Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Ann Coulter on Terrorism

How’d you like to be running a presidential campaign dependent on Muslims not acting up again between now and Nov. 8? It’s getting awfully hard for the media to keep being indignant about Trump’s proposed Muslim ban, as long as Muslims keep blowing things up and shooting people.

I’m assuming here that The Washington Post has not already ruled the Muslims who blew up the Istanbul Airport to be self-hating gays infected by America’s culture of homophobia.

It turns out, Omar Mateen, the Orlando nightclub shooter, also wasn’t a self-hating gay, despite media excitement over that rumor. The FBI has now run down every alleged gay partner of Omar’s, searched his phone and computers, and the alleged gay lovers either had the wrong guy or were lying, and there’s no evidence he was on any gay websites or apps.

As a Muslim immigrant explained in a curbside interview videotaped by Tony Vera at the Los Angeles International Airport recently — before she was arrested — “that’s what we do, we bomb people.”

With impeccable timing, three days before the Istanbul bombing, the liberal Guardian (UK) ran an article sneering at Brexit supporters for wanting out of the European Union before Turkey became a member and the door was thrown open to unlimited migration from this Muslim country that shares a border with Syria, Iraq and Iran.

The article by Liz Cookman was titled, “Turkey, the Brexit bogeyman, is not so different from the UK.”

Liz had a lot of fun with the Brexit-supporting ninnies, so relieved that “the Turks are no longer coming.” She referred to Turkey as “the country whose people Britons are apparently petrified of,” despite the fact that “it turns out Britain and Turkey are not so different after all.”

One way they’re a little different is that Britain has fewer Muslims on hand to blow things up. The attack this Tuesday, which left dozens dead and more than 100 wounded, is the seventh major terrorist bombing in Turkey so far this year, with a total death count in the hundreds.

As with the British media, the American media keep telling us that all these Muslim terrorist attacks have nothing to do with Muslims, and Donald Trump’s suggestion that we impose a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration is madness, bigoted, racist.

Thank God Hitler didn’t claim “Mein Kampf” was a holy book and the Fuhrerbunker a mosque.

Western governments have devoted incalculable resources to developing some diagnostic test other than “Muslim” to predict terrorism. As the New York Times reported earlier this year:

“What turns people toward violence — and whether they can be steered away from it — are questions that have bedeviled governments around the world for generations. Those questions have taken on fresh urgency with the rise of the Islamic State and the string of attacks in Europe and the United States. Despite millions of dollars of government-sponsored research, and a much-publicized White House pledge to find answers, there is still nothing close to a consensus on why someone becomes a terrorist.”

I have a possible indicator! M-U-S-L- …

Desert Storm Momument Project

Scott Stump had the idea for a Persian Gulf War memorial years ago. But it wasn’t until the 25th anniversary of the 1991 cease-fire arrived – and the Pentagon chose not to hold a single official event marking the day – that he truly realized how important it was.

Their war, it seemed, was at risk of being forgotten.

“This was one of the pivotal events in the nation’s history. While the war ended very quickly, we cannot forget the nearly 400 servicemen who did not come home,” Stump, president and founder of the National Desert Storm War Memorial Association, told “We owe it to their families and to all of those who fought to remember.”

Stump’s group recently obtained congressional approval for the project, and is now working to make that idea – a memorial nestled in the heart of Washington near the iconic memorials for Vietnam, World War II and other wars – a reality.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

House Benghazi report slams administration

A damning report authored by the Republican-led House committee probing the Benghazi terror attacks faulted the Obama administration for a range of missteps before, during and after the fatal 2012 attacks – saying top administration officials huddled to craft their public response while military assets waited hours to deploy to Libya.

The report released Tuesday pointedly blamed a “rusty bureaucratic process” for the slow-moving response the night of the attack. The report said despite orders from President Obama and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to deploy, the first military force did not do so until more than 13 hours after the attack started.

The report said one anti-terrorism security team known as the FAST unit sat waiting for three hours in Rota, Spain, as Marines changed “in and out of their uniforms four times,” and even debated whether they should carry personal weapons, according to one witness. All together, the report said, “it would take nearly 18 hours” for that team to move.

The report described a web of internal debates and hold-ups, including apparent State Department guidance that “Libya must agree to any deployment,” though Panetta would later say Libya approval was not necessary.

While various officials debated how to proceed, U.S. personnel were under attack at two sites in Benghazi.

In the end, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans -- foreign service officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty -- were killed in the attacks.


In a stunning detail, the report said the security force that helped evacuate U.S. personnel from the so-called “annex” in the end – “likely saving over two dozen lives,” according to the report – was a unit known as Libyan Military Intelligence composed of former military officers under the Qaddafi regime, which the U.S. helped topple.

The CIA did not know that unit existed. “In other words, some of the very individuals the United States had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution were the only Libyans that came to the assistance of the United States on the night of the Benghazi attacks,” the report said.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Pentagon may end transgender ban for military in July


The Pentagon is set to end the ban on transgender people serving openly in the military in July, according to Defense official. One official says the lifting of the ban could be announced by Defense Secretary Ash Carter as soon as July 1, though final details remain to be worked out, which could delay the announcement.

Defense officials confirm that there will be a meeting Monday involving top personnel officers from all of the military services to discuss the transgender ban.

According to one of the officials, lifting the ban will be followed by a one-year implementation plan to address housing and personnel issues that would be required.

Elitist Rage With the Pro-Brexit Masses

Rob Browne/Mirrorpix/Newscom
Hell hath no fury like an establishment spurned. If you didn't know this already, you certainly know it now, following the British people's vote for a "Brexit." A whopping 17.5 million of us voted last week to cut our nation's ties with the European Union (E.U.), against 16 million who voted to stay. And we did so against the advice of most of the political class, media "experts," the Brussels bureaucracy, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), President Barack Obama, and virtually every other Western leader. Most shockingly of all—against the advice of celebs—not even Benedict Cumberbatch's earnest, crumpled face could make us want to stay. We defied them all. We rejected every E.U.-loving overture from the great and good and well-educated. And boy, are they mad.

In the three days since this modern-day peasants' revolt—the poor and working-class voted for a Brexit in far large numbers than the well-to-do and well-connected—the political and media elites have rained damnation upon the little people. Their language has crossed the line from irritated to full-on misanthropic. They're calling into question the ability of ordinary people to rationally weigh up hefty political matters, and are even suggesting the referendum result be overturned in the name of the "national interest."

David Lammy, a member of Parliament (MP) representing the Labour Party, has been most explicit. He says we must "stop this madness" and "bring this nightmare to an end." The nightmare he's talking about is people voting for things he doesn't agree with. He says the people's will must now be overridden by a "vote in Parliament." It's terrifying that an elected MP doesn't seem to know how democracy works.

Peter Sutherland, a United Nations (U.N.) Special Representative, likewise thinks the Brexit vote "must be overturned," because voters were led astray by a "distortion of facts." U.N. officials normally slam the thwarting of a people's will; now they promote it.

And Tony Blair's former spin-doctor says he has "lawyers on the case" to see if a legal challenge can be mounted against the masses and their dumb decision. Lawyers v. the People: Bring it on.
Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland, has threatened to veto the Brexit as it works its way through Parliament. This is a woman whose party received 1.5 million votes in the General Election last year, now saying she will usurp the will of 17.5million Brits who said screw-you to the E.U.

Media commentary, meanwhile, has become positively unhinged and Victorian in its attitude to the throng. Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, finding that she didn't like some of the pro-Brexit arguments, said Brexiteers have "lifted several stones" and let out a "rude, crude… extremism." We all know what lives under stones. An Observer columnist, perusing the Brexit chatter, said "it is as if the sewers have burst." Over at the New Statesman—house magazine of the British left—a columnist claims it was "the frightened, parochial lizard-brain of Britain [that] voted out, out, out."
Reptiles, insects, shit flowing from the busted sewer of bad ideas—this is how the media elite views the minds and actions of Brexit people.

A recurring theme in the elitist rage with the pro-Brexit crowd has been the idea that ordinary people aren't sufficiently clued-up to make big political decisions. We have witnessed a "populist paean to ignorance," says one observer. Apparently populist demagogues—like Nigel Farage, leader of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP), and Boris Johnson, everyone's favorite bumbling, toffish politician—preyed on the anxieties of the little people and made them vote for something bad and stupid. For these little people, "fear counts above reason; anger above evidence," opined a writer for the Financial Times. A writer for The Guardian suggested that for anti-E.U. types, emotions "play a larger part than rationality."

This idea that the less well-educated sections of society are ripe for exploitation by emotion-stoking demagogues is not new. It's the prejudice that has motored most elite campaigns against the expansion of democracy. The Chartists, Britain's brilliant nineteenth-century warriors for universal male suffrage, encountered this nasty prejudice all the time. Their critics insisted that "the lower orders of the people" do not have a "ripened wisdom," and therefore they are "more exposed than any other class in the community to be tainted by corruption, and converted to the vicious ends of faction." Others said that "spouters at the meetings of the working classes" could easily exploit the "astonishing ignorance and credulity on the part of the hearers."

The Chartists raged against such nasty elitism. How horrified they would be to know that, 150 years later, it is back with a vengeance, in the idea that the scared British people are "ripe for canny right-wing operators to manipulate."

Indeed, much of the elitist rage with the masses who voted for Brexit echoes a longstanding suspicion of democracy. Among the upper echelons of society there has never been a willing acceptance of the idea that ordinary people should have an equal say in political life. As John Carey notes in his classic 1992 book The Intellectuals and the Masses, late 19th- and early 20th-century thinkers and writers feared nothing more than mass democracy. Carey describes how numerous European writers and artists warmed to Nietzsche's view of democracy as a "tyranny of the least and the dumbest."

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Why Don't Liberals Stand Up against Muslim World?

HBO’s “Real Time” host Bill Maher wondered, “Where are the liberals” to stand up for those in the Muslim world who, because of Islamic extremism can’t come out of the closet, leave the faith, or draw a cartoon, and why people on the left “are not to be heard” on the gender apartheid in the Muslim world on Friday.

Maher began by sating, “I thought Barack Obama really nailed it when he said, about eight years ago, that Americans cling to their guns and their religion, because this tragedy was brought to you by guns and religion.”

He added that only one religion bombs and kills gay people, saying, “Yes, the God-hates-f*gs people show up with placards and posters, and they’re despicable, but they don’t show up with guns and bombs. That’s just the world as it is today. The answer is not to ban Muslims, however. The answer is to ask more of Muslims, I think.”

Friday, June 17, 2016

More Liberal Logic


Islamophobia Kills

The deadliest mass shooting in American history happened because of Islamophobia.

Islamophobia killed 49 people in Orlando. It didn’t kill 49 Muslims. Instead it allowed Omar Mateen,  a Muslim terrorist, to kill 49 people in the name of his Islamic ideology and the Islamic State.

Omar, like so many other Muslim killers, could have been stopped. He talked about killing people when he worked at G4S Security, a Federal contractor that provided services to the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department. But, according to one of the co-workers he stalked, a former police officer, his employers refused to do anything about it because he was a Muslim.

The FBI conducted an investigation of Omar Mateen. They put him on a watch list and sent informants. They interviewed him and concluded that his claims of Al Qaeda ties and terrorist threats were reactions to “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith.” Omar told the agents that he said those things because “his co-workers were discriminating against him and teasing him because he was Muslim.”

And they believed him.

Poor Omar wasn’t a potential terrorist. He was just a victim of Islamophobia.

Omar got away with homophobic comments that would have gotten Americans fired because he was Muslim. He weathered an “extensive” FBI investigation because he was Muslim.

Anyone who says that there is no such thing as Muslim Privilege ought to look at Omar Mateen.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Exxon fights Mass AG

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey responds to questions from reporters during a news conference at the federal courthouse, Thursday, June 9, 2016, in Boston. Law enforcement officials say more than 60 alleged gang members from Boston and other cities in eastern Massachusetts have been charged with drug, weapons and racketeering charges. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Updated: 9:26 p.m. on Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Alex Epstein had a three-word response after learning Wednesday that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey had included him in her investigation into climate change “fraud”: Buzz off, fascist.

Only he didn’t say “buzz.”

Mr. Epstein is a proud fossil fuel advocate, a believer that the benefits from cheap, reliable energy are more than offset by any still-under-debate problems from rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. His views are laid out in his 2014 book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” (Penguin Random House).

For this, he finds himself on the prosecutor’s radar. His advocacy group, the Center for Industrial Progress, was named in an April 19 subpoena issued by Ms. Healey’s office demanding 40 years of communications between ExxonMobil and a dozen free market groups and universities.

ExxonMobil released a copy of the subpoena Wednesday as part of its motion for an injunction filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in which the fossil fuel giant accused Ms. Healey of waging a politically motivated fishing expedition aimed at muzzling her ideological foes.

Obama's Legacy is the Islamic State

On Tuesday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily, former FBI Counterterrorism Center instructor Kim Jensen told SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon that the establishment of the Islamic State as a “caliphate” was no mere formality — it was a defining event in the War on Terror, and will stand as one of President Barack Obama’s greatest failures, a legacy that will unfortunately last long after he leaves office.

“In July of 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi established the Islamic State,” Jensen explained. “That has really become a harbinger event, and that has really changed the landscape of terrorism for the entire world. It’s been the single most significant event, I would say, in the last 80 or 90 years, since the 1920s.”

“By establishing the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has changed the landscape of extremism and terrorism,” he stressed. “What we’re witnessing, and what we’re confronting, is a result of the establishment of the Islamic State in July of 2014. Unfortunately, the Islamic State continues to exist – and every day the Islamic State continues to exist, it legitimizes the Islamic State, and it acts kind of like a light to moths, and it grows exponentially.”

Jensen said that “light to moths” emanates from a “very specific ideology,” which existed long before the Islamic State was established. For example, he argued that Mullah Omar of the Taliban in Afghanistan could be viewed as al-Baghdadi’s predecessor.

“Mullah Omar declared himself, and was endorsed by Osama bin Laden in the 1990s. He declared an Islamic state in Afghanistan, and declared himself the title, the 1,400-year-old title, of ‘Commander of the Faithful,’” Jensen recalled.

His contention is that Obama allowed al-Baghdadi to create a far more powerful and aggressive Islamist empire than the Taliban or al-Qaeda ever could, on ground with much greater strategic and religious significance than Afghanistan. It’s often overlooked by Western analysts that ISIS holds the very territory where the final, apocalyptic battle between Muslims and infidels was prophesied to occur.

Voltaire on Islam

Whistling sling bullets were Roman secret weapon

Some 1,800 years ago, Roman troops used "whistling" sling bullets as a "terror weapon" against their barbarian foes, according to archaeologists who found the cast lead bullets at a site in Scotland.

Weighing about 1 ounce, each of the bullets had been drilled with a 0.2-inch hole that the researchers think was designed to give the soaring bullets a sharp buzzing or whistling noise in flight.

The bullets were found recently at Burnswark Hill in southwestern Scotland, where a massive Roman attack against native defenders in a hilltop fort took place in the second century A.D. [See Photos of Roman Battle Site and Sling Bullets]

These holes converted the bullets into a "terror weapon," said archaeologist John Reid of the Trimontium Trust, a Scottish historical society directing the first major archaeological investigation in 50 years of the Burnswark Hill site.

"You don't just have these silent but deadly bullets flying over; you've got a sound effect coming off them that would keep the defenders' heads down," Reid told Live Science. "Every army likes an edge over its opponents, so this was an ingenious edge on the permutation of sling bullets."

The whistling bullets were also smaller than typical sling bullets, and the researchers think the soldiers may have used several of them in their slings — made from two long cords held in the throwing hand, attached to a pouch that holds the ammunition — so they could hurl multiple bullets at a target with one throw.

"You can easily shoot them in groups of three of four, so you get a scattergun effect," Reid said. "We think they're for close-quarter skirmishing, for getting quite close to the enemy."

Monday, June 13, 2016

The Sun Urges Readers to beLEAVE in Britain

SUN SAYS: We urge our readers to beLEAVE in Britain and vote to quit the EU on June 23.  This is our last chance to remove ourselves from the undemocratic Brussels machine ... and it's time to take it We must set ourselves free from dictatorial Brussels.

Throughout our 43-year membership of the European Union it has proved increasingly greedy, wasteful, bullying and breathtakingly incompetent in a crisis.

Next Thursday, at the ballot box, we can correct this huge and ­historic mistake.

It is our last chance. Because, be in no doubt, our future looks far bleaker if we stay in.

Outside the EU we can become richer, safer and free at long last to forge our own destiny — as America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other great democracies already do. And as we were the first to do centuries ago.

If we stay, Britain will be engulfed in a few short years by this relentlessly expanding ­German dominated federal state.

For all David Cameron’s witless assurances, our powers and values.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Ramadan Bombathon 2016 - Day 7

Muslims often insist that other religions are just as violent
 as theirs and that the bigger problem is "Islamophobia."
We put that narrative to the test each Ramadan with a
running count of ALL terror attacks, categorized by motive.

*Numbers do not include the 'Being Gay During Ramadan"
shooting in Orlando (to be included with Day 8 update)

Islamic Terrorist Attack on Orlando Nightclub

A gunman who may have pledged allegiance to ISIS opened fire early Sunday morning in a packed Orlando nightclub, killing 50 people and wounding at least 53 more in a bloody scene that ended hours later when police stormed the building and killed the shooter.

The shooting in Orlando at Pulse, which bills itself as "the hottest gay bar" in the city and was packed with more than 300 people for "Latin Night," was reported minutes after 2 a.m. Sunday. In addition to those killed inside the club, at least 53 people were taken to area hospitals.

Dozens of partygoers remained hostage in the club for several hours after the initial shooting, prompting SWAT teams to rush inside. Shortly after 6 a.m. local time, Orlando police tweeted that the gunman had been killed. Authorities said there was not believed to be any further threat to the area.

House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Schiff said in a statement that the timing and location of the attack and information coming from local authorities indicated "an ISIS-inspired act of terrorism."

"The fact that this shooting took place during Ramadan and that ISIS leadership in Raqqa has been urging attacks during this time, that the target was an LGBT night club during Pride, and – if accurate – that according to local law enforcement the shooter declared his allegiance to ISIS, indicates an ISIS-inspired act of terrorism," Schiff said. "Whether this attack was also ISIS-directed, remains to be determined. I’m confident that we will know much more in the coming hours and days."

The gunman, Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, was heard shouting "Allah Akbar" while engaging officers, law enforcement sources told Fox News.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Dress Code

Dress Code

In addition to the date, time and location, party invitations usually indicate also the proper dress code. Terms like white tie or black tie reveal to the guests what they should wear, so that they are not over- or underdressed for the occasion. If the invitation says white or black tie, it is quite clear what to wear, but terms like black tie optional or smart casual are bit more challenging because there is no
White Tie
White tie (full dress, evening dress) is the most formal dress code. Man will wear a black tailcoat, matching trousers with a single stripe, white wing collar shirt, white vest, white bow tie, white or gray gloves and black dress shoes. Woman will have a formal evening gown. White tie is considered correct evening dress only for events that begin after 6.00 pm. The formal attire for daytime events is a morning dress. White tie might be worn at the opera, evening wedding or at a ball
Black Tie
Black tie is less formal than the white tie. Man wears a black tuxedo jacket, formal white shirt, black bow tie, black cummerbund and black dress shoes. Woman wears a formal evening dress or cocktail dress. Like the white tie, tuxedo is worn only after 6.00 pm. Black tie can be worn at the theater, informal parties, or at a dinner.
Black Tie Optional
Black tie optional means that man can wear a tuxedo or dark suit with white shirt. Woman can have a formal evening dress, cocktail dress or dressy separates. If the invitation says black tie optional, there should be a further explanation of the nature of the event.
If the invitation says semi-formal, dark, business-type suit with or without a matching vest, white shirt and a conservative tie for man. Short cocktail dress or long skirt and top for woman.
Cocktail Attire
Men wear dark suits. Women wear cocktail dresses with high heels and evening bags. Your attire should be elegant, but not quite formal.
Men wear business-type suits. Women can wear tailored dressy suits or dresses.
Informal is more formal than casual but less formal than semi-formal.
Man wears slacks or khaki pants and a dress shirt with or without a tie. Woman may wear a skirt or slacks with a blouse or a casual dress.

Friday, June 3, 2016

Political Preferences of US Religious Groups

The political preferences of U.S. political groups

The Threat of Violence

The Threat of Violence
Posted on June 2, 2016 by Baron Bodissey

The Western world has become allergic to violence, not the remote TV-style violence to which we are addicted, but to the raw physical (and sexual) aggression by which we can be threatened and cajoled along the pathway to the gas.

One of the horrific features of Nazi death camps was the pleasant leisurely walk to the killing chambers, to sit in ignorance among the trees and await the call to be exterminated.

People arriving, whether in cattle cars or Pullman coaches, had already been softened up. Those selected to die — Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, et. al. — had already felt the physical intolerance of Nazi bestiality, but were looking forwards to something better: rehabilitation, and the woods and walkways fed the delusion.

Could that be me? Sitting in the woods of Birkenau awaiting the call, watching my grandchildren play in the sunshine, dreaming of a new life and a new tranquility.

The breakout at Sobibor, where a few Jews actually survived to live free again, showed that there is an answer to bullying, but only if one is prepared to make the final sacrifice. The price of failure is high. And, at Sobibor, the price of success was also high.

Those escapees had to make some feral decisions: kill and maybe survive, or continue in dhimmitude and face the inevitable.

The Jews of Europe now face a similar decision. They are comfortable, but the authorities cannot protect them for much longer. Their ‘safe’ havens are becoming infested with those who have been indoctrinated from birth using the Goebbels techniques learned first hand through collaboration and probably by participation in the Nazi exterminations.

But this essay is not about Middle East politics, it is about the use of violence and the threat of violence to achieve political ends.

The Muslim Brotherhood is deeply involved in everything that is currently going on in Europe and the Americas. Sayyid Qutb, the icon of the Muslim Brotherhood and staunch advocate of Islamist violence, was executed (in Egypt) and has become a martyr (and role model) for those who seek to evangelize the West to Islam. It is fear of Qutb-style violence that plays a huge role in the advancement of Islam in our lives. Now we too are sitting amongst the trees at Birkenau contemplating our grandchildren.

We can safely say that on the whole the Muslim Brotherhood does not believe in ‘social cohesion’. It believes in one thing only: the spread of Shariah Law. For this, the ends justify the means.

The MB is now deeply insinuated into the circles of Western power, and maybe even into the Oval Office itself. Barack Hussein Obama has overtly promoted the MB and its front organizations into the very core of American life. In Europe as well, the MB is well-represented.

The bully does not fight very much. He believes in soft violence. He usually uses other means of intimidation to provoke, and then goes to the authorities complaining about ‘phobias’. In a society where truth is assumed, the it is difficult to expose the lie, especially the complete, blatant lie delivered by a religion of peace supposedly just like our own.

So when my son bashed the bully at school, it was he who got into trouble. The bully lied through his back teeth, and called upon his useful idiots to back him up. The truth was trampled and the bully won the day, and in fact it was my son who was then labelled as a bully.

This is not an unfamiliar story. The background threat of violence, and the heavy hand of injustice serve to keep us subdued and submissive. It is known that UK authorities and Swiss authorities have tried to buy off the MB bullies. One is also very aware that Tommy Robinson was subjected to kangaroo justice at the hands of the current British government. Even our children must be sacrificed in the desire to appease the sex bullies of the Muslim Brotherhood.

To those who care, the ideas of ‘racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’ are paramount. They are the Maxim Gun of the 21st century. The Maxim was the first efficient and reliable machine gun. It changed the face of warfare, driving men into trenches and stretching battles into long years of carnage.

But to be able to spit out accusations of racism and to vomit allegations of Islamophobia is worth a million Maxims in the 21st century. Sanity has no defense against stupidity in high places, and there is only one man allowed to spit in the Oval Office.

Sitting at Birkenau, I cannot see the wood crematoria for the trees, but there is a strange smell in the air.

The idea of ‘racism’ arises from the behavior of Nazis towards Jews and others. But what if the modern racism is actually against Christians and others — would we recognize it? Or would it just be a strange and rather obnoxious odour which we cannot quite place? Would the real bully be able to lie, shout and squeal ‘victim’?

Before World War Two there was no real concept of racism. There were superior races and inferior races, as Charles Darwin was at pains to point out:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

— from The Descent of Man

Hitler was a man of his time, and took his Darwin seriously. Qutb too followed Nazi doctrine but with a few tweaks here and there to substitute a ‘civilised religion’ (his religion, of course) instead of civilised race.

The current Christian reaction to this extreme threat is disbelief, much as was the Jewish reaction to the Holocaust. Most Jews just could not believe that God would allow this to happen to His Chosen. Many Christians believe that they are the new ‘chosen’ (replacement theology). Particularly dominant is the idea of the rapture, that the Church will be removed before the final tribulation gets too bad.

So we sit back waiting for the day. Those who will be left behind will have to sort it all out.

That will be me, because I think that those verses in Thessalonians and Corinthians are about the Jewish feast of Taruwah (trumpets); the first of the as yet unfulfilled Fall appointments.

So I will be here for the whole of the tribulation, and I need to look around me and see the reality, and not the mythology.

Muslims prefer their violence unopposed. They like the dashing raid rather than the standing battle. They prefer the soft target rather than the strongpoint. They will use any weakness, especially fear of the label of ‘racism’, to wheedle and insinuate, always play the victim, and always blame the real victim.

My view is that the Islamic Menace will go away as soon as we accept the realities and enforce our law rather than theirs.

We have a complication, however: the blind desire of cultural Marxism to remove Christianity from the scene. In their obsessions with ‘white’ privilege and Christianity, the cultural Marxists and their useful idiots are playing cricket on a football field. At this rate the Muslim linebackers, whom the cricketers perceive as ‘silly-mid-ons’, are going to smash them to smithereens, and there will be no ‘follow on’.

Armenian Genocide