its war against terrorism. The region’s most vicious terrorist groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, maintain operational centers in Damascus. As one administration insider put it, any taxi driver in the Syrian capital knows the address of half a dozen terrorist groups.

Worse, Syria arms and protects the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah. Until Sept. 11, Hezbollah held the world record in the number of Americans killed through terrorism. In two suicide bombings in the 1980s, Hezbollah murdered 260 American soldiers stationed in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. No terror organization maintains greater global reach than Hezbollah, whose cells and fund-raising network extend to six continents. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage recently noted that Hezbollah “may be the [terrorists’] A-team, while Al Qaeda may be actually the B-team.”

Syria’s support for Hezbollah endangers the entire Middle East. Since Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, Hezbollah has reportedly placed up to 10,000 Iranian-supplied missiles along the Israeli border. Those missiles, capable of reaching every town and industrial center in the Galilee, were delivered through the Syrian army, which controls Lebanon. If another regional Arab-Israeli war occurs, the probable trigger won’t be Palestinian terrorism but Hezbollah’s missiles.

Whereas Bashar’s father, the late Syrian dictator Hafez Assad, maintained tight control over Hezbollah and saw it as an expedient tool to be wielded with caution, Bashar has embraced Hezbollah’s romantic self-image as the Arab avant-garde. Hezbollah, he has said, is a “ray of light” for the Arab world. The “historic relations” between Syria and Hezbollah, he said shortly after the Israeli withdrawal, “will be much stronger and more effective than they were in the past.” That is one promise the young Assad has faithfully kept.

It wasn’t supposed to happen this way.

When Bashar Assad inherited his father’s regime three years ago, much was made in the international media about the new leader’s Western education and affinity for the Internet. Some even breathlessly reported that he was a Phil Collins fan. But Assad quickly proved that he was his father’s son by suppressing a reformist movement and arresting Syrian dissidents who had written an open letter to him demanding democracy.

With Hussein gone, Bashar Assad is now the Arab world’s leading rejectionist of peace with Israel. He recently asserted that Israel’s legitimacy would never be accepted by the Arab world.

Syria has opposed every Middle East breakthrough, from the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty to the Oslo process. And now Syria is taking on the United States.

The mufti of Damascus, Syria’s highest-ranking religious leader, recently urged Muslims to attack American troops in Iraq. As a government employee in a police state, he would never have issued that call without Assad’s tacit approval.

After years of Syrian provocation, Washington is finally responding. The Bush administration is demanding that Syria surrender Hussein’s nonconventional weapons — if it has them — and stop providing asylum to his henchmen. The administration is also calling attention to Syria’s own stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and its support for terrorist groups.

But Washington needs to go further: It should demand that Syria end its occupation of Lebanon, permit Beirut to disarm Hezbollah and assert control over its own country.

An American invasion of Syria most likely will not be necessary to produce results. Unlike Hussein, Bashar Assad has shown that he can be pressured. When the Turks threatened to invade Damascus unless he handed over the Kurdish terrorist leader Abdullah Ocalan, the Syrian leader quickly obliged.

If the United States is serious about uprooting terrorism, it cannot stop with its victory in Iraq. The jihadist war against the West has been actively nurtured by several key Middle East regimes.

Focusing the struggle on Damascus is the inevitable next step of the counteroffensive that began on Sept. 12, 2001.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in 2006:

Syria had not been on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq war (it had even voted for UN Resolution 1441), and was itself no threat to the United States. Playing hardball with it would make the US look like a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Third, putting Syria on the hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to bring pressure to bear, it made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first. Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws on Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israeli officials and groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act, and US policy towards Damascus would have been more in line with the national interest.

Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat to their existence. ‘Iraq is a problem … But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq,’ the defence minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, remarked a month before the Iraq war.

Sharon began pushing the US to confront Iran in November 2002, in an interview in the Times. Describing Iran as the ‘centre of world terror’, and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the Bush administration should put the strong arm on Iran ‘the day after’ it conquered Iraq. In late April 2003, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was ‘not enough’. In his words, America ‘has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.’

The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime change in Tehran. On 6 May, the AEI co-sponsored an all-day conference on Iran with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson Institute, both champions of Israel. The speakers were all strongly pro-Israel, and many called for the US to replace the Iranian regime with a democracy. As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran. ‘The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East … But the next great battle – not, we hope, a military battle – will be for Iran,’ William Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on 12 May.

The administration has responded to the Lobby’s pressure by working overtime to shut down Iran’s nuclear programme. But Washington has had little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear arsenal. As a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds and other articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran, caution against any appeasement of a ‘terrorist’ regime, and hint darkly of preventive action should diplomacy fail. The Lobby is pushing Congress to approve the Iran Freedom Support Act, which would expand existing sanctions. Israeli officials also warn they may take pre-emptive action should Iran continue down the nuclear road, threats partly intended to keep Washington’s attention on the issue.

One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping Iran from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but US policy would be more temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option.

It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the US to deal with any and all threats to Israel’s security. If their efforts to shape US policy succeed, Israel’s enemies will be weakened or overthrown, Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians, and the US will do most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying. But even if the US fails to transform the Middle East and finds itself in conflict with an increasingly radicalised Arab and Islamic world, Israel will end up protected by the world’s only superpower. This is not a perfect outcome from the Lobby’s point of view, but it is obviously preferable to Washington distancing itself, or using its leverage to force Israel to make peace with the Palestinians.

Can the Lobby’s power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America’s image in the Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing US government secrets to Israel. One might also think that Arafat’s death and the election of the more moderate Mahmoud Abbas would cause Washington to press vigorously and even-handedly for a peace agreement. In short, there are ample grounds for leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby and adopt a Middle East policy more consistent with broader US interests. In particular, using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the cause of democracy in the region.

But that is not going to happen – not soon anyway. AIPAC and its allies (including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know it has become more difficult to make Israel’s case today, and they are responding by taking on staff and expanding their activities. Besides, American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure, and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.

The Lobby’s influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face – including America’s European allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathisers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia.

Equally worrying, the Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects. We don’t need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.

There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington’s efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a similar capability.

Besides, the Lobby’s campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy. Silencing sceptics by organising blacklists and boycotts – or by suggesting that critics are anti-semites – violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends. The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel’s backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned.

Finally, the Lobby’s influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities – including a peace treaty with Syria and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords – that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists. Denying the Palestinians their legitimate political rights certainly has not made Israel more secure, and the long campaign to kill or marginalise a generation of Palestinian leaders has empowered extremist groups like Hamas, and reduced the number of Palestinian leaders who would be willing to accept a fair settlement and able to make it work. Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and US policy more even-handed.

There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some time, but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a candid discussion of the Lobby’s influence and a more open debate about US interests in this vital region. Israel’s well-being is one of those interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel’s long-term interests as well.

Posted in Israel, Syria, Yossi Klein Halevi | Comments Off on Yossi Klein Halevi: Next, Turn the Screws on Syria

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?