What absolutely needs to be said

This excerpt is not enough.  Take a moment to read the entire thing.

After the terror, the platitudes. And the hashtags. And the candlelit vigils. And they always have the same message: ‘Be unified. Feel love. Don’t give in to hate.’ The banalities roll off the national tongue. Vapidity abounds…

In response to the deaths of more than 20 people at an Ariana Grande gig, in response to the massacre of children enjoying pop music, people effectively say: ‘All you need is love.’ The disparity between these horrors and our response to them, between what happened and what we say, is vast. This has to change…

We need unity, they say. Unity’s their buzzword. But this is substanceless, too. Unity around what? Unity against what? What are our values? Who is the enemy of those values? Don’t ask. Don’t think.

Where’s the rage? If the massacre of children and their parents on a fun night out doesn’t make you feel rage, nothing will. The terrorist has defeated you. You are dead already.  (emphasis added)

Since our leaders are determined to keep us hypnotized by humming “kumbaya” and singing “give peace a chance,” let me jog the reader’s memory:

Nice, France, July 14, 2016.  At least 84 killed and 202 others injured after a truck driven by a Tunisian-born Frenchman named Mohamed Bouhlel plowed through a Bastille Day celebration.

Orlando, Florida, June 12, 2016.  49 shot and killed and 53 injured by gunman Omar Mateen at a gay nightclub before he was killed by police after a three-hour standoff.

Brussels, Belgium, March 22, 2016. ISIS set off bombs and gunfire at a Brussels’s city airport and a subway station, killing 30 people and injuring at least 230 people.

San Bernardino, California, December 14, 2015. Two radical Islamists, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, shot and murdered 14 people and injured 22 others at an office holiday party.

Paris, France, November 13, 2015. ISIS launched a massive, coordinated terror attack in the city of Paris that resulted in at least 129 dead and 352 people injured.

Chattanooga, Tennessee, July 16, 2015. Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot and killed four Marines and a sailor at a military base in Chattanooga.

Copenhagen, Denmark, February 23, 2015. A gunman who swore loyalty to the leader of ISIS opened fire at a free speech forum and at people outside a synagogue, killing two.

Paris, France, January 9, 2015. A gunman who pledged allegiance to ISIS held people in a kosher supermarket hostage and killed four of them.

Paris, France, January 7, 2015. Two Islamic terrorists murdered 12 people at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French magazine that had published cartoons mocking Mohammed.

Nine events, 327 deaths.  And that’s just 2015 and 2016!  Analysis of this year’s activity indicates a terror attack has been attempted or successful in Europe about every nine days.  Even all this leaves out significant past events like 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing or U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan’s murder of 14 fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas, in 2009 (just to name a few).

As the author of the linked piece above stated, if you aren’t enraged by now, you are already dead.  Scripture tells us that for everything there is a season: “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.”

Western Civilization had better figure out what time it is and act accordingly.

We were warned

Next April will mark the 50th anniversary of a controversial speech in England.  But while there was much pearl-clutching and vapors at the time it was delivered, yesterday’s events in Manchester prove that it was indeed prophetic and, if anything, understated.  Enoch Powell may have known his words would not be received well, but they are worth reviewing today:

…the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after…

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population…

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

And all of this was said well before the term “jihad” once again became a household word in the West.  Those who encouraged the idea of utopian multiculturalism will have much blood on their hands before this is over.  It’s said that those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it (see: Roman Empire, barbarian immigrations).  For those of us who do study history, we are condemned to see the folly of those who fail to learn their lessons.  Those lessons, more often than not, are paid for in blood and ought to be valued far more than they are.  But in our human arrogance, each generation says “this time it’ll be different.”

No, it won’t.

This is multiculturalism

It amazes me that many of the loudest voices for ‘women’s rights’ are also thrilled to be welcoming in tens of thousands of refugees invaders for whom cutting up a little girl’s privates is a common practice:

Opposition from some members of Minnesota’s immigrant and refugee communities is slowing the momentum of a bill that would impose stiff penalties for parents involved in cases of female genital mutilation.

Since the bill’s near-unanimous passage in the Minnesota House this week, some longtime critics of the ritual have met with senators, lobbied the governor’s office and handed out fliers — all to raise alarm about the legislation…

Now, the author of the Senate version is voicing second thoughts about approving the legislation yet this session, though Senate GOP leadership have not committed to a course of action. “We all agree this practice is absolutely horrible, and something needs to be done,” said the author, Sen. Karin Housley. “How can we empower communities to address this practice from within rather than having Big Brother come down and say, ‘This is wrong?’ ”

Short answer: you can’t.  Which is why different communities with different values need to live in different areas.  Female genital mutilation is a common practice in the Muslim world (especially in Somalia, where many of the new ‘migrants’ to Minnesota are coming from), and no amount of “empowering” of the community is likely to change that.  Since values are so difficult to change, you’re left with changing external behavior — and thus the need for Big Brother.  Don’t think for a moment our nation’s elites aren’t aware of that.  How better to grow government than as the arbiter of incompatible cultures?

The fact there is newsworthy opposition to this bill (which normally would be a shoe-in under the “it’s for the children” and “grrrrl power” rules of politics) shows how much alien influence already exists in our land.  Does anyone think it gets better from here?

We open our doors to anyone who wants in, but refuse to insist that “when in America, one follows traditional American values.”  (Of course, the retort to that is “who defines traditional American values,” to which I simply say “those who know their history better than their Alinsky.”)

Close.  The.  Borders.  Now.

Deport.  The.  Invaders.  NOW.

And imprison or deport their domestic enablers.

Failure to assimilate

Turkey’s recent election, which further enhanced the Islamist totalitarian powers of Recep Erdogan, shows how far that nation has come from the secular society Kemal Ataturk intended.

The votes by Turks living abroad are even more telling, and should be noted:

About 1.4 million expatriate Turks voted in Turkey’s referendum to grant President Erdogan near-dictatorial powers, with three quarters of them residing in Austria, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. These Turkish voters, living in some of Europe’s most liberal countries, overwhelming cast their ballots for Erdogan’s illiberal reforms of Turkish society…

Life in liberal Europe is not having the impact people hoped—Turks in Europe are not any less nationalistic, less authoritarian or less Islamist than their compatriots at home—rather they are more of all these things..

If assimilation is failing with long established Turks in affluent, full employment Germany, what can we expect with other communities in less prosperous European countries?

The measure squeaked by at home, with just over 51% saying “yes.”  For the Turks living abroad, “Yes” had anywhere from 15 to 25% more support!  That would tend to confirm the thesis that the massive wave of ‘refugees’ in the past couple of years represents an ideological vanguard of Islamism that intends to make Europe submit to it, not the other way around.

The author of the quoted piece seems puzzled that good economic conditions in Germany haven’t produced assimilation.  That’s because assimilation is a primarily a cultural issue, not an economic one.  In the past, Western European nations and the Anglosphere (U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc) fully expected newcomers to adopt their language, follow their laws, and to give their undivided loyalty to their new nation.

Immigrants today don’t have to cut the cord with the “old country” the way past generations did.  With global communication, the ability to travel and the tendency to settle into specific ethnic enclaves in their new land, immigrants today have far less motivation to assimilate.  Let’s face it: for Mexicans in the U.S., “home” is next door, you live in barrios with people like yourself, you can watch Spanish-language TV such as Univision, and even wave the Mexican flag while watching the U.S. play that country in soccer.  These are not Mexican-Americans.  They are Mexicans living in America.  The same is true of the Turks in Europe.  Even at the height of the Cold War, with Turkey a key partner in NATO, Europeans were strongly divided over whether or not to consider Turkey “European.”  Its current regression to pining for the days of the Ottoman Empire should answer that question.

The West has basically allowed a substantial fifth column to develop in their midst — a development our traitorous leadership class has encouraged.  While the resulting attacks rarely amount to more than a single actor at a time right now, I suspect that won’t remain the case much longer.  Even the “lone wolves” usually have ideological and communication ties with the Islamist movement.  At this stage of the game, Turks should be carefully watched, not welcomed in with no restrictions.  It’s time to shut the doors for a while and deal with what we’ve already admitted, rather than keep the welcome mat out for anyone with a pulse.

Death of a thousand paper cuts

That’s what the alleged “war on terror” has become.  The latest cut comes just outside the British Parliament, a key symbol of the long struggle in the West to establish representative government and personal liberties.

Yet even though once again the perpetrator was “Asian” (which in Britain means Pakistani), all the talking heads are more worried about a potential backlash against that ever-growing demographic than they are the continued drip, drip of jihad:

We’ve seen this rise of a kind of a right-wing movement here and throughout Europe. And this is only going to put wind in the sails of those who would say that this is an issue that needs to be looked at, that needs to be examined in terms of refugees.

(MSNBC reporter Matt Bradley, just after the attack)

Thus does the western media play Wormtongue once again: the threat isn’t from Islam, you see.  No, the real threat is from those who point out that massive Muslim immigration seems to correlate with the rise of Sudden Jihad Syndrome in various western nations.

Enough with the “diversity is our strength” pablum.  Pouring hundreds of thousands of Muslims into Europe (and, to a lesser but still significant degree, the U.S.) doesn’t enrich society.  It dilutes it.  It fragments it.  This isn’t about importing a few exotic neighbors with whom you can trade cooking tips.  It’s about enabling an invasion and importing a culture that is completely alien and overtly hostile to Western-style representative government and culture – and always has been.  Just over a year ago I traveled to London.  My son and I visited the Whitechapel district.  The moment we got to street level from the Underground my first impression was that I was deployed back to the Middle East.  Needless to say, we didn’t stay long.  When you travel to England and find the Emirates instead, something is terribly amiss.

I dare these treacherous reporters to name one Muslim-majority nation that is freer than the United States.  Name one that produces more advances in science and technology.  Name one that permits the upward social and financial mobility available to those who would work hard in the West.

It can’t be done.

Our chattering classes are permitting and encouraging civilizational suicide by the West.  On their hands will be the blood of thousands of Westerners and Muslims.  The longer their spell keeps people passive, the greater the eventual response when the public realizes their betrayal and rises to act.

The question of the era is whether that awakening will take place before or after it’s too late to fight back.

Where is our modern Charles Martel?  Where is the spirit that defended the gates of Vienna?  Will their descendants meekly submit to the same oppressive worldview that has already tried twice to conquer Europe?

Where are the Men of the West?

Quote of the Day

While listening to Trump’s address last night my overall impression was favorable, with a couple of concerning objections (more on that in a later post).  But since there’s a lot of talk in the air about increasing defense spending, and expanding the war on ISIS and related groups, this quote in Foreign Policy magazine is well worth pondering:

As a soldier, I welcome additional funds for training, personnel, and equipment.

But as a citizen I have concerns. Money will not fix what ails our military. ((emphasis added))  We don’t have a supply problem, we have a demand problem created by poor strategy. We have a military doing missions often beyond its purview, acting as the lead government agency in areas it is not qualified to do so, bearing impossible expectations in the process. As military professionals, we fail if we don’t achieve national goals (end states); the corollary to this is simple, we must demand clear and achievable goals. Our lack of both skews defense decisions.

The entire piece is deserving of your time and attention.

Well… who’da thunk?

Note: this is a lengthy post in part because I’m refuting secularists who misuse scripture to justify the ongoing invasion of the West.  If you arrived on this site’s main page be sure to click on “Continue reading” below.

Both a judge in Washington and an appeals panel of the 9th Circus Circuit Court of Appeals have stayed President Trump’s executive order banning entry to the country by people from seven nations considered to be high risk (incidentally, it was Obama who first flagged these nations as problematic).  Both courts claimed there was no evidence to support such a ban.

Truth is, they just didn’t look for any.  After all, pesky facts would get in the way of their legislating AND presiding from the bench:

A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump’s vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president’s order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.

Let me repeat that: 72 people from the countries on Trump’s list arrived in the United States since 9/11, and were later convicted of terror-related actions.

This is why I can’t stand the Transportation Security Agency — it’s security theater, not real security.  Real security comes from keeping terrorists out of the country, not from harassing citizens at airports.

This is why I can’t stand the open borders crowd.  Either we are a sovereign nation or we’re not.  Sovereign nations have every right to control who is allowed to enter and under what circumstances.

Continue reading