We Don’t Need any More Immigrants in This Country – Legal or Illegal

The Invaders: A Parable

Pulling into our driveway after a relaxing month-long cruise, my wife Mary yelled, “What the…?”  Mexican flags, old cars, discarded beer cans, and trash were all over our property.

I recruited my Spanish-speaking neighbor.  He yelled over the blaring Mexican music expressing my outrage to the group’s leader.  The leader told me to go “f” myself.  He said they have a right to a better life.

The invaders had an insane tangle of extension cords plugged into my electrical outlets.  Sinking into the mud of my once beautiful lawn, I called the police.  Sheriff Bob showed up to inform me that the mayor had decreed ours a sanctuary community.  He also conveyed the mayor’s zero tolerance for my hateful, racist attitude.

Code enforcement cited me for various violations.  I was ordered to clean up my property, add bathroom facilities, and upgrade my electrical power to accommodate the daily influx of new residents.

Mary yelled from our bedroom, “Oh, my gosh!”  Her jewelry, including her 30th wedding anniversary diamond earrings, was gone.

A neighbor updated me on our community’s crisis.  Beloved elderly Mr. Ben had been beaten and murdered, eight students were raped, numerous neighbors were assaulted, and several homes were burglarized.  Remarkably, not a word of the crime wave had been mentioned in our newspaper.  Clearly, the mayor was behind the media blackout.

As a matter of fact, Community Times reporters flooded us with articles praising the invaders and our loving mayor for welcoming these saintly souls seeking a better life.  I and fellow neighbors who opposed the invasion and complained about the cost were branded haters, selfish, and racists.  The mayor made us owners responsible for providing food, health care, and education for the invaders occupying our properties.

Widowed Miss Shirley, the community gossip, gave Mary the scoop.  She reported to Mary that many of the invaders worked for wealthy contributors to the mayor’s re-election campaign.  The invaders were paid peanuts to work as domestics, janitors, laborers, and maintainers of properties.

My feisty Irish wife said, “One thing is for sure: the mayor and his rich pals don’t have to worry about their estates being invaded.  Their homes are protected behind 12-foot fences armed with barbed wire, electric fences, and cameras.  Meanwhile, we’re forced to be their invaders’ welcome wagon!”

Folks, the above tale is fiction, a parable I wrote years ago illustrating illegal immigration.  I was stunned that so many readers thought my outrageous tale was true.  It’s a sad commentary on the insanity we have come to expect from government.

Both political parties have a vested interest in supporting the invasion.  Big business gets cheap labor.  Democrats have blacks on the path to aborting themselves into extinction, so illegals offer Democrats a fresh crop of future voters – an underclass unskilled, uneducated, and dependent on government.

Insidiously, both parties and the mainstream media prey upon the goodness of the American people.  Anyone opposing the invasion is branded racist, heartless, and mean.

GOP presidential contender Jeb Bush calls embracing illegal aliens an “act of love.”  Rush Limbaugh says this is not immigration.  We are being invaded.

For several years, I was honored to sing my original, “Celebrate America,” at U.S. naturalization ceremonies in Maryland.  I took pride in knowing that my song was the first thousands heard as new Americans after swearing their oaths of allegiance.  Every ceremony was electric, the hall radiating with emotion and excitement, tears flowing down countless faces.  Unbelievably, Obama decreed that new applicants will no longer be required to pledge their allegiance.

Here is a moving, memorable scene.  Family members raised the gentleman, in his 80s or 90s, from his wheelchair to his feet.  A grandchild held up his right hand.  His entire family was tearful as he recited the oath.  Folks, these people truly wanted to be Americans.  They studied, passed the test, and were anxious to assimilate and contribute.  After reciting their oaths and hearing the emcee say, “Congratulations,” the hall always erupted in applause and cheers of elation.

Obama refuses to enforce federal immigration law.  Ordered to break the law, border security allows everyone to enter, including gang members, rapists, and murderers.

Obama is endangering and devastating American families, with loved ones raped and murdered by invaders.  Then Obama showers the invaders with welfare and government checks.  Yes, government checks.

Under-reported (hidden) is the epidemic of strange diseases infecting our kids because Obama forced public schools to take in invaders’ children.

Obama rolling out the red carpet for invaders is a huge slap in the face to legal new American citizens and those respecting our laws following the legal immigration process.

As with practically every Obama policy, his amnesty for illegals is another self-serving, evil, anti-American agenda item disguised as love.  Thank God a few GOP presidential contenders have the backbone to firmly say, “No!”

 Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/the_invaders_a_parable.html#ixzz3k1NoZ16R

Snake oil Salespeople are Alive and well today. Now they are called Diversification Educators. Same bullshit, different day.

The White Guilt-White Privilege Shakedown

Posturing is a basic element in conflict, at least at the primitive level.  Many animals and even fish can make themselves look bigger and more dangerous than they actually are, and, as stated by chess grandmaster Aron Nimzowitsch, “the threat is stronger than the execution.”  Lt. Colonel David Grossman adds in Killology, “In the territorial and mating battles of every species the individual who puffs itself up the biggest or makes the loudest noise is most likely to win; this process is referred to as ‘posturing.'”

Posturing is the foundation of politically correct shakedowns by, for example, Al Sharpton.  “For more than a decade, corporations have shelled out thousands of dollars in donations and consulting fees to Sharpton’s National Action Network. What they get in return is the reverend’s supposed sway in the black community or, more often, his silence.”  Posturing without substance is similarly the foundation of the white guilt and white privilege shakedown scam.

Posturing was effective when combatants could see one another face to face.  Ardant du Picq wrote, “Each nation in Europe says ‘No one stands his ground before a bayonet charge made by us.’ And all are right.”  The menace of a bayonet charge was often enough to get the other side to turn and run, whereupon it could be massacred, but the industrialization of warfare changed this.  Belligerents learned the hard way during the First World War that you cannot browbeat or intimidate a machine gun, but that lesson goes back even farther to the Russo-Japanese War.  Mikhail Dragomirov was fond of quoting Aleksandr Suvorov’s maxim that the bullet is stupid while the bayonet is a fine fellow, but the bullet had learned during the century after Suvorov’s death how to be fired from a magazine rifle rather than a muzzle-loading musket.

Alternatively, as stated in Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, “[s]omehow, every time the magic of folderol tried conclusions with the magic of science, the magic of folderol got left.”  This, ladies and gentlemen, is where the magic of political correctness gets left.

The White Guilt/White Privilege Racket

A Google search on these topics led me to the White Privilege Conference University.  This organization offers academic credit along with a “Graduate Certificate in Diversity, Social Justice, and Inclusion.”  Cornell University similarly offers a “Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies Program” as well as an Africana Studies program.  Notre Dame offers a course entitled “White Privilege Seminar: An Introduction to the Intersections of Privilege in Preparation for the White Privilege Conference.”  All these courses and programs seem to qualify the student to do exactly two things: (1) teach similar material to other students, and (2) take customer orders at Starbucks or McDonald’s.  When we consider the fact that there are not enough teaching positions for all the graduates of these programs, and that restaurant order-taking is being automated, this looks like a losing proposition.

The inconvenient truth is that most of the people who promote coursework and seminars in white privilege, gay studies, women’s studies, womyn’s studies, Africana studies, and so on have few genuine work skills that qualify them to (1) manufacture a product or (2) deliver a genuine service such as medicine, accounting, law, or education in a value-adding trade or profession.  This is why they must posture, and foment feelings of white guilt and white privilege to sell their meaningless and worthless “services.”

This is not to say that African, Native American, Latin American, and other cultures have nothing to teach us.  If seemingly primitive witch doctors or medicine men use a plant for medicinal purposes, there is probably a reason, and it may even do things that Western medicine cannot.  Jesuit’s Bark, a remedy for malaria, was discovered not by Spaniards, but by Peruvian natives.  The phrase “ethnopharmacological” also is important, noting the effectiveness of Mauritanian native remedies against diabetes and its complications.

This kind of knowledge is extremely useful, but it is factual knowledge and not ideology.  The problem with academia involves “academicians” who peddle ideology, and often expensive ideology given today’s tuition rates.  Here, for example, is the kind of drivel for which University of Wisconsin students are wasting their tuition money: “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” is defined as “racial microaggression,” and so is “There is only one race, the human race.”

If the writer thinks that is microagression, try mine: “Affirmative action means hiring or appointing somebody for the color of his or her skin rather than the content of his character,” which is 100 percent accurate.  In fairness to the publication, however, it calls out some genuinely offensive expressions such as “welsh” and “gyp” as verbs.  The combination of some useful information with pure unmitigated ideological swill, however, does not result in a useful educational product. Now, here is where the magic of political correct folderol meets the magic of facts and science.

America’s History Was Not “Cowboys Versus Indians”

The peddlers of white guilt and white privilege want us to believe that evil Europeans, as led originally by Christopher Columbus, invaded the New World to wage a racist war on the peaceful and innocent Native Americans.  The truth is substantially different.

  1. The Europeans did not do anything to the Native Americans that they did not do to each other in both Europe and the New World.  Settlers and colonists were as ready to slaughter each other as they were to slaughter natives.  Skin color or ethnicity was far less a factor in making somebody a target for aggression as was possession of land, livestock, or wealth that the aggressor wanted.
  2. The Europeans did not do anything to the Native Americans that the Native Americans did not do to each other.
  3. The Europeans did not do anything to the Native Americans that the Native Americans were unwilling to do to Europeans.  Different native tribes sided with the French and British during the French and Indian Wars (part of a genuine world war that also involved Europe and India), and with the Americans and British during the War of Independence.  They sought to gain from the wars just as the other belligerents did.

While Hernán Cortez’s conquest of Mexico was certainly an act of aggression, we need to remember that the Aztecs were not exactly peaceful flower children who lived in a previously unsullied Garden of Eden.  It also did not involve a hopeless conflict between poorly armed natives and Spaniards with advanced technology.  Spanish armor was better, and the Spaniards also had cavalry that was totally unfamiliar to the natives.  The Spanish projectile weapons were, however, inferior to those of the Aztecs.  Spaniards used slow-loading crossbows and matchlock muskets, which were not effective beyond much more than the length of a football field.  The Aztec bow and sling could deliver more shots per man per minute, and quite probably to a greater range.  The Aztecs also had the atlatl, a throwing stick that could propel a javelin with incredible force.  It couldn’t pierce armor, but it was devastating to any unprotected part of a man’s body.  The Aztecs almost wiped the Spaniards off the face of the Earth in La Noche Triste (the Night of Sorrows) and would probably have won the war had they pursued the fugitives to the death.

The History of Slavery Was Not Whites Versus Blacks

Europeans enslaved Africans not because they were black, but because Africa was where slaves were available.  The slaves were primarily enslaved by other Africans and sold by other Africans or by Arab slave traders.  Whites were, however, equally willing to enslave other Caucasians.  “Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.”  This means not that two wrongs (enslaving black people and enslaving Caucasians) make a right, but rather that the evil of slavery was equal-opportunity evil, with perpetrators and victims of all races.

The Civil War Was Not about Slavery

I grew up to believe (as a child) that the First World War was started by evil proto-Nazis who wanted to conquer the world, which was pretty much what Triple Entente propagandists wanted the world to believe in 1914.  Only later did I learn that the war was started by a Serbian terrorist, and that all the participants were more or less equally guilty of allowing the murder of Archduke Francis Ferdinand to draw them into a world war.  This underscores the danger of historical revisionism, or, as stated by George Orwell in 1984, “[t]hose who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”

The same historical revisionists who want to get rid of not only the Confederate Flag, but also statues and place names that involve Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee want us to believe that the Civil War was between emancipating Northern angels on one side and whip-cracking Simon Legree devils on the other.  The inconvenient truth is that Union states like Maryland, West Virginia, and Missouri also had slaves who were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, and that Maryland’s Yankee clipper ships played a major role in the slave trade.  In addition, while Abraham Lincoln did not believe in slavery, he was no friend of the African-American, either.

Now, if the revisionists want to get rid of street names and statues that involve Robert E. Lee, they also need to get Robert Byrd (D-KKK) off all those streets and buildings in West Virginia.  Here is, for example, one of Byrd’s comments.

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

This allows, in turn, a wide variety of Robert Byrd jokes, such as “Why didn’t Democrat Robert Byrd like Lord of the Rings?  The White Wizard never became the Grand Wizard.”  “Why didn’t Democrat Robert Byrd like the Knight Rider TV series?  There wasn’t a single night rider in any episode!”  “Why did Democrat Robert Byrd stop reading The Hobbit?  He realized that his friend and mentor (Theodore) Bilbo was not going on a trip to see a (Grand) Dragon.”  Byrd’s political affiliation should always be mentioned when telling these jokes, and especially when race hustlers of that affiliation demand the removal of memorials to Confederate generals and statesmen.

The bottom line is threefold.  (1) Race hustlers like Al Sharpton, as well as “academicians” who peddle “education” in white privilege, have little or nothing of genuine value to offer to society, so they must fabricate reasons to justify their existences.  (2) Race hustling and the “white privilege” scam rely entirely on posturing with no substance behind it.  (3) Posturing shatters like an eggshell against a hammer when it is confronted with the facts, the same way the bayonet charges of the First World War went down before machine guns.  The proper thing to do with race hustlers and politically correct charlatans is to confront them head on, and expose them for the worthless parasites they are.

William A. Levinson is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

 Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/the_white_guiltwhite_privilege_shakedown.html#ixzz3k1LdFbKL

Well Written Expose on Why islam Can Never and Will Never be Compatible with Western Civilization

Letter to the Muslims of Europe.

If you (reader) are one of the twenty million devout Muslims currently resident in Europe, I’d like to try explain to you why I believe your beliefs are incompatible with the culture of your adopted home. But more than this, I hope also to persuade you that this view (shared by a growing majority of Europeans) does not emanate from ignorance or racism, and why it may not be a defeat or a humiliation for you to agree with it.

You or your parents probably came to Europe initially for economic reasons, seeking a better life and a more secure future. There is nothing dishonourable or unusual about that. Most non-Muslim migrants make the journey with the same ambitions. The West is very wealthy and safe relative to the rest of the world and so it is only rational to want to join it.

Once here, you or your parents probably planned to exist in a peaceful but separate state to the majority, maintaining your beliefs and traditions quietly in the same way that Orthodox Jews and Eastern Orthodox migrants have done in the past. Increasingly, this doesn’t seem to be possible, if it ever was. And in my view, the reasons for that directly relate to the nature of Islamic belief and the sense of mission that is so inseparable from it.

Unlike Christianity or Judaism, yours is a conquering faith, not a persuading one. Relatively little importance is given to peaceful proselytization in Islam. While there are occasionally stalls set out in front of tube stations or elsewhere in city centres to preach Islamic doctrine, this is an imitation of Christian practice and not something organically ‘Muslim’. Rather, Muslims have historically sought to attain dominion over society by violence, sometimes later permitting religious diversity within that society, but never allowing any symbol to enjoy precedence over the crescent. Their hope, indeed their expressed intention, has always been to exalt Islam to a position of cultural dominance and authority. While Christians and Jews have peacefully resided as minorities in many different parts of the world, Muslims have always struggled with the very concept of minority life. Since Allah is supposed to be the only authority to which submission is made, it is seen by most Muslims (and perhaps by you specifically) to be incongruous that a divine authority is subordinate to any non-Islamic regime, whether secular or religious. Minarets are built to tower above all other buildings for grander reasons than amplification. They proclaim symbolically the primacy and authority of Islam over the territory Muslims inhabit. It will simply not do that cathedrals or government buildings are larger or invested with more power and importance. Indeed, it is blasphemous and idolatrous. As Islamists never forget to proclaim before they demolish some priceless artefact – “Nothing and no-one is worthy of veneration except Allah”.

This sense of mission, inherent within Islamic theory, has radically altered human history. The nations of Lebanon, Libya and Syria were once Christian. The territory of what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan was once Buddhist. Persia was once Zoroastrian. That these places are now Muslim is testament to Islam’s conquering urge and military spirit. Islam seeks not only to convert, but to dominate and subdue. It is expansionist by its very nature. It was not designed to be one faith out of many, but to be the one and only faith of all humankind. The Quran itself is not shy of stating this. I would quote the passages urging the subjugation of unbelievers here but this would be so long as to be disruptive to my argument.

Your faith is antagonistic to everything but itself. And since you began settling in Europe back in the 1960s, members of your community have behaved in a way harmonious with that analysis. Just recently in Britain, there has been a wave of serious sexual assault committed by Muslims against exclusively non-Muslim children. Some estimates put the number of girls assaulted by British Pakistanis as high as 200,000. In the town of Rotherham alone, at least 1400 girls are known to have been forced into sexual slavery by Muslim gangs.

And even when it doesn’t lead to assault, your behaviour around women (if you are a man) is infantile and tactless. It would appear customary that upon meeting a woman (Muslim or otherwise, online or in real life) your first words either involve sex or invite a personal relationship that can lead to sex. It might surprise you – it probably has surprised you – but non-Muslim women do not enjoy being asked for their phone number or address by a complete stranger without any preceding conversation. Your lack of charm – indeed, your failure to even understand the idea and purpose of charm – is absolute. To you, women are merely sexual animals, possessing no greater value or agency than cats and dogs. For this reason, perhaps more than any other, I find it difficult to breath the same air as you.

Then there are the acts of extreme violence. Members of your community blew up the train network in Madrid, Spain and the subway in London, England. Members of your community massacred the staff of a cartoon tabloid in Paris. Members of your community have beheaded European citizens, the most recent case occurring only a month ago. You even hunt your own kind! Hundreds of Muslim women have now been killed in Europe in the name of ‘honour’ – and usually by members of their own family. Every year, thousands of Muslim girls are taken abroad to have their vagina mutilated by a shaving razor and then brought back to lead a miserable, painful existence with the perpetrators.

How could we possibly put up with this? What kind of people would we be if we did?

Face the facts, a growing proportion of the native population of Europe actively despises you, and does so without allowing any distinction for your race, Islamic school or individual contribution to European society. After decades of aggressive dysfunction and sickening crime, people simply hate you. They hate you and they fear you. And it is becoming difficult for even the most committed liberal to propose a reason why they shouldn’t.

There is an obvious – some would say cartoonish – contrast between the Islamic conception of society and the hopes and opinions of the Europeans. We value things you view as Satanic. You value things we regard as barbaric. You put faith before reason. We put reason before faith. You regard women as second-class human beings. We regard the sexes as equal. You view freedom of speech as being limited to secular matters. We believe it should permeate every corner of life and thought.

Even if this weren’t the case, your religious tradition is not the one that we are used to and which has inspired and characterised our manners and rituals over centuries. No European books are dedicated to your God. No statues of your Prophet (even if this were allowed) grace the Piazzas of our cities. Few if any Qur’anic phrases have entered our common parlance. We don’t celebrate your holy days, and have no regard for your heroes and saints.

You might reply that Hindu and Sikh mythologies do not inform our ways either, but then Hindus and Sikhs have proven themselves to be comfortable with that. I have never heard of an act of Hindu terrorism, nor any religiously-motivated outrage committed by a Sikh, Buddhist, Scientologist or Jain organisation. Islam has actively distinguished itself in violence, in readiness to fight and to make war where there is peace.

You are wrong if you take us for fools. We know well enough what the phrases Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam mean. We recognise the desire on your part to transfer us from one to the other and by what means. You must have known from the start that a project of this historical magnitude would be resisted with passion and fire. And, please believe me, that passion and fire is already generated in sufficient quantity should we ever be given the excuse to unleash it.

There are people on this (uniquely civilised) continent who would gladly slaughter you like dogs. It is not fantastical anymore to foresee a new Nazi movement emerging in Europe and going on to behave in a Hitlerian fashion. Nobody (save a few lunatics) wishes to go back there. Peace in Europe has been a blessing. Democracy is deserving of all the celebration dedicated to it. But your behaviour is testing the hold of democracy to its white-knuckled limits.

How then can we defuse this bomb? How might we organise a solution that forbids the need for mass violence and the self-destruction of democratic liberalism? This of course is the great question of my generation, and the most important task of the Western World, ahead of the environment, Russia, or any other exaggerated diversion.

That there is – or rather, that you are – an issue in need of resolution can no longer be sensibly denied. We are obliged by everything we hold dear to guarantee that the Islamisation of Europe ceases and that what progress it has already made is reversed. The Western way of life is not just ‘different’ to your own, but a million times superior. We are behaving very rationally by seeking to protect it.

Incidentally, you can deny this last fact as much as you want. It makes no difference to me. Deep down, beneath all the evasions and the layers of self-hypnosis, I’m sure you accept it as much as I do. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t still be here.

And that is the real, embarrassing truth, no? Whatever your friends have scrawled on placards in the past, you don’t ‘hate our way of life’ at all. You are simply jealous of it, and angry that your ancestral lands have failed – and are still failing – to develop in a like fashion.

For an effective and rapid solution to this problem, I propose the following measures – If you are brave, honest and intelligent enough to rid your mind of the numbing circularities of Islamic thinking, a space in the European future can and should be found for you. If not, and if you continue to display the toxic side effects of Islamic belief, then no more kid glove treatment should be forthcoming. If you espouse anti-Semitic, anti-Democratic and anti-Western ideas, you should be arrested and receive criminal records, with all the implications that has for finding employment, pursuing political office and securing tenancy and accommodation. The wearing of the Niqab must be outlawed and repeat offenders deported to a country where it is still the prevailing fashion. All Muslims involved in the mass-rape of British children must hang. Any Mosque preaching violence against Jews, Christians or Homosexuals must be shut down and demolished, and the same with colleges and Islamic faith schools. There must be an end to all immigration from Muslim countries, including from those cultures touted as exceptional (like Tunisia, Turkey or Iran). The culture of the West must be openly celebrated as the supreme culture of the world, and no ‘noble’ savagery must ever be taught as a desirable alternative to our children.

Our foreign policy must also be redesigned to reflect our desire to survive. Turkey should be expelled from NATO and replaced by Armenia. Any sanctions lifted from Iran must be reimposed. Investment in alternatives to Middle Eastern oil, including fracking (in lightly populated areas), fusion technology, nuclear and renewable energy must be radically increased. Western arms should only be exported to regimes which ruthlessly suppress Islamist activity (like Egypt and Jordan) and never to theocratic countries, whether ‘allies’ or not (Saudi, UAE, Kuwait etc…). Needless to say, our support for Israel must be great and unconditional.

In all these efforts, our motivating principle (and final goal) must be that Islam is forever segregated from the Western World.

Finally, reader, I promised at the beginning to tell you why it isn’t a humiliation for you to agree with my arguments… This is for the simple reason that you were a human being long before you were a Muslim, and this will always be the most salient fact about you. You are no more biologically predestined to ignorance and poverty than a Swede or a German. If you wish to become free, you can become free! And if you prefer slavery, well, then there is no defeat in relocating to pursue it, if that is your dream. There can no ‘shame’ in wanting to be where you belong. Nothing is more human.

Whichever condition you choose (and we will make you choose), understand that the West is the homeland of the free, the creative and the happy. A slave will always be foreign here.

D, LDN.

From Defend the Modern World Blog: https://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/page/2/

Immigration is Destroying Western Civilization

Communal Salvation

Wholesale, uncontrolled immigration has become a spiritual good. It’s not a means to an end, as is often argued by critics. There’s no doubt greed drives some of it, but money is the not the goal for most open borders fanatics. Across Europe and now in the US, immigration is scrambling the political calculus, hamstringing the major parties as fringe parties surge. Yet, they refuse to debate the topic. Yet, the topic remains a taboo.

There’s an old line about fanatics that they cannot change their mind and they won’t change the subject. A corollary to that, with regards to immigration, is that immigration fanatics won’t change their mind and will never permit the subject to be raised in their presence.

That’s what comes to mind when reading a story like this one if the Imperial Capital Gazette:

In a gesture of German goodwill, the administration in this medieval city leased a newly renovated apartment building here to humanely — even comfortably — house dozens of desperate ­asylum-seekers. The newcomers from Syria and other war-
ravaged nations would enjoy freshly redone floors, cute balconies and shiny, modern appliances in a cheerful building near a timber-framed pub.

Then Meissen’s goodwill went up in smoke.

On a cool night six weeks ago, suspected right-wing arsonists struck the building, scorching its interior and rendering it uninhabitable days before the ­asylum-seekers were to move in. The attack added Meissen, a gothic castle town of 30,000 on the Elbe River, to a string of German cities caught up in an escalating rash of violence against refugees.

The acts include an ugly spate of arson targeting refugee centers as well as physical attacks on refugees themselves, marking the return of what critics say is an unnerving brand of xenophobia to Western Europe’s most populous nation.

A normal person would look at this and think, “Maybe it is not such a great idea after all to import tens of thousands of aliens and plop them into unsuspecting neighborhoods.” Of course, normal people would wonder why the locals never got a say in this great social engineering program launched by their government. What good is democracy if you don’t get a say in who is and who is not allowed into your country?

Immigration is one of those issues that exposes the big lie of democracy. There’s nothing more important to the life of a nation than deciding who is and who is not permitted to settle in the nation. The whole damn point of having countries is to keep the other people out. If the people are going to have a say on anything, it is the question of whether or not a country is going to remain a country.

Yet, the elites say that is not permitted. The rubes can vote on who gets to move some commas around the tax code. The rubes can vote on who will run the regulatory state. You can pick your own breakfast cereal, but the people in charge run the store, set the hours and decide what’s on the shelves.

The reason for all this is the people in charge believe, with the fanaticism of a convert, that they have a moral obligation to help the poor on your dime. This interview of Bernie Sanders is revelatory:

Ezra Klein: You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing …

Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.

Ezra Klein: Really?

Bernie Sanders: Of course. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. …

Ezra Klein: But it would make …

Bernie Sanders: Excuse me …

Ezra Klein: It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn’t it?

Bernie Sanders: It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

In other words, open borders is about getting grace on the cheap by, on the one hand, bringing in the world’s poor, but avoiding the cost by dumping them into the proletarian neighborhoods. Sanders, for all his faults, should be lauded for leaving his religion in the synagogue and sticking with the economics.

You see this in the Post article:

The attacks are undercutting Germany’s image as the country leading the effort to aid a record flow of refugees into Europe, highlighting the rising social tensions in the region amid the avalanche of asylum-seekers. At the same time, the violence has ignited a heated national debate over what pundits here say is a rise in overt racism and intolerance — in a nation highly sensitive to both because of Nazi-era atrocities.

All this is happening as Germany takes in more asylum-
seekers than any other nation in Europe — a number set to reach an estimated 500,000 this year alone — while quickly running out of places to house them. As a result, the national government in Berlin is turning to insular and almost wholly white enclaves to take in the newcomers, who are mostly from the Middle East and Africa.

The creepiness here is that they don’t give a damn about the immigrants getting the business from the locals. What matters is the goodthinkers in Germany are being embarrassed by the conduct of the bad thinkers. Again, it’s a spiritual exercise, not a political or economic one.

The mistake immigration patriots make is in thinking the motivation behind open borders is simply monetary. There’s no doubt that greed-heads like Mark Zuckerburglar are in it for the cash, but most of these people are in it for salvation. They no longer believe in God, but they still believe in salvation and their brand of salvation is communal. To save themselves, they must save the world, however much it cost you.

From The Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Always Good to get a Second Opinion…

Psychiatrist vs. Bartender

Ever since I was a child, I’ve always had a fear of someone under my bed at night.
So I went to a shrink and told him: “I’ve got problems. Every time I go to bed I think there’s somebody under it. I’m scared. I think I’m going crazy.”
“Just put yourself in my hands for one year, said the shrink. Come talk to me three times a week and we should be able to get rid of those fears.”
“How much do you charge?”
“Eighty dollars per visit,” replied the doctor.
“I’ll sleep on it,” I said.
Six months later the doctor met me on the street. “Why didn’t you come to see me about those fears you were having?” He asked.
“Well, Eighty bucks a visit, three times a week for a year, is $12,480.00.  A bartender cured me for $10.00.  I was so happy to have saved all that money that I went and bought me a new pickup truck.”
“Is that so?” With a bit of an attitude he said, “and how, may I ask, did a bartender cure you?”
“He told me to cut the legs off the bed.  Ain’t nobody under there now.”
It’s always better to get a second opinion.

Thanks WM: http://woodstermangotwood.blogspot.com/

How Conservatives and Liberals Came to Be

The Wheel and Beer . . . .

 The two most important events in all of history were 
the invention  of beer and the invention of the wheel… Beer  required grain and that was the  beginning of agriculture.
Neither  the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet,

so  while our early humans were sitting around waiting
for  them to be invented,

they just stayed close to the  brewery.
That’s how villages were  formed.

The  wheel was invented to get man to the  beer.

These  two were the foundation of modern
civilization and, together,

were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals.

2.  Conservatives.

Some  men spent their days tracking and killing animals
to BBQ  at night while they were drinking beer. This was 
the  beginning of what is known as the 
Conservative movement.

Other  men who were less skilled at hunting learned to
live off  the conservatives by showing up for the nightly 
BBQ’s and  doing the sewing, fetching, and hairdressing. 
This was the  beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some  of these liberal men evolved into women.
Others became  known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy 
Liberal achievements  include the domestication of cats, 
the invention of group  therapy, group hugs, and the 
concept of democratic voting  to decide how to divide 
the meat and beer that  Conservatives provided.

Over  the years Conservatives came to be symbolized
by the  largest, most powerful land animal on earth, 
the elephant.  Liberals are symbolized by the jackass 
for obvious  reasons.

Modern  Liberals like lite beer (with lime added),
but most prefer  white wine or imported bottled water. 
They eat raw fish  but like their beef well done. Sushi, 
tofu, and French  food are standard Liberal fare. 
Another interesting  evolutionary side note: many 
Liberal women have higher  testosterone levels 
than their men.

Most  college professors, social workers, personal
injury  attorneys, journalists, film makers in Hollywood, 
group  therapists and community organizers are Liberals. 
Liberals  meddled in our national pastime and invented the  
designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the 
pitcher also bat.

Conservatives  drink real beer. They eat red meat and
still provide for  their women. Conservatives are big 
game hunters, rodeo  cowboys, lumberjacks, construction 
workers, firemen,  medical doctors, police officers, engineers, 
corporate  executives, athletes, members of the military, 
airline  pilots, and generally anyone who works productively.   
Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives  
who want to work for a living.

Liberals  produce little or nothing. They like to govern the
producers and decide what to do with the production.  
Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than  
Americans. That is why most of the Liberals remained in  
Europe when Conservatives were coming to America . 
They  crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a  
business of trying to get more for  nothing.

Here  ends today’s lesson in world history. It should be noted
that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily  respond 
to this post.

A  Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the
absolute truth of this history that it will be shared  immediately 
to other true believers and to just piss off  more liberals.

And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self.

I’m going to have another  beer.

Thanks Hal

From WM: http://woodstermangotwood.blogspot.com/

Fractured Conservatism

John Derbyshire Essay on The Deformation of the Conservative Movement

 

VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow writes: John Derbyshire is hard at work preparing Radio Derb tonight, so we are taking the opportunity to post his essay from The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement, edited by Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer and recently published by Radix. Ironically, just as we do so, George Will is ritually invoking the sacred name of Bill Buckley to justify yet another purge, this time of Donald Trump. The Great Purge features other VDARE.com writers such as William Regnery, the late Sam Francis and…moi. It’s available though Amazon, but Radix will make more money, and Jeff Bezos less, if you buy it direct.

These first years of the twenty-first century have been a sorry time for Americans who favor national sovereignty, demographic stability, restraint in government, traditional culture, and the rule of law.

For eight years the federal apparatus was in the hands of neoconservatives, and so distinguished itself by instituting massive new welfare programs ,waging futile missionary wars, and waving in millions of unskilled workers and their dependents (to become our dependents) across wide-open borders.

The U.S.A. then elected its first affirmative-action president, a law-school nonentity with no executive experience and nothing in his head but 1980s college-radical sociobabble and the endless rancor of the blacks. His administration plastered further layers of folly, irresponsibility, and idiot idealism onto neocon policies, with new bursts of welfare gigantism, the toppling of tame, useful dictators who did not meet faculty-lounge standards of “human rights,” and the de facto annulment of immigration laws on behalf of the Mexican and Central American underclasses.

Offered the opportunity to replace this neo-neocon administration with one headed by a worthy but timid and unglamorous (which is to say, white male) contender from the original neocon mold—one who actually had been a missionary in his youth!—the nation declined. Instead they re-elected the guy with the exotic name, who by this point had stopped even pretending to be interested in administering the federal government and had given over most of his calendar to golf, vacations, second-guessing law enforcement, and making vapid speeches at party fund-raisers.

Today the bureaucratic leviathan rumbles on, directed by delusional world-savers and ethnic lobbyists, staffed by middle-aged white graduates of student Trotskyism and out-of-their-depth minority quota hires. Congressional constituencies are ever more finely gerrymandered to assure perpetual incumbency. Washington, D.C. has become a glittering Xanadu of wealth and power, its surrounding dormitory counties regularly ranking at the top of lists logging median household income. Protestants have been purged from the U.S. Supreme Court lest they should assert the interests of our founding population; eleven million Americans are taking federal disability benefits; foreign gangsters loot Medicare; cynical bankers game the system in confident knowledge that the government, terrified of political consequences from a “financial crisis,” will bail them out at last.

As the great meat-grinder wars of the middle twentieth century recede into the fading memories of octogenarians, we maintain 40,000 troops in Germany, 11,000 in Italy, 51,000 in Japan and 21,000 in Korea. A full generation after the U.S.S.R. disintegrated, we continue to support NATO—and even seek to expand it—antagonizing Russia, our natural ally against Muslim fanaticism, Third World demographic pressure, Chinese young-superpower irresponsibility, and North Korean insanity. Ill-considered WW2 socioeconomic quick fixes—employer-linked health benefits, big-city rent control—have become permanent, unquestionable features of the sociopolitical landscape.

Our culture has continued to slide giggling into the pit. It is now thirty years since you last heard anyone hum a tune from a current popular song. Concerts of serious music rarely include anything less than half a century old. Very few of us could name a living painter or architect. Entire years pass when no American outside the academy spontaneously quotes a line of verse written by any American poet younger than Elizabeth Bishop (b. 1911), or a British poet younger than Philip Larkin (b. 1922). The middlebrow novel is slipping into extinction. Movies are an extension of the comic-book industry; only TV drama shows occasional flashes of brilliance. The churches are branch offices of Globalist Multiculturalism, Inc.: the Episcopal church in my sleepy, 360-year-old Long Island town advertises Misa en Español.

Forbidden by Supreme Court decree to test job applicants for ability, employers demand college degrees as proxies, obliging parents either to beggar themselves or to see their children loaded with debt after four prime young-adult years learning nothing much. The colleges themselves are hotbeds of Cultural Marxism, padding out their prospectuses with intellectually worthless Grievance Studies courses, awarding degrees to illiterate black athletes, and writhing in frenzies of agonized self-abasement when someone is seen wearing a hood on campus. Police and Fire Departments, to avoid diversity lawsuits, allow black female cadets to walk through their test fitness runs. Other working- and lower-middle-class employments are sold off to low-bidding H-1B visa holders or illegal aliens. Homosexuals can pretend to be “married,” and if you peaceably express disapproval you will be hounded from your job. Submarine crews are co-ed.

Has there been any push-back from the conservative movement against all this? Not so as you’d notice. It is difficult to name anything that the conservative movement has conserved … although to be sure, the English language is still spoken, or at least understood, in most precincts.

*

The second year of Obama’s first term did see a little gusher of populist conservatism. The Tea Party movement, however, was easily and swiftly co-opted by institutional Republicanism, as the Gingrich revolution had been in the second year of Bill Clinton’s first term. (Concerning that earlier gusher, neocon authors James Bennett and Michael Lotus pass the following remark in their recent book America 3.0: Rebooting American Prosperity in the 21st Century: “The Republican Congresses, after a decade, lost any connection to the reforming Congress of 1994 and had slumped into oligarchic favor-trading.”)

The Tea Party survives as an independent entity today only in leftist mythology: as a sinister Klan-without-hoods boogie-man used by Cultural Marxists to frighten their children. Among themselves, the leftists refer to the movement by a disgusting slang expression drawn from the louche subculture of homosexuality. They still, after four years, think it the height of avant-garde wit to do so, and utterance of the expression in those circles is still an occasion for thigh-slapping and side-holding. Don’t look to Red Guards for a sophisticated sense of humor.

Hopes for reform through populist conservatism have bubbled up at intervals of a decade or two ever since the Cultural Revolution began fifty years ago. The Tea Partiers were only the latest manifestation of what sociologist Donald Warren, an early observer of the phenomenon, called “Middle American Radicals.” That was in 1976.

I offered my own pessimistic—and of course correct—take on prospects for the Tea Party in a 2010 column for The American Conservative, when the movement was first attracting attention:

Perhaps it is just as simple as this: a meritocratic elite is, by definition, smarter than the rest of us. It can always “control the discourse,” planting shame and doubt in the minds of those who seek to challenge it, manipulating their sensibilities, feeding them a steady diet of soma through media and educational outlets, bewildering and outfoxing them with bogus appeals to the higher emotions. Perhaps it is all an unequal contest.

If there is nothing to be hoped for from populist conservatism, what of the more intellectual variety?

*

Here a distinction needs to be made between what Peter Brimelow calls “Conservatism, Inc.”—the people who staff the major conservative magazines and think tanks—and the ragged, shoeless, mostly-unsalaried battalions of what I refer to as the Dissident Right.

Conservatism, Inc. has been no more effectual against the civilizational rot than have the populists. Its commanding heights—those magazines and think-tanks—have long since been captured by neocon careerists, dependent for their funding on un-intellectual businessmen and political lobbyists steeped in the Cultural Marxist miasma and terrified of heterodoxy for its impact on sales.

As I told a roomful of National Review cruise passengers three years ago: You can forget about standing athwart History crying “Stop!” The modern style of career conservatism prefers to run along panting behind the juggernaut squeaking: “Would you mind perhaps just slowing down a teeny bit?”

A landmark event in the recent history of Conservatism, Inc. was the cashiering of analyst Jason Richwine by the Heritage Foundation in May of 2013 for facts Richwine had included, with full supporting references, in his Harvard Ph.D. thesis! As I pointed out at the time in an article commenting on the affair, this was a case of the cultural commissars “killing a chicken to scare the monkeys.” Richwine was merely the chicken; Heritage were the monkeys, and they were duly scared.

A lesser purge along the same lines had occurred a year previously in April 2012 when political scientist Bob Weissberg and myself were simultaneously—though for separate offenses—dropped from the contributor lists of National Review at the behest of leftist watchdogs.

Prof. Weissberg’s offense was to have addressed the annual conference of American Renaissance. The editors of National Review confidently described his address in print as “noxious” even though the conference organizers did not issue DVDs of the event until some weeks after Weissberg’s dismissal and no transcript was available until I made one from Bob’s notes five months after that.

In fact the Weissberg address argued against white nationalism, so that one of the following things must be true: either (a) the decision-makers at National Review were both clairvoyant and sympathetic to white nationalism, or else (b) they jumped reflexively at the crack of the leftist whip—chicken and monkeys again—and justified themselves by pretending to know what Weissberg had said.

My own dismissal caused more fuss because it occurred in, and was related to, one of what historian Paul Johnson, in Modern Times, called those “spasms of self-righteous political emotion” to which “America seems peculiarly prone.”

The occasion of hysteria here was the February 2012 encounter between black ne’er-do-well Trayvon Martin and neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida. There was an altercation that ended with Martin kneeling astride Zimmerman and smashing his head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman managed to pull out a licensed handgun and shot Martin with it; Martin died on the spot.

When the facts of the case were tested to courtroom standards of evidence a year later, Zimmerman was swiftly acquitted of second-degree homicide. In April 2012, however, public hysteria over the incident was at fever pitch, whipped up by leftist mainstream journalists—excuse the pleonasm—with the assistance, most disgracefully, of the President himself. An innocent baby-faced black teenager has been stalked and murdered by a white vigilante! (Martin was 17; Zimmerman is actually of mixed German, Peruvian-Indio, and black African ancestry.)

The editor of National Review himself had signed on to the Left narrative in a column expressing his concord on the matter with the views of black supremacist scofflaw Al Sharpton—a column the editor must surely have come to regret but which, to his credit, he allowed to remain on the magazine’s website.

At the time I spotted an interesting sub-category of contributions to the general hysteria. Black journalists were publishing columns lamenting that they had to take their children aside and give them The Talk: earnest instructions and warnings about the danger posed to them by the ever-present malice of whites, who because of their privileged position in a racist society need not fear justice.

This of course is nonsense. On Department of Justice statistics—including the National Crime Victimization Survey, where citizens record crimes whether or not the police and courts were involved—blacks are far more dangerous to whites than whites are to blacks. It is therefore much more appropriate for nonblack citizens to warn their children of the danger from feral blacks, as of course most of us do.

Flagrant contradictions of that kind are grist to the mill of opinion journalism. I published a corrective column at one of my other outlets, with thirty-odd hyperlinks to supporting facts and statistics. The Left got hold of the column, the whip was cracked, the monkeys squealed in fright, and the chicken was slain. My column was described by the editor of National Review as “nasty” and I was dropped.

(Following our simultaneous cashierings, Bob Weissberg and I have acquired the habit, when we meet, of hailing each other with: “Well, well—Mr. Noxious!” … “Ah, Mr. Nasty!” …)

National Review was guilty of cowardice, no doubt, but there are mitigating, or at least qualifying, factors. Most prominently: That year was divisible by four, and in early April it seemed that Mitt Romney had a good chance of winning the presidency. A president needs word people: speechwriters, press secretaries, and such. He also needs lawyers: Attorney General, Solicitor General, White House Counsel. At least one National Review staffer had had a creditable prior career as a government lawyer. Visions of sugar-plums were dancing in heads at 215 Lexington Avenue.

Never having been afflicted with political ambition myself, I am indulgent of it in others. Without ambition there would, after all, be no politics, and then where should we be? A president as unimaginative and as thoroughly infused by the Kultursmog as Romney obviously is might indeed be reluctant to hire in persons from a magazine tainted, however remotely, and from however far out on the Left, by accusations of—gasp!—racism. Thus the cowardice had a reasonably self-interested side to it … as cowardice usually does.

And then, I was an easy discard for the magazine, not being a salaried employee (they paid me on piecework rates). Irreligious and not much interested in party politics, I was not actually a very good fit for the place, though I tried my best to not flaunt my indifference to “life” issues, to stay awake through long discussions about Medical Savings Accounts, to feign interest in the latest shyster congressreptile posing as a standard-bearer of family values in breaks from porking his secretary, and to clap along with the collective pretense that George W. Bush had a conservative bone somewhere in his body.

There were, too, particular personal animosities of the kind that will inevitably arise during fourteen years of close confinement with a dozen or more opinionated intellectuals.

One of the first to unsheath his stiletto in the April 2012 business, for example, was senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru, in whom high intelligence, ready wit, and a wonkish mastery of political detail are combined with a feline talent for intrigue and a patience in revenge that would have elevated him to the highest levels in the court of an Oriental despot.

I had earned Ponnuru’s enmity some years before with a critical though not unkind review of his 2006 right-to-life book Party of Death. It was, I suppose, injudicious of me to give a less-than-favorable review to a colleague’s book; but a column was due, I had no topic at hand, and had read the book. Sometimes you just want to knock out some copy and get to bed.

On that earlier occasion Ponnuru and at least one other member of the more strongly Roman Catholic element at National Review had urged the magazine to drop me, but they had been overruled by Bill Buckley. By 2012, though, Buckley was in his grave. As the Chinese proverb says: When the lips are gone, the teeth are cold.

(You will not read much that is positive about Buckley from presses like this one. I only knew the man in the last decade of his life, so I cannot speak to the criticisms in general. Possibly some of the negativity is apt. The maxim current in Northamptonshire during my upbringing, however, was: “Speak as you find.” I never experienced anything but courtesy, kindness, generosity, appreciation and support from Bill Buckley, and I was very sorry when he died.)

These purgings, though petty and inconsequential in themselves, illustrate key facts about Conservatism, Inc. It is timid and pusillanimous in the face of criticism from the Left. Its younger members have absorbed some of the vapors of Cultural Marxism into their body tissues, however unwillingly and unknowingly. At key points in the electoral cycle, ambition becomes a dominating factor.

Worst of all, Conservatism, Inc. is not very intellectual. It was unusual to hear an interesting or original idea around the National Review editorial table; and when any such thing was heard, it usually came from an older staffer. With the settling-in of Cultural Marxism as our state ideology, there has come a flattening and dulling of thought, affecting any American less than fifty, but especially the thirtysomethings. The Overton Window of acceptable opinions is narrow, the notion of peering around it to heterodox ideas outrageously shameful.

Again there are qualifications to be made. From where we stand, out on the Dissident Right, Conservatism, Inc. looks like a power center, owning the ears (if no other organs) of cable TV personalities and congressional panjandrums.

From within Conservatism, Inc., however, things seem different. Staffers at those magazines and think tanks see themselves in fancy as a beleaguered minority, struggling to make their voices heard against the roar of a statist majority. It’s understandable, even if you have only the merest smidgen of heterodoxy in your soul. Turn on your TV; pick up a newspaper; stroll around a campus. The Narrative is mighty; we live under strong ideological control; as timid and ineffectual as they are, career conservatives stand in partial, feeble, occasional opposition to it.

*

If the populist conservatism of Fox News, Dinesh D’Souza, and the Tea Party is a mere “beggars’ democracy” in the fashion of Frederick the Great’s Prussia (“My people say what they please, and I do what I please”), and Conservatism, Inc. is a mere disgruntled subsidiary of gigantist, world-saving managerial bureaucracy, what hope is there of a return to traditional American notions of individual self-support, governmental restraint, judicial modesty, noninterference in other nations’ squabbles, and realism about human nature?

If there is any hope it lies with the scattered voices of the Dissident Right. How invigorating it is to turn from the latest bellicose editorial at The Weekly Standard calling for war against Yemen, or the latest puff piece from National Review for some bought-and-sold GOP senator, or the latest call to missionary endeavor from Dinesh D’Souza, to the calm sanity, data-rich statistical inquiries, and genuine intellectual curiosity of Dissident Right websites! (And still a tiny number of print outlets. Chronicles magazine deserves an honorable mention here.)

And there is hope. We have on our side the most potent agent of intellectual advance in the modern age: science. As official ideology has drifted so relentlessly leftward this past few decades, an undercurrent of improved understandings from the human sciences has flowed in the opposite direction, and risen ever closer to the surface. We now know enough about population genetics, paleoanthropology, and neuroscience to make happy talk about “the psychic unity of mankind” untenable, fatally undermining the Narrative.

At some points the Narrative is already near collapse, at least among well-informed mainstream observers. Key Cultural Marxist slogans—“Strength in diversity!” “Close the gaps!” “The new civil rights issue!” “Nation of immigrants!” “Glass ceiling!” “Human rights!”—already get a roll of the eyes or a shake of the head from a surprising number of thoughtful middle-class Americans, including human-science academics and—most encouragingly—many young people. The surge of welfare moochers and teenage gangsters across our southern border in 2014 met widespread public hostility. Enrollment in lesser colleges is falling; the spread of online education will advance the healthy rot.

The traditionalist-conservative view of human nature is true; the Cultural Marxist view is false. The truth will take a while to work its way up to the surface of public discourse, but it will get there at last. There will be a new Narrative: not necessarily perfect or infallible, but in closer accord with nature—with reality—than the present one. “We told you so” is not a very satisfactory response in the aftermath of cultural disaster, but it will sound better than guilty silence.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. His most recent book, published by VDARE.com com is FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle).His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

From V-Dare: http://www.vdare.com/articles/a-report-from-the-conservative-movements-dustbin-john-derbyshires-essay-in-the-great-purge

 

Southern Poverty Law Center Wants to Erase Southern History

SPLC Proclaims War of Total Eradication Against Southern Heritage

The totalitarian jihad against all things distinctively Southern, most particularly the flag generally seen as representing the South, has not yet gone far enough to please the cultural Marxist Jacobins of the SPLC: While many flags and other symbols are being taken down across the country, incredibly, many Southern states still honor Confederate “heroes” with paid holidays, and Confederate flags still fly in many public places and are emblazoned on city and state seals. In fact, there are still statues, buildings and even a state park honoring [Confederate General] Nathan Bedford Forrest…

Throughout the South, proud symbols of Southern heritage have been vandalized by lowlifes of the Black Lives Matter stripe and their sympathizers. Since the vandals may lack the smarts to locate symbols of the South to deface, desecrate, and destroy, SPLC steps forward to help: The SPLC is creating an interactive, online map of sites throughout the United States that honor the Confederacy or its leaders – people such as Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest. Attention liberals: Even if you have too much to lose smash a statue, spray-paint a monument, or dig up a grave yourself, you can enable the enablers: To help us, please use our online form below to send the Confederate names and symbols on public property in your town, and send us a photograph if possible. By all means feel free to send them photographs. Only nice ones of course. We’re looking for Confederate statues or monuments; flags; government seals; patches on government uniforms; the names of parks, streets, schools, military bases or counties; school mascots; and other examples.

As part of the “Erasing Hate” campaign, we’re also preparing a community action guide to help local communities reach consensus on removing publicly supported symbols that represent the slave-holding South. That is, all references to the antebellum South must be force-marched down the memory hole. SPLC stands for Southern Poverty Law Center. If they get carried away any further, they will be agitating for people to vandalize their own offices or legislate a ban on their own organization. The progressive plan is to destroy history itself. On a tip from seaoh. Hat tip: Council of Conservative Citizens.

See more at: http://moonbattery.com/#sthash.KjVG4jbD.dpuf

confederate_flag_erased

The Unbelievable “Suicide by Immigration” of Western Civilization

Suicidal Altruism and Another 4 Billion Africans

Looks like we are in for a very crowded world: The world’s population will increase from today’s 7.3 billion people to 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion at century’s end, John R. Wilmoth, the director of the United Nations (UN) Population Division, told a session focused on demographic forecasting at the 2015 Joint Statistical Meetings (JSM 2015) today in Seattle. Mostly the world will be crowded with Africans: The primary driver of global population growth is a projected increase in the population of Africa. The continent’s current population of 1.2 billion people is expected to rise to between 3.4 billion and 5.6 billion people by the end of this century. Will all these billions of Africans wait patiently in Africa for us to come feed them? Of course not; they will head straight for the West, where they will live the good life largely at public expense as they displace the declining native population.

It is already happening. For millennia, their limited ability to feed themselves has kept a check on the African population. But white altruism has removed that check. Within the next few generations, Western Civilization is likely to be eradicated by this altruism. Speaking of altruism, here is the thanks altruistic French moonbats receive for assisting the mob of illegal aliens from Africa who have massed at Calais as they prepare for the invasion of England that no one else has pulled off since William the Conqueror in 1066: A reader sent me this link on the fiasco in Calais. In less than ten minutes it showed us pathological altruism on steroids as French libtards work their asses off preparing and delivering food for the ‘victims’ in the Calais Jungle. What a lesson. First observe the utter disrespect with which the donors are treated. The ‘victims’ barely acknowledge them, push past them to inspect the offerings, and then utter not one word of thanks for what they receive. Then the scams set in. The same people coming around for seconds, followed by their rushing the van and seizing everything they can get their paws on. And get this: They then sell the excess product to other inmates in the camp. Finally comes a vignette which really says it all. Sudanese inmates discover that the ‘Best Before’ date on some of the food has been exceeded. They are outraged! The pathetic donors imbibe some of the food themselves to prove that it’s ok. But no, these African Muslims fling the produce on the ground… They will devour Western Civilization with the mindless, thankless greed of a locust swarm. Then they will sit pot-bellied amid the ruins, starving to death as flies crawl across their faces when there is no more white civilization to provide them with free food. How could inflicting such a future on the human race possibly be moral? Yet the liberals in charge posture self-righteously as they impose it. There is no indication that Europe or the USA will defend themselves from the rapidly escalating Third World invasion.

See more at: http://moonbattery.com/#sthash.KjVG4jbD.dpuf

The Cost of Healthcare Insurance

Why Is Health Insurance So Expensive?

If insurance actuaries could predict with certainty that every year every house in Kansas would be destroyed by a tornado, how much would a Kansan be charged to insure his house against tornado damage? If you think his yearly premiums would be equal to the cost of replacing his house, go back to business school. Since every Kansan who had such insurance would be making a claim, the premiums would be rather more than the replacement cost of a house. After all, insurance is a business, not welfare; businesses exist to make profit. Also, insurance companies must pay for the overhead involved in running a business: salaries, advertising, computers, rent, paperclips, and perhaps even health insurance for the employees.

So in our hypothetical Kansas with the really crumby weather, smart Kansans would elect to forego home insurance altogether. Since they’re going to have to eat the costs of their houses whether they’re insured or not, why pay for an insurance company’s profits and overhead? This assumes that policies covering tornadoes would be available in our hellish Kansas, which they wouldn’t be. (But Kansans would still be able to get hurricane insurance, and at the same low price.)

That farfetched scenario illustrates a basic law of the insurance business: the higher the probability of an event actually happening, the higher the premiums to insure against it. A corollary to that law is this: Insurance is affordable only when the majority of policyholders don’t file claims for catastrophes.

It used to be that Americans thought of insurance as protection against very rare calamities; catastrophes that would ruin you, wipe you out financially, such as tornadoes. The things we could predict, we saved for; the things we expected to happen, we paid for with money out of our own pocket.

But over recent decades, the way we think about insurance has changed; we now think insurance should be for just about everything. We even have a separate category of insurance for what all insurance used to be: “catastrophic insurance.” Inasmuch as the insurance industry has tried to accommodate the new thinking, we see more and more things covered by insurance. So more and more folks are filing claims for an ever-widening array of things, which drives up premium prices. Perhaps nowhere is this trend seen more than in health insurance.

Modern medicine itself, due to its recently acquired capabilities and advances, is one reason for the soaring prices we’ve seen in health insurance, although it is by no means the only reason. Medicine can now treat so many catastrophes that until recently it could not treat. And today’s medicine treats everything from acne to separating conjoined twins. Let’s consider the recent changes in medicine.

America used to have a huge problem with infectious disease. We learned how to deal with that problem with high-tech things like antibiotics and vaccines, but also with low-tech things like quarantines and cooking food at higher temperatures. Diseases like polio, cholera, and smallpox, if not eradicated, have been gotten under control. But infections that we thought we had beaten reappear, as we’re seeing with tuberculosis and other diseases brought in by illegal aliens. Steering clear of infection is often just a matter of washing hands, boiling water, getting shots, and not consorting with the wrong people. In short, you can keep from contracting many infections, even dread ones, with a little common sense, individual effort, and changed behavior. On many fronts, the war against infectious diseases has been won. However, new infections pop up, like AIDS, MRSA, Ebola, flesh-eating bacteria, brain-eating amoebas like Naegleria fowleri, and drug-resistant mutations. These new infections can be enormously expensive to treat, as we saw with the American physician who contracted Ebola in Africa.

Today, however, many medical problems are degenerative diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and arthritis. Although degenerative diseases can strike the young, the increase in them comes from our longer lifespans, which is due, in part, to our victories over infectious disease. Degenerative diseases can be more intractable than infectious diseases. They can to be chronic; things one has to live with, needing constant monitoring and treatment. They can’t be cured with, say, a regimen of tetracycline.

So, one inescapable reason health insurance is so expensive is the very success of modern medicine. We have magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), dialysis, lasers, lithotripters, cutting-edge drugs, and transplant operations, all of which cost a bundle to recoup the cost of research and development. Someone who would have been doomed just a few years ago can now be opened up like a chicken, the old failing part taken out and a new one put in. Rather like replacing the hard drive in your PC. Whereas before you’d just lie in bed waiting for the end, but now they heroically go to work on you.

There are a gazillion ways the human body can break down and fail, and some Americans think every last one of them should be covered by insurance, regardless of the cost. And if that weren’t enough, some folks expect health insurance to cover things that don’t threaten health, such as birth control, fertility treatments, Viagra, and even sex-change operations.

All of which redounds to this: everyone with health insurance is going to be filing a claim. That’s a hyperbole of course, as there are a few genetically blessed individuals who neither get sick nor need sex-change operations. But the statement is close enough for government work. And it is a violation of that basic law of the insurance business.

Health insurance nowadays is a lot like insuring for tornadoes in our imaginary Kansas: almost everyone will be hit with at least one catastrophe. And those who aren’t suffering catastrophes are also filing claims. There’s only one direction for premiums to go, and that’s up.

The deterioration of the body is not akin to “acts of God,” that is, rare events like tornadoes in the real Kansas. The deterioration of the body is a given. So if we can be assured that ill health will befall each and every one of us, why insure for it? Should it even be thought of as insurance if it’s for the inevitable?

Modern medicine is just too successful. Medicine is extending lives for decades, during which time folks experience additional catastrophes and have more time in which to file claims. With more and more ailments that can be treated with modern medicine, the question becomes: Does the insurance industry’s “business model” really work for healthcare?

If America wants to preserve the private health insurance business, then private health insurance policies need to revert back to being “catastrophic insurance,” just as in the days of old. That means we’d all be paying more out-of-pocket.

On July 31, Hillary Clinton said at a National Urban League conference that: “People can’t rise if they can’t afford health care.” But when people buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, it’s not because they suddenly can afford to pay for the premiums; it’s because of government subsidies. People only pay part of the price — so people still “can’t afford health care.”

With ObamaCare, Democrats have promised Americans things they can’t deliver. Republicans running for election in 2016 have promised to repeal ObamaCare. Republicans need to have a replacement system ready to present to the people that bends the “cost curve” down. And Republicans need to explain to Americans why healthcare and health insurance is so very expensive.

Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. 

 Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/why_is_health_insurance_so_expensive.html#ixzz3ihJLwumM

The Capitulation and Downfall of the Boy Scouts to The Radical Gay Agenda

Would you let your 12-year-old daughter sleep in a tent with an 18-year-old boy?

I was driving in to work earlier this week, listening to a local talk show, when I did something I almost never do. I called in.

The subject was the decision by the governing board of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to allow openly gay adults to serve as den leaders, scoutmasters, and camp counselors.  How could I resist?  I am an Eagle Scout, and I have a book coming out next week called Scarlet Letters that deals with this larger subject.

When the producer screened me about my stance, I decided to hold off on more complex issues like freedom of assembly and the historical scout requisite to be “morally straight” and focus instead on the pragmatic.

I told him that as an Eagle Scout, I can attest to the cross-generational intimacy of the scouting experience.  Young boys, older teens, and men share a lot of private time.  They swim together, shower together, sleep in the same tents together.  On the everyday level, I told him, I would worry about the Jerry Sandusky factor.

The producer flipped.  “Are you saying that all gays are pedophiles?” he shot back angrily.  “No,” I said, “but would you let your twelve-year-old daughter sleep in a tent with an eighteen-year-old boy?”

He didn’t get my drift, so I had to explain it.  For a man to find an adolescent sexually attractive is not pedophilia.  It is human nature.  Pedophilia means an attraction to pre-pubescent children, eleven or younger.  To join the BSA, a boy must be at least eleven.  The Scouts have always encouraged older adolescents to assume intermediate leadership positions.  So it would not be unusual for an eighteen-year-old to share a tent with twelve- and thirteen-year-olds.

In her classic 1990 book Sexual Personae, Camille Paglia, herself a lesbian, wrote at length about the “beautiful boy of homosexual tradition.”  That attraction has underscored much of Western art for the last 2,500 or so years.  Writing twenty-five years ago, Paglia felt free to say the obvious.

That much said, gay men may have no more attraction to adolescents than straight men do.  For instance, in his autobiography, Roman, director Roman Polanski expressed shock that “I should be sent to prison, my life and career ruined, for making love.”  By “making love,” he was referring to the drugging and anal penetration of a thirteen-year-old girl.  He saw that as perfectly natural, as, apparently, did much of Hollywood.  Its denizens gave Polanski a standing O when he won an Oscar years after fleeing the United States.

Whether gay men have more or less attraction to young adolescents is beside the point.  What they do have is more access.  Now, in an act of institutional madness, BSA board members are licensing that access.  They are putting the gay male in a position in which no one in his right mind would put a straight male.  The sane answer to the question, “Would you let your twelve-year-old daughter sleep in a tent with an eighteen-year-old boy?” is, and always will be, “Are you nuts?”

What will the leadership tell the parents when the first semi-sanctioned cases of statutory rape come trickling in?  More to the point, perhaps, what will the leadership tell the attorneys representing those parents?

The Catholic Church has already faced this quandary.  Despite the headlines, only in rare instances was pedophilia the issue.  The real problem was the age-old one of allowing homosexual men unfettered access to unsuspecting adolescent boys.  The Church screens much more carefully now.  As a religious institution, it can get away with doing so.

It seems ironic that the left was hammering the Catholic Church for its lack of vigilance at the same time it was hammering the BSA for its excess.  This seeming contradiction makes sense when one understands that the left’s endgame was never to protect children or to advance gay rights.  The endgame is to destroy by whatever means necessary the traditional institutions that undergird Western civilization.

Regardless of how the various church groups respond to the new BSA directive, the left has won this battle.  Its foot soldiers have broken the feeble resistance of the governing board and eliminated the real Boy Scouts of America from the field.  Scout leadership was no better prepared for this war than the French were for theirs in 1940.

From now on, at the top, at least, collaboration will be the name of the game.  Within a generation, the Vichy wing of the BSA will collapse under the weight of its own pointlessness, and the resistance will fight on, even if without uniforms.

Be prepared!

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/would_you_let_your_12yearold_daughter_sleep_in_a_tent_with_an_18yearold_boy.html#ixzz3hTyFsgI8

 

Black Lives Matter. Really? Tell that to the Perpetrators of Black Crime.

Blacks crush blacks

 

SAY WHAT?????
How the distribution of perpetrators of violent crimes perpetrated against blacks would look in a perfectly diverse, multicultural utopia:

How a naif might think the distribution looks based on the perpetual cherry picking and gross omissions served up by the major media:

Piggybacking on the 2012-2013 NCVS numbers crunched by Heather Mac Donald, how the perpetrator distribution against black victims of non-homicidal violent crime actually looks:

A picture is worth a thousand words, and this is a handy one to pull out of a back pocket every time a SWPL or race hustler yammers on about how some individual case of white-on-black violence serves as a microcosm of American society as a whole (while ignoring the 27 instances of black-on-white violence that occur for each single case of white-on-black violence).

Just 1-in-10 black victims suffer at the hands of non-Hispanic white perpetrators of violence. This even though whites comprise a majority of the population.

Proximity, of course, plays a substantial role in shaping the distribution. The Obama administration’s drive to push NAMs out of the inner cities and into white suburbs will, as one of its many aftereffects, lead to an increase in interracial violence. As a consequence, a few more blacks will suffer at the hands of whites and a lot more whites will suffer at the hands of blacks. Diversity + Proximity = War.

Still, if #blacklivesmatter, it seems curiously ineffective and inefficient to focus almost exclusively on a small minority of cases in which blacks suffer if the objective is to reduce said suffering.

Whites are, in fact, less likely to perpetrate acts of violence against any of the groups measured–whites, blacks, Hispanics, or others–than their numbers alone would predict under the (flawed) assumption that propensity for criminal violence is distributed evenly across racial groups.

Blacks, on the other hand, at 13.2% of the population, are more likely to perpetrate acts of violence against members of all other groups than would be predicted under an egalitarian assumption based on their share of the population alone.

The Boy Scouts Rapid Descent into Madness: Unleashing Gay Pedophiles to Abuse Young Boys

Boy Scouts PSA

It does not matter the argument that anybody can come up with, allowing gay scout leaders is a terrible decision.

RTR3WCZI-1024x682

You can’t have homosexuals put in charge of young boys. Gay men obviously find other men sexually attractive, considering the fact that gay men are a very small minority of the population, one could assume that finding partners is a bit more difficult than finding a partner of the opposite sex. So now you have gay men who are in charge of a group of boys in a unsupervised environment. It’s like putting a fox in the chicken coop.

Look, you hear about school teachers having sex with their students regular basis, the majority of which are high school students. What makes anyone think that a homosexual will keep their hands off of young boys? This decision on the part of the Boy Scouts of America will destroy the lives of countless boys, mark my words within 6 months the news of scout leader abuse will hit the headlines. 

Any parent who has a kid in the Boy Scouts or is preparing to get their kids involved, I suggest you remove them from the program immediately. I live in one of the most conservative states in the country and a local news station interviewed a man who is gay and is planning on volunteering to be a scout leader, the man was not only out of the closet, he came out flaming. The thought of having someone like that as a leader for any of my kids turns my stomach. Thank goodness my kids are raised, but my nephews and grandsons are not and I will be damned if I will let them be involved in a program that could potentially ruin their lives.

It is my hope that enough people feel the way that I do and the Boy Scouts lose thousands upon thousands of scouts, maybe then they will understand that Americans are not willing to have their kids subjected to the homosexual lifestyle of a gay scout leader, and their decision to appease the LGTB community was a resounding disaster.

From A Nod to the Gods: http://anodtothegods.com/

End Time Prophet George Orwell was Right

That Clicking Sound

When I came into the world, the idea of the state rounding people up because they had bad thoughts or showed signs of having bad thoughts was the basis of Cold War. The Ruskies did that sort of thing. Free countries did not do those things. That’s why we fought Hitler and Tojo, so people couple be free of that sort of tyranny. It looks like I will exit a world, however, where crime think is as normal a sunshine.

A three-year-old child from London is one of hundreds of young people in the capital who have been tipped as potential future radicals and extremists.

As reported by the Evening Standard, 1,069 people have been put in the government’s anti-extremism ‘Channel’ process, the de-radicalisation programme at the heart of the Government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy.

The three-year-old in the programme is from the borough of Tower Hamlets, and was a member of a family group that had been showing suspect behaviour.Many of the government’s counter-extremism measures typically relate to older children and adults – buy very young children can be referred if authorities are concerned about the effect of their families on them.

In the past, police have gone through the family courts to bring care proceedings in cases involving these children, and measures have included taking away the children’s passports, to make it harder for them to be taken overseas.

With figures obtained from the London Assembly, the Standard found out that London accounted for around a quarter of all ‘Channel’ referrals nationwide since the start of 2012.

Since September 2014, 400 under 18s, including teenagers and children, have been referred to the scheme.

It’s a funny thing about this world. There are no results that don’t lead to the demand for more state control. The government imports millions of Muslims, resulting in domestic terrorism and the default solution is even more state power. Reversing course and rolling back a policy is never an option. In fact, you can be thrown in prison for suggesting that Britain stops importing Muslims.

The startling thing to me is that no one finds any of this strange. The reporting is not quite enthusiastic, but you get the sense that the reporter thinks this is a good thing. How is it possible to reach adulthood and not see the connection between this sort of thought policing and just about every dystopian science fiction movie every made?

It goes back to what I wrote at the start. You come into the world accepting it as it is, because it is all you know. Young people don’t pay much attention until they get into the world. That means most of the reporters these days think the custodial state is just the way the world works. Giving a little more power to the game wardens so they can police the populace probably does not strike them as a big sacrifice.

It’s the one thing I think Orwell got right. People will put up with an enormous amount of abuse from their rulers. It’s not just the threat of violence either. People adapt and they adjust. Before long it is just what passes for normal. The ratchet clicks and people adjust. A new generation comes along full of optimism, the ratchet clicks again and they adjust. It’s only on your way out can you appreciate how many times you’ve heard the ratchet click, but then it is too late.

From The Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Forget Illegal Immigration. That’s Just a Smokescreen for the Real Problem: Legal Visas and Green Cards By the Millions.

New California: Mass Immigration Turning Virginia Blue

ap_ap-photo592-e1437959845108-640x435

The birthplace and final resting place of George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson—and once one of the most reliably-red of red states—is being rapidly turned into a progressive stronghold.

These changes are not the result of an inside agency, or a natural evolution in political thinking, but rather the result of one of the most impactful yet least-discussed policies of the federal government.

Each year the federal government prints millions of visas and distributes these admission tickets to the poorest and least-developed nations in the world.

A middle-aged person living in parts of Virginia today will have witnessed more demographic change in the span of her life than many societies have experienced in millennia.

A census study entitled “Immigrants in Virginia,” released by University of Virginia (UVA) researchers, documented the phenomenon: “Until 1970, only 1 in 100 Virginians was born outside of the United States; by 2012, 1 in every 9 Virginians is foreign-born.”

Read it all here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/26/new-california-mass-immigration-turning-virginia-blue/

 

This islamic Evil is not Hard to Figure Out. It is Spelled out plainly in the koran. There is NO moderate islam. Only islam.

Understanding the Tennessee Jihadist

“He died doing what he loved.”  No, I am not referring to any one of the five slain U.S. servicemen at the navy reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.  I am referring to their killer, Islamic terrorist Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz.  This young jihadist chose the path of conduct declared by Allah in the Koran to be the right one.  This righteous path requires the removal of nonbelievers who hinder the advancement of Islam and the establishment of the supremacy of Allah.  However, the Obama administration, the FBI, and the mainstream media refuse to call this attack Islamic terrorism.

Abdulaziz fulfilled Islamic law by killing those guilty of the highest crime in Islam, the crime of rejecting Allah and Mohammed.  Punishing this treasonous crime is mandated in the Koran, Hadiths (26), and other Islamic-based doctrines such as the Reliance of the Traveller (f1.3), Islam’s most authoritative book on Islamic law and conduct.  In Islam, nonbelievers, including the slain U.S. servicemen, are viewed as obstacles in the path of Allah.  They are not considered innocent, and therefore require removal.  Killing them, or waging jihad, is therefore justified as an act of defense against those who are hindering the rule of Allah.

Abdulaziz knew he would be guaranteed a high place (4645) in Paradise for waging jihad and defending Islam, and a higher place if he were to die while fighting.  However, waging jihad goes well beyond mere justification.  Waging jihad is a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule so that only the rule of Allah prevails.  This is what lies at the heart of not radical Islam, but Islam itself.  Scholars of Islamic law would agree with this.

The attacks at the U.S. military facilities on the last day of Ramadan, the Islamic month rife with jihad right from Islam’s inception, were clearly inspired by the same jihad ideology of the Koran.  It was this ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

It is this jihad ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

However, federal, state and local U.S. law enforcement agencies (headed by the FBI) and news pundits cannot get their heads around this recent attack, and are still trying to figure out what could have possibly driven this young Muslim man to target unarmed innocent men and women.  What these investigators do not understand is that the gunman did not view his victims as innocent.  In Islam, there is no such thing an as innocent non-Muslim.  The meaning of innocence and other terms (such as justice and freedom) used in Islamic law and in Islam’s holy texts do not mean anything like the accepted Western meaning.

The Islamic threat to kill Westerners does not simply “come from the internet, come out of Syria, from ISIS followers, ISIS recruiters, ISIS operators,” as Michael McCaul, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, explained.  This threat stems from the totalitarian ideology of Islam itself.  During the Cold War, Americans perceived the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of communism as a viable threat to their hard-won freedoms, and they reacted accordingly.

Why won’t the U.S. administration see the recent killing spree as one motivated by the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of Islam, an ideology that poses not only a threat to the U.S., but the greatest threat to Western freedom, equality, and the human race?  It is precisely this ignorance that Islam is counting on in order to subjugate Western civilization to sharia law.

The FBI and the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security (HCHS), both U.S. federal law enforcement agencies, refuse to use the terms Islamic terrorism or jihad to define and better understand the shooter, thanks to the Obama administration. In 2011, President Obama issued the removal of any words linking Islam to terrorism from government documents (that include law enforcement and national security training manuals) — words that Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), claimed were offensive.  Any material that does not portray Islam as a religion of peace was discarded.

Working with the Muslim Brotherhood to control how Islam is discussed in society and how government handles policy so that it veers towards sharia law, is the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  This organization is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world, dedicated to the imposition of sharia law worldwide.  The OIC is relentlessly pushing to internationally outlaw and criminalize any criticism of Islam, regardless of whether or not that criticism is true.  The OIC’s influence is so pervasive that in some European countries, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime.

The U.S. under President Obama is heading in the same direction.  In his National Intelligence Strategy of the United States issued in 2009, the terms Islam, Muslim and jihad were never, not even once, used.  The OIC’s widespread influence also explains why Obama refuses to call the Islamic State Islamic, despite the fact that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state.

The OIC’s influence has trickled down to U.S. law enforcement agencies.  They deny that Abdelaziz was driven by Islam despite jihadists saying the contrary, and posit that the shootings may have been a result of none other than depression.  If the enemy and his accompanying motivational ideology cannot be identified and understood in terms that define him — because those terms were purged from the American, and European, lexicon — then how can he be defeated?

Meanwhile, as the FBI and HCHS continue their futile search for the mysterious motives of the Tennessee jihadist, hemming and hawing their way through semantics on whether or not this recent attack was ISIS-inspired, other jihadists are busy plotting more terrorist attacks against the West.

The deceptive use of Western terminology by Muslim organizations, as well as the outlawing of truth about Islam and jihad by the Obama administration, is misleading American citizens and lulling them into ignorant complacency about the threat from Islam.  Until Americans take the time to educate themselves about Islamic law in order to recognize and identify the real threat — instead of enable it, as their government is doing — the U.S. will, once again, remain impotent in the face of an Islamic onslaught in the homeland.

“He died doing what he loved.”  No, I am not referring to any one of the five slain U.S. servicemen at the navy reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.  I am referring to their killer, Islamic terrorist Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz.  This young jihadist chose the path of conduct declared by Allah in the Koran to be the right one.  This righteous path requires the removal of nonbelievers who hinder the advancement of Islam and the establishment of the supremacy of Allah.  However, the Obama administration, the FBI, and the mainstream media refuse to call this attack Islamic terrorism.

Abdulaziz fulfilled Islamic law by killing those guilty of the highest crime in Islam, the crime of rejecting Allah and Mohammed.  Punishing this treasonous crime is mandated in the Koran, Hadiths (26), and other Islamic-based doctrines such as the Reliance of the Traveller (f1.3), Islam’s most authoritative book on Islamic law and conduct.  In Islam, nonbelievers, including the slain U.S. servicemen, are viewed as obstacles in the path of Allah.  They are not considered innocent, and therefore require removal.  Killing them, or waging jihad, is therefore justified as an act of defense against those who are hindering the rule of Allah.

Abdulaziz knew he would be guaranteed a high place (4645) in Paradise for waging jihad and defending Islam, and a higher place if he were to die while fighting.  However, waging jihad goes well beyond mere justification.  Waging jihad is a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule so that only the rule of Allah prevails.  This is what lies at the heart of not radical Islam, but Islam itself.  Scholars of Islamic law would agree with this.

The attacks at the U.S. military facilities on the last day of Ramadan, the Islamic month rife with jihad right from Islam’s inception, were clearly inspired by the same jihad ideology of the Koran.  It was this ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

It is this jihad ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

However, federal, state and local U.S. law enforcement agencies (headed by the FBI) and news pundits cannot get their heads around this recent attack, and are still trying to figure out what could have possibly driven this young Muslim man to target unarmed innocent men and women.  What these investigators do not understand is that the gunman did not view his victims as innocent.  In Islam, there is no such thing an as innocent non-Muslim.  The meaning of innocence and other terms (such as justice and freedom) used in Islamic law and in Islam’s holy texts do not mean anything like the accepted Western meaning.

The Islamic threat to kill Westerners does not simply “come from the internet, come out of Syria, from ISIS followers, ISIS recruiters, ISIS operators,” as Michael McCaul, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, explained.  This threat stems from the totalitarian ideology of Islam itself.  During the Cold War, Americans perceived the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of communism as a viable threat to their hard-won freedoms, and they reacted accordingly.

Why won’t the U.S. administration see the recent killing spree as one motivated by the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of Islam, an ideology that poses not only a threat to the U.S., but the greatest threat to Western freedom, equality, and the human race?  It is precisely this ignorance that Islam is counting on in order to subjugate Western civilization to sharia law.

The FBI and the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security (HCHS), both U.S. federal law enforcement agencies, refuse to use the terms Islamic terrorism or jihad to define and better understand the shooter, thanks to the Obama administration. In 2011, President Obama issued the removal of any words linking Islam to terrorism from government documents (that include law enforcement and national security training manuals) — words that Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), claimed were offensive.  Any material that does not portray Islam as a religion of peace was discarded.

Working with the Muslim Brotherhood to control how Islam is discussed in society and how government handles policy so that it veers towards sharia law, is the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  This organization is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world, dedicated to the imposition of sharia law worldwide.  The OIC is relentlessly pushing to internationally outlaw and criminalize any criticism of Islam, regardless of whether or not that criticism is true.  The OIC’s influence is so pervasive that in some European countries, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime.

The U.S. under President Obama is heading in the same direction.  In his National Intelligence Strategy of the United States issued in 2009, the terms Islam, Muslim and jihad were never, not even once, used.  The OIC’s widespread influence also explains why Obama refuses to call the Islamic State Islamic, despite the fact that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state.

The OIC’s influence has trickled down to U.S. law enforcement agencies.  They deny that Abdelaziz was driven by Islam despite jihadists saying the contrary, and posit that the shootings may have been a result of none other than depression.  If the enemy and his accompanying motivational ideology cannot be identified and understood in terms that define him — because those terms were purged from the American, and European, lexicon — then how can he be defeated?

Meanwhile, as the FBI and HCHS continue their futile search for the mysterious motives of the Tennessee jihadist, hemming and hawing their way through semantics on whether or not this recent attack was ISIS-inspired, other jihadists are busy plotting more terrorist attacks against the West.

The deceptive use of Western terminology by Muslim organizations, as well as the outlawing of truth about Islam and jihad by the Obama administration, is misleading American citizens and lulling them into ignorant complacency about the threat from Islam.  Until Americans take the time to educate themselves about Islamic law in order to recognize and identify the real threat — instead of enable it, as their government is doing — the U.S. will, once again, remain impotent in the face of an Islamic onslaught in the homeland.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/understanding_the_tennessee_jihadist_.html#ixzz3gYmbrBhg

Obama and Leftists Have an Evil Plan to Force Upon America

The ‘Fundamental Transformation’ of America’s Neighborhoods

America is now learning that on the painful road to ‘fundamental transformation,’ Barack Obama has plans to diversify suburbia. The president’s suburban justice plan is one where HUD tracks the racial and religious composition of American neighborhoods and then, doing away with the choice of established populations, makes changes to reflect Barack Obama’s vision for a fairer, more equitable nation.

The policy that accomplishes this progressive goal is aptly dubbed “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH). A 2013 FOX News article titled “Obama administration using housing department in effort to diversify neighborhoods” claims that in conjunction with the federal government HUD will remake neighborhoods using data gathered from a “discrimination database.”

In turn, “zoning laws, housing finance policy, infrastructure planning and transportation to alleviate alleged discrimination and segregation” will be determined by government decree.

The progressive utopian assumption must be that people become smarter or richer based on where they live. Simply put, rather than respect the theory of social evolution, liberals continue to blame zip codes for the economic demise of those they imagine would otherwise be the fittest. Thus, to solve shared problems that have nothing to do with geography, the Obama transformation team is moving forward with the plan to usher low-income people into the midst of middle- and higher-income classes.

That’s why, as part of the liberal quest to establish heaven on earth, every American will be forced to live in a neighborhood designed by government totalitarians. Meanwhile, those who “spread the despair” around will continue to peacefully dwell in exclusive enclaves paid for with wealth they’ve pilfered from the pockets of those whose lives they’ve made miserable.

And here’s how it will happen: the federal government will track neighborhoods according to race, class, and ethnicity. Then, the feds will descend, rezone the area, and proceed to transform American suburbs into the equivalent of Venezuela. The hope is that flooding established communities with lower-income people that represent the racial, religious, and economic makeup of the government’s choosing will result in the ultimate exorcism of injustice.

Sound impossible? According to an article in the Seattle Times titled “Get rid of single-family zoning? These conversations shouldn’t be secret“, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray’s advisory committee on housing’s co-chair drafted a letter that said this “We can still be a city for everyone, but only if we give up our outdated ideal of every family living in their own home on a 5,000 square foot lot.”

Can anyone say eminent domain?

For those who still don’t get it, this is not about hardworking black and Latino Americans buying and moving into white neighborhoods where they are welcome to live as free citizens, this is about the government socially engineering what they perceive to be WASP neighborhoods with a deluge of third-world types and refugees from Muslim countries who, once here, open bodegas and build mosques.

And if that’s not disturbing enough, after the complexion, religion and language of a neighborhood has been altered to the government’s liking, according to the 64-page White House Task Force (emphasis on force) on New Americans April 2015 “Strengthening Communities by Welcoming All Residents: A Federal Strategic Action Plan on Immigrant and Refugee Integration” prospectus, Barack Obama has plans to safeguard against the residents balking. To make sure “newcomers” are greeted in a friendly manner, Obama’s blueprint proposes the imposition of “Welcoming Communities.”

Question: How does government strong-arm a community to be welcoming?

At any rate, Obama maintains that if an unauthorized, unsanctioned hardworking but undocumented person has a family and wants to stay in America, instead of an ‘illegal,’ he or she should be characterized as a “new American.” For those of us presently having our neighborhoods overrun with undocumented intruders, that excuse is sort of like saying if a home invader has a family and empties the dishwasher and runs the vacuum after raiding the jewelry drawer, homeowners should view home invasion in a positive light.

Meanwhile Barack Obama has a double-spiked fence encircling his residence.

Either way, the president’s goal is to “further strengthen the federal government’s integration efforts by making them more strategic and deliberate.” That step requires “[e]nergetic AmeriCorps VISTA members” be dispatched into American communities to “implement local integration plans.”

For those who are unfamiliar with AmeriCorps, they are the domestic equivalent of the Peace Corps. AmeriCorps members are recruited and supported by the federal government and AmeriCorps is defined as a “civil society program.” The government determines what a ‘civil society’ is and then ObamaCorps, er… I mean AmeriCorps troops are enlisted to enforce liberal diktats under the guise of community service.

Then there’s AmeriCorps VISTA. Rest assured that if poverty-fighting AmeriCorps VISTA is being asked to report in, poverty is coming to middle class neighborhoods and according to Obama’s transformative federal plan, economic destitution is about to be equitably allocated.

And if brown-shirt and patent leather-booted community organizers marching lockstep through American suburbs weren’t enough to chill your block party beer keg to the core, in addition to guaranteeing that newcomers have preferential access to housing, healthcare and education, arbiters of the civil society will also serve as Refugee Job Developers whose business will be to advance “immigrant-focused career-pathways programs.

In an environment where 92 million Americans are currently out of the labor force, AmeriCorps responsibilities will include “identifying and partnering with local employers willing to hire newly arrived refugees with limited English skills.”

Translation: the federal government’s goons have been given the mission to ensure that low-skilled newcomers be given employment opportunity preference over citizens whose blood, sweat, and tears built this soon-to-be-remade nation.

Then, as an added bonus, after the communities are fully organized, AmeriCorps will spend time installing government-funded “community solar” panels, which, among other things, will use taxpayer monies to save the planet while providing clean solar power to renters or others with limited financial means.

And so Obama’s remodeling of America is progressing along nicely. Illegal aliens, who swarm over the border like ants at a picnic have been granted the kinder, gentler moniker “new Americans” and based on the makeup of long-established communities HUD is currently indicting neighborhoods for bias.  In addition, plans are also being made to bus into the suburbs cultures and peoples who have already declared that they have no plans to assimilate.

After that, the only hurdle left is seeing the day when illegal “new Americans,” like a modern-day Ruby Bridges, are escorted around town by community organizers/solar panel installers who, on behalf of President Obama, will be also charged with the job to coerce the conquered receiving community to be more welcoming.

Jeannie also hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/the_fundamental_transformation_of_americas_neighborhoods.html#ixzz3fxbzXOWB