Mar 31, 2016

"The Left’s" Psychological Warfare against White Nations

via Counter-Currents

I can’t think of a more insidious phenomenon in our times than the manipulation of the moral sensibilities of Europeans to bring about their own destruction, and it is the Left that’s in charge of this manipulation, which should be designated as a form of psychological warfare.

The most successful instance of the Left’s psychological operations was the use of the picture of the Syrian child’s lifeless body washed ashore on a Turkish beach in September, 2015. It was this picture that led to an outpouring of European charity and solidarity with thousands of refugees and migrants. But this is only one instance of the immensely successful and many-sided psychological operations the Left has invented and used over the last few years to break the European will to fight even as their countries face a full scale migrant invasion costing them billions and bringing social chaos and thousands of rapes.

It is imperative to learn more about the psychological operations of the Left in its war against European identity. 

The Left Knows

It is the Left in our current Western world that has claimed for itself the highest moral principles in the course of advancing its political and economic programs. Diversity came from the start wrapped up with high sounding moral principles about the equal dignity and good will of all peoples on earth, with exhortations directed at their Europeans to show compassion for the suffering of others, overcome their greed and racist impulses in the name of a more harmonious world wherein humans would finally create a world in which their angelic side would flourish.

The Left could have been excused as naively utopian when it started advocating these ideals. But no longer. People preoccupied with their own private lives, not politically in the front lines, can be excused for holding these beliefs. But not the leading propagandists, writers, teachers, government employees who work daily to instil these beliefs on the public.

It has now become evident that immigrant multiculturalism has not worked in the way it was anticipated. The Left has had enough time to learn about the raping of girls on “industrial scale” across Europe by Muslim gangs, to ascertain the racial character of riots in Paris, Sweden, London, to think about the costs of illegal immigration, to realize that the majority of “refugees” are economic migrants, to witness entire towns and cities transformed into homogeneously Asian, Muslim, or Mestizo places. The list of failures is long, and the evidence is readily available in the internet.

Yet the Left not only continuous to press forward but has doubled up and tripled down in its efforts to promote mass immigration and accuse as “Islamophobic” anyone who questions the raping of girls in Europe. The Left is still, to this day, more than ever, calling for an end to “White supremacy” even in cities that are no longer majority White, for an end to “White privilege” even in workplaces that are totally dedicated to minority hiring, for an end “to everyday racism” even in campuses totally controlled by diversity politics.

We can no longer simply say that the Left is naive, pathological, trapped inside an ideology that does not allow it to see reality for what it is, that many of them are suffering from personality disorders. The Left knows, or at least refuses to know, that many of its ideals have not worked as they had said they would, and they know that many of its arguments are flawed and the evidence does not support their beliefs. They know that race and gender are not mere social constructs, that there is scientific evidence, fully researched papers and books showing that human behaviour is deeply influenced by genetic factors, but they are either wilfully ignoring the evidence or attacking it by simply repeating the same ideas they learned five decades ago. Feminists know that something is amiss in their excessive preoccupation with micro aggressions and their refusal to speak out against Muslim macro aggression against girls in Europe.

Break Their Moral Will

This is what the Left is doing: it is promoting diversity by employing techniques of persuasion which target the value system of their own people, their moral sensibilities, in order to get them to accept their own ethnic displacement and celebrate the cultures of others. There are three readily available entries on the meaning of psychological warfare in the internet, providing varying insights, though none captures the unique techniques of psywar developed by the Left in recent years. But it only takes a bit of reordering of the wording of these definitions to bring out what is novel about Leftist techniques. The Encyclopaedia Britannica‘s definition is a good start.

Psychological warfare, also called psywar, the use of propaganda against an enemy, supported by such military, economic, or political measures as may be required. Such propaganda is generally intended to demoralize the enemy, to break his will to fight or resist, and sometimes to render him favourably disposed to one’s position. Propaganda is also used to strengthen the resolve of allies or resistance fighters. The twisting of personality and the manipulation of beliefs in prisoners of war by brainwashing and related techniques can also be regarded as a form of psychological warfare.

The use of psychological warfare is of ancient origin, but this quoted passage captures well its current understanding as a form of warfare that presupposes the use of modern mass media to demoralize the enemy and to strengthen the resolve of friends. In order to make use of this definition all we need to do is understand that the Left does not believe in the age-old enemy-friend distinction. The Left is against the use of this distinction as a marker of collective identity and difference, as a way of contrasting in-groups and out-groups. The Left believes that it can abolish this distinction by promoting an ideology that is “inclusive” and that brings all races together in a culture that celebrates “unity-in-diversity.”

The first and most important phase in the Left’s plan is to promote diversity through mass immigration and multiculturalism in the West. But in seeking to bring about this reality the Left cannot but confront ideological enemies and friends. Therefore, the enemy the Left has in mind when it engages in psywar is purely ideological, and since the central value of the Left is diversity, and diversity is accomplished by bringing non-White out-groups inside White areas, then non-Whites are in essence not enemies of the Left. Whites who agree with the ideology of diversity, the very Whites who make up the Left and its pro-diversity ideology, are not enemies either. But Whites as such, in essence, are ideological enemies of the Left, since their existence violates the principle of diversity. The most hated ideological enemies of the Left are Whites who self-consciously organize as in-groups to protect their identity against diversity.

Using the definition above, we can say that the psywar of the Left consists in using propaganda, the ideology of diversity, to demoralize the enemy, Whites as such, “to break his will to fight or resist.” It also consists in using diversity to strengthen the resolve of out-groups in their diversification of White areas, and the resolve of ideological Whites who believe in diversity.

The Left is engaged in warfare in the sense that it aims to bring about a total end to its perceived enemies, and this warfare is psychological in that it involves the use of propaganda to alter the minds and hearts of Whites as such. Propaganda is “a form of biased communication, aimed at promoting or demoting certain views, perceptions or agendas.” The Left knows that it is engaged in propaganda, biased communication; it knows that most refugees are not children, but male adults. It knows that Western nations are not “immigrant nations.” It knows that immigration does not enrich European identity, and it knows that there is much evidence already accumulated, facts and arguments, challenging its beliefs, yet it wilfully ignores or sidesteps the counter-arguments, and presses with its propaganda.

The Left believes it has a mandate to bring diversity at all costs against its central enemy: European identity as such, and European ethno-nationalists. Yet it employs the very sensibilities of Europeans as such to bring about its agenda. It uses the longings of Europeans for cosmopolitan peace, their fair-even minded attitudes towards members of out-groups, in order to persuade them to forego their identity. It uses these ideals and attitudes as if they were consistent with diversification and mass immigration, even though the Left knows that Europeans, and only Europeans, created notions of human rights and fair play vis-a-vis out groups, and that non-Europeans will endorse these ideals only to advance their particular ethnic interests.

The immorality of the corporate Right is easily objectionable; its hedonism and consumerism; its greed-driven policies, lack of loyalty to traditions and national identities, but in the end the capitalistic Right has never pretended to be for anything else other than for free markets, growth, and a legal framework friendly to business. (Mind you, the Right does employ its own version of psychological warfare, besides its use of  the old fashion type, about which I will write in the future.)

The Left Knows Its Target

The second definition, from Wikipedia, allows us to go further in our understanding of the Left’s warfare against Whites as such and Whites as conscious in-groups.

The term is used “to denote any action which is practiced mainly by psychological methods with the aim of evoking a planned psychological reaction in other people.” Various techniques are used, and are aimed at influencing a target audience’s value system, belief system,emotions, motives, reasoning, or behaviour. It is used to induce confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviours favourable to the originator’s objectives, and are sometimes combined with black operations or false flag tactics. It is also used to destroy the morale of enemies through tactics that aim to depress troops psychological states.

The Left has been in charge of the culture and morality of the West for decades. It knows how to “evoke a planned psychological reaction” in Whites by appealing to their disposition to judge individuals regardless of race and sexual orientation against any semblance of racist behavior. They know how to destroy the morale of any White who shows in-group preference through accusations of racism and charges that they are exhibiting neo-Nazi attitudes. They know that Whites believe in equality and that it works to talk endlessly about discrimination and global inequality. The Left consciously “targets” the value system and emotions of Whites to bring about its political ends.

It is psychological warfare, a conscious manipulation of images and ideals, biased propaganda by a Left that knows they are using deceptive arguments and facts. When Leftists say that “more than half of the global wealth” is owned by the 1 percent residing mainly in the West, they know they are misleading students into thinking that this “global wealth” is somehow a communal pot that belongs to everyone in the world even though Western nations create their own wealth through innovations and efficient institutions. The Left knows, or should know, that non-European nations are “happily racist,” sexist, and that diversity increases ethnic nepotism.

The Left knows that non-Western cultures are far more collectivist and in-group oriented in their racial and tribal attachments, whereas Westerners are individualistic and more tolerant of outsiders, and this is why they willfully target the individualist value system of Europeans with accusations of racism so as to demoralize them and allow their countries to be taken over by collectivist cultures, which the Left celebrates as harbingers of multiculturalism.

Jacques Ellul is cited in the Wikipedia entry saying that a common form of psychological warfare between nations involves “dealing with a foreign adversary whose morale he seeks to destroy by psychological means so that the opponent begins to doubt the validity of his beliefs and actions.” The foremost adversary of the Left is European in-group identity, and this is why the Left has been teaching for decades to impressionable children and young students that emotional attachments to in-groups are not only backward and illiberal, but “a personality disorder, a public health pathogen.” Yet the same Left welcomes the far more collectivist and racist cultures of immigrants and passes laws protecting this collectivist heritage. They know this is a flagrant double standard.

The third definition comes from “Major Ed Rouse (Ret)”:

Once you know what motivates your target, you are ready to begin psychological operations…The form of communication can be as simple as spreading information covertly by word of mouth or through any means of multimedia…Your primary weapons are sight and sound. PSYOP can be disseminated by face-to-face communication, audio visual means (television), audio media (radio or loudspeaker), visual media (leaflets, newspapers, books, magazines and/or posters). The weapon is not how its sent, but the message it carries and how that message affects the recipient.

There is no other way to describe the Left’s use of the three-year-old Syrian child washed ashore on a beach than as a most successful form of psychological operation relying simply on an image. This picture played a critical role in energizing Europeans to stage mass rallies “welcoming refugees” across Europe. Leftists know that in Germany alone migrants committed over 400,000 crimes in 2015, including 1,688 reported sexual assaults against women and children. Yet their reaction was to cover up these facts, defend the perpetrators as victims of “Western imperialism,” or simply try to spread false information so as to take blame away from refugees and direct it to German males.

No other conclusion can be reached but that the Left is willfully carrying out a form of psychological warfare based on deception, manipulation, and false accusations, with the intention of destroying European identity, while pretending to be the representatives of the highest ideals of Western civilization.

My Hate Group Is Different Than Your Hate Group

via Radix

The Southern Poverty Law Center must be in a panic. A leading candidate for the Republican nomination has received the outright endorsement of a number of its “hate groups.” Some of the leaders of these groups are even working with the campaign. Judging from the lack of protest and the principle of qui tacet consentire videtur, the larger conservative movement seems to be comfortable with being aligned with these hate groups. 

I’m, of course, referring to Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz recently announced his foreign policy team, a motley collection of relics from the Bush years seemingly designed to end any rumors Cruz was actually a closet realist. One of these advisors is Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy, which has the distinction of being labeled a “hate group” by our friends at the SPLC.

Gaffney is an interesting figure. On the one hand, he is a walking stereotype of an Israel-first neoconservative. He’s fanatically anti-Russian, anxious for interventions in the Middle East, and was by his own admission “delighted” with the second Iraq War.

Yet unlike most neocons, he supports Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration and the research of his organization has been used to defend it. Gaffney proudly hosts immigration restrictionists at his conferences. Most spectacularly, he continues to generate controversy within the Beltway Right by alleging Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and that a faction of the conservative movement itself is serving as a fifth column for “radical Islamists.”

Usually, neoconservatism is a deeply cynical and dishonest way of getting White Christians to care about bombing Israel’s enemies, while ignoring the issues surrounding immigration and cultural collapse in the West. One wonders if many so-called neoconservatives even believe their own bullshit or are simply making Straussian arguments, telling one thing to the masses, while communicating something far different to the chosen (or, Chosen).

Gaffney’s brand is a bit different. He actually confronts the issues of Muslim immigration, political subversion, and the threats posed by enemies within the West, not just those in Mecca or Baghdad. He takes his ideology so seriously, he actually endangers it.

If you are willing to go as far as Gaffney, eventually you are going to start confronting questions of race, demographics, and identity. After all, if you have a Muslim majority in London, it doesn’t much matter whether Sunnis or Shi’a hold sway over the Euphrates.

At the same time, once you start honestly examining these issues, it’s hard to think the greatest threat to American security is something like Hezbollah. You might begin to think Iran is not actually a real threat to the United States. Eventually, you’ll probably suspect the main force turning our own governments against us isn’t the Muslim Brotherhood but our “greatest ally.” And once you come to that realization, there’s no turning back.

Thus, you have to artificially limit yourself, falling back on Protective Stupidity in order to keep getting the generous donations that come with being part of Conservatism, Inc. Striking the delicate balance between truth and absurdity is the art of employment in the conservative movement.

Gaffney screwed it up recently. He interviewed Jared Taylor, warmly expressing his “admiration” for Taylor’s work and even mentioning Taylor’s book from a few years back, White Identity. When the wailing and gnashing of teeth ensued, Gaffney disavowed the interview and pretended he didn’t know who Taylor was. It’s worth noting Gaffney pulled the interview despite receiving no criticism from conservative media sources.

Gaffney is still the leader of a “hate group,” according to the SPLC, even though he was “once respectable.” However, it’s a “hate group” Cruz isn’t afraid to associate with.

And he’s not alone. Tony Perkins is the leader of the Family Research Council. He was also one of the most critical leaders of the movement to align the Beltway Right behind Cruz rather than Marco Rubio.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is also campaigning for Cruz and was going to speak on the same stage as the candidate before the rally was canceled due to sickness. He’s currently calling for evangelicals to oppose Trump because Trump isn’t nice enough to women. Needless to say, the American Family Association is also a “hate group.”

We can go through this forever. And, until recently, the media was, playing the guilt-by-association game against Cruz, highlighting every time he stepped on the same stage with some “anti-gay” pastor and demanding Cruz account for everything Frank Gaffney ever said.

Of course, that same media is currently helping Cruz play the victim, moaning that Donald Trump was sooo mean to Cruz’s wife. And now that Cruz has the media on his side, he’s taking advantage of it. Indeed, as with Ben Shapiro during the Michelle Fields fraud, Ted Cruz isn’t acting like an SJW, he is being revealed as an SJW.
Cruz accuses Trump of being “afraid of strong women,” exactly the line of attack Hillary supporters are making against “Bernie Bros.” When Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson “spilled the beans” on Heidi Cruz by talking about her record as a globalist, Bush operative, and supporter of NAFTA, these policy-based criticisms were calledsound proof that “there’s no low the Trump campaign won’t go.” If this is too much, it’s unclear how Cruz intends to confront Hillary Clinton when even Bernie Sanders’ gentle criticisms are taken as proof of sexism.

Outside the increasingly cult-like conservative movement, no one even believes Cruz is authentically outraged about the “attacks” on his wife. He called Trump a “sniveling coward” but immediately dodged the follow-up question of whether he would support Trump if he was the nominee. Cruz tried to call Trump a “ratfucker,” but botched it so badly he seemed to suggest he’s into rodent bestiality.

Cruz has been reduced to blaming Trump for a National Enquirer report on his alleged infidelity, even though Rubio operatives have been shopping around the story for months. And since Trump’s spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson—who has denied any affair—is the main focus of the story, Cruz’s line of attack makes no sense. Would Pierson not have confirmed the affair (even if it didn’t happen) if this were a carefully planned smear originating from Trump? Yet the conservative movement is still managing to work itself into a frenzy about dastardly Donald’s latest “sleazy” scheme, even though it’s precisely the Beltway crowd who were pushing it on the mainstream media back when it was called #TheThing.

Ted Cruz looks like a monster from a 1980s video game, who will burst into a group of dangerous slimy creatures if you hit him. Circumstantial evidence notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe this pile of melting dough had an affair. Not because I don’t think he’s capable of it, but because I find it amazing Cruz had sex with his own wife, let alone someone else’s.

But Cruz is a typical greasy example of a definite “type” found in the conservative movement, the devious Christian conservative who is useless when it comes to defeating leftists but is a master of sleazy tactics, lawyerly rhetoric, and political schemes designed to secure absolute ownership of his little niche. And ultimately, that is what the conservative movement is all about.

Acting like his wife is the victim of a sexist attack against women does seem to be working for Cruz in the polls. It’s not surprising. Playing the victim works for people generally. After all, our culture will bestow a generous living on a feminist who can get some people to call her mean words on the Internet. And the main reason Hillary Clinton got into the Senate to begin with was because Rick Lazio made the mistake of approaching her during a debate with a piece of paper. Feminists were able to spin this as constituting rape.

But now that Cruz has accepted the legitimacy of this line of attack, he’s already lost the general election, if he somehow becomes the GOP nominee. His surrogate Glenn Beck can call Melania Trump a “lesbian porno model” without being called to account now, but Mormon Jesus help Cruz if Beck says something about Hillary Clinton’s hair in the general.

More broadly, Cruz’s entire candidacy has been reduced to being the “acceptable” alternative to Donald Trump, as determined by the mainstream media. But that same media will quickly and easily marginalize Cruz as an extremist, a sexist, and a man deeply “linked” to “hate groups” if Trump is ever removed. And one suspects both Conservatism, Inc. and the so-called Republican Establishment knows this. As they’ve been increasingly forthright about expressing lately, it’s the responsibility of the American Right to lose politely.

Consider the position of the religious conservatives who have been at the forefront of the #NeverTrump movement. Original cuckservative Erick Erickson is pitching a third party if Trump gets the nomination. But he’s spending his days trying to get the state of Georgia to defend “religious freedom,” i.e. the ability to allow discrimination against homosexuals. His biggest opponents, as you’ve probably guessed, are those wonderful free-market corporations he loves so much and whose taxes he wants to cut.

Perhaps religious conservatives really believe they can make a separate peace with the hard Left, and that their fate will be different from that of identitarians and racial realists. Presumably, Erickson believes his form of anti-business populism is different than Trump’s “fascism” because, well, Jesus. And at the end of the day, all Erickson will do is give more money to those secular corporate executives who (rightly) consider him a useful idiot, whereas Trump might actually confront them.

The same conservatives who constantly babble about “principle” will never actually defend freedom of association; they will merely seek the unprincipled exception. They might not even want that. It’s hard not see the “religious freedom” campaign as simply an exercise in signaling rather than serious political or cultural activism.
What is the purpose? Defending market share. The Christian Right knows it has lost the culture, but it still has the power to defend its hold on those White Christians (and non-believers who still identify as “Christian”) who are opposed to the more extreme forms of leftism. As late-stage American Christianity grows more deracinated, it becomes more apocalyptic and hucksterish. The people warning us about Donald Trump’s threat to the Republic also tell us the world is about to end, that Israel is about to be attacked, and that this means we are running out of time to buy their giant buckets o’ survival food.

The nominally secular “movement conservatives” are operating in the same way. Ted Cruz would not even still be a candidate for President had Donald Trump not shifted the Overton Window on so many issues. And Trump is important because he’s shifted the debate more in six months than the conservative movement did in 60 years. Instead of being happy or grateful, movement conservatives are outraged. And now, by relying on the Left to do the hard work of destroying them by whining about feminism, Cruz and the conservatives are confessing their own ideological impotence. But Cruz’s cowardice ensures he is seen as the leader of the Republican Party, he signals his virtue, and he protects his market share.

Conservatism is trapped in a closed loop. It has lost the ability (if, indeed, it ever had it) to shift the culture or even the policy debate. Rather than bringing in new activists and ideas, it is desperately trying to hold on its current followers by guilt tripping and moral shaming them via leftist premises. Intellectually exhausted and proudly ignorant, it’s getting harder to portend that those involved, even the followers, are simply misguided rather than malevolent.

At a certain point, gullibility becomes a moral failing. Conservative voters are like the man who blew a fortune on a “psychic” because he couldn’t get a girlfriend. It doesn’t make them evil, but it makes them contemptible. They are suckers, and nothing besides. And if the “grassroots” keeps falling for the scam, the Beltway hucksters will keep right on profiting as they run out the clock on Western Civilization.

Border Patrol Council Endorses Trump

via TMA_SierraHills

In an official statement first obtained by Breitbart Texas, the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) endorsed Donald Trump for President of the United States. The unusually bold statement comes just days after a senior policy adviser for Trump made clear that future U.S. border security policy would be largely determined by the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol who are actual agents protecting the border and not by politically-appointed bureaucrats in the Border Patrol or its parent agency, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), if Trump is elected.

The endorsement is the first-ever in a presidential primary for the NBPC. The agents’ statement makes clear that Trump’s public pledge to secure the border by turning to the actual agents in the NBPC is revolutionary and an opportunity never-before-seen and one that may never be seen again. They wrote, “Mr. Trump will take on special interest and embrace the ideas of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents rather than listening to the management yes-men who say whatever they are programmed to say. This is a refreshing change that we have not seen before – and may never see again.”
The NBPC has been the only voice for nearly 17,000 Border Patrol agents. The organization has served as the only advocacy and defense mechanism for the needs and interests of agents against overwhelming attacks from political groups and special interests opposing a secured border.
The full statement from the NBPC ...

America's First Black Female Attorney General Determined not to Punish Black Criminality

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Antarian Negress, Loretta Lynch
Just as Alexander once simply cut the Gordian Knot with his sword, we will one day realize how simply our problems can be fixed.

 If we have the will to do it.

Until then, we'll get more of this.[AG Loretta Lynch wants to let nation break law without consequences, NY Post, 3-27-16]:
As New York moves to decriminalize low-level offenses, arguing enforcement is “rigged against communities of color,” other large cities are coming under pressure from the Justice Department to do the same thing. 
Attorney General Loretta Lynch has issued a warning to municipal and state judges across the country that their courts could lose federal funding if they don’t ease up on fines and arrest warrants for minor crimes involving poor offenders, indigent minorities in particular. 
In lieu of fines and jail time, Lynch urges the nation’s 6,500 municipal courts to provide an avenue for offenders to perform “community service” or take advantage of “amnesty days,” whereby outstanding arrest warrants are cleared for nominal fees. 
Failure to comply with these policies could trigger a Ferguson-style discrimination investigation. Already, Lynch says she’s “evaluating discrimination complaints against several court systems.” 
A strongly worded “guidance” letter, written by her civil rights team, warns that a local court policy of enforcing warrants for failure to pay court fines and fees can have an adverse “disparate impact” on African-Americans, who are fined and/or arrested for outstanding warrants at “disproportionate” rates versus whites. 
Federal data also show that blacks tend to break both felony and misdemeanor laws at a disproportionate rate. Even if applied evenly across all races and in neutral, color-blind fashion, such policies could be found by Justice to be discriminatory. 
“In court systems receiving federal funds, these practices may also violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when they unnecessarily impose disparate harm on the basis of race,” the nine-page letters states. 
This is the same dubious legal threat the administration is using to force the nation’s public schools to back off suspending unruly — even violent — black students, and to force cops to avoid stopping, frisking and arresting minority offenders. 
The Supreme Court has ruled that disparate impact doesn’t violate Title VI, only “intentional” discrimination does. “The administration is quite wrong to say that Title VI incorporates a ‘disparate impact’ standard,” Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity points out. “The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that it does not.” 
This new court “reform” will only exacerbate the crime problem. Studies show ignoring low-level crimes like warrant violations only leads to bigger crimes. 
Under Mayor Bill de Blasio, the NYPD has scaled back its aggressive enforcement of low-level offenses only to see both minor and serious crime rebound. Already cops have backed off public urination and other public nuisance violations, while overlooking outstanding warrants for many other misdemeanor crimes. 
Even a senior Justice Department official predicts the decriminalization-cum-deincarceration movement will backfire in higher crime nationwide. “In five years the crime rate is going to be crazy again,” he said. 
The official, who oversees probation of felons paroled from federal prisons and who requested anonymity, worries the new department policy will be abused. 
“I don’t see liberal judges even attempting to make people pay or spending the time making an accurate determination of a person being ‘indigent,’ ” he said. 
“It’s another way of not holding people accountable for their actions.”
Personal responsibility?

Impossible in a nation where the highest form of morality is derived from the color of ones skin color.

How Mass Immigration Is Driven by Female Consumerism and Low Fertility

via Return of Kings

A recently released report reveals that a full in 1 in 5 people in the United States are now either immigrants or their children. The growth of the immigrant population has been occurring at a rate of over 350% since 1965. This tidal wave of immigration has inundated the traditional American population, who have been asleep at the switch thinking that having children is either déclassé or an antiquated notion. As a result, they are being demographically replaced in their own nations.

While illegal immigration is a valid issue, it is a scare tactic used by political elites to drive the construction of the police state security apparatus. In reality, legal immigration is a much bigger problem. Yet, the political class on both sides of the aisle have been calling for an even bigger increase of legal immigration. Of the now 61 million people that are immigrants or their children in the United States, a whopping 75% are here legally because of both the Immigration Act of 1965 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

The Consumerism Machine

In order to keep a consumption economy that needs perpetual growth running, the political and economic powers in our society need an ever-increasing population. Declining populations are correlated with recessions and depressions while growing populations are correlated with economic growth. But is continuing to feed a machine that expects perpetual growth with warm bodies worth the costs? The West has lost its culture and is losing its entire society at the altar of consumerism, which has brought about demographic replacement because of radical feminism.

Part of the reason the United States and Europe are importing so many immigrants is feminism has rendered white women statistically sterile. Birth rates are not enough to even sustain the population, much less create an engine of economic growth.

Yes, that's a dog in that baby carriage and not a child
Yes, that’s a dog in that baby carriage and not a child

Feminism encourages women to forgo their biological roles as mothers and to forgo forming families. In the modern age, Western women now marry themselves to a corporation rather than to a strapping young man. As a result, the white population continues to wither away and die in America and in Europe and be demographically replaced. Tragically, women are now looking for child replacements like cats and dogs to silence their maternal instincts.

The Numbers

Women refusing to have families and children requires the flood gates of immigration to be swung open because a consumer economy needs increasing numbers of warm bodies to buy its wares. The effects are illustrated in the graph from NumbersUSA below. Low fertility and mass immigration are leading to irreversible demographic change in the United States and Europe. The proportion of immigrants is only expected to rise this century.

It is easy to see how this will cause further division among the already polarized American populace. The specter of further polarization rings especially true when combined with a political system that operates through division, dividing people up into ever more splintered groups and subgroups that then compete with one another for government affection and gibsmedats.

Of the nearly 600 million people in the U.S. by 2100, only 250 million or less will be descended from Americans who did not immigrate to the country after 1970. Real demographers knew the world we are in now was coming decades ago, but nothing was done to avert replacing traditional Americans with immigrants.

Americans of all ethnicities are increasingly becoming strangers in their own culture to feed perpetual economic growth
Americans of all ethnicities, with family who lived in the country before 1970 are increasingly becoming strangers in their own culture to feed perpetual economic growth

It seems in today’s world, destroying national sovereignty and cultures to turn people into shopping fools is an acceptable strategy by government in service of the corporate bottom line. This idea is nothing new, as it was developed into a screenplay 40 years ago in the 1976 drama Network:
You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels.
Two generations later, the warnings in this film ring truer than ever when it comes to the world populace being placed into an figurative ethnic blender in service of an economic waste machine. Cultures are lost, nations are lost, but people can buy lots of shiny things they do not need.

The need for mass immigration to the West has been caused by feminism, and feminism was designed by a collusion of corporate and government interests to take women out of the home and turn them into corporate cogs and taxpayers. The rise of corporate monopolies and the disproportionate power they (using their government servants) exert over the lives of the average person is a corruption of the free economic market.
In a free-market economy, prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy, and it typically entails support for highly competitive markets and private ownership of productive enterprises.
That said, Adam Smith himself warned about the dangers of a completely unregulated market. Smith knew that a completely unregulated market would see the rise of monopolies (like today’s corporate monopolies) and was therefore not free. Government imposition is a dangerous thing when it comes to economies, but it is sometimes necessary. The problem is instead of preventing monopolies as it should, the government has aided and abetted them.

One of the problems created by the unchecked consolidation of corporations, in addition to the issue of converging interests corrupting government and subverting the will of the people on matters like immigration, is wage gutting.

The left blames corporations while the right blames the government, when in reality the two interests work together to subvert the will of the people
The left blames corporations while the right blames the government, when in reality the two interests work together to subvert the will of the people

Wage Gutting

Corporate interests support increasing legal immigration even further, which has one major benefit for them: cheap labor.

One of the biggest pushes in the past few years has been to drastically increase the number of legal foreign workers in the United States. Executives like Mark Zuckerberg are calling for major increases in the H1B “temporary” worker visa program. This is because of a supposed tech worker shortage. However, the idea of a tech worker shortage has largely been created out of whole cloth by Zuckerberg and his ilk in Silicon Valley. Even the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a legacy media newspaper pointed out the hypocrisy of the tech industry’s claims:
When compensation in these fields is declining, along with benefits and security, bright students understandably look elsewhere for their future. Companies then use the predictable data to create a doomsday scenario to justify expanding the number of H-1B visas.
It’s a vicious circle.
So no, Zuckerberg, there is no true tech worker shortage. There is a shortage of citizens willing to work for third-world wages in the United States.

This is yet another example of the corporate-government complex at work. The tech industry doesn’t want to pay workers what they are worth, so they lobby Congress for increasing immigration to suppress wages. The government then enacts immigration laws and regulations favorable to the tech industry, shafting the American citizen.

Executives like Zuckerberg also claim to be champions of the environment. However, in addition to unchecked immigration destroying national sovereignty, it also harms the environment.

Environmental Impact

If the powers that be really wanted to save the planet, they would not be demographically replacing populations of Western nations to feed the consumerism waste machine.

women are responsible for 80% of the consumer economy in the United States. A full $1.2 trillion of this spending is on non-essential goods; things people do not really need.
4 out of 5 purchasing decisions are made by women, driving 80% of consumerism

As pointed out in my previous article on Global Warming or Global Government, women are responsible for 80% of the consumer economy in the United States. A full $1.2 trillion of this spending is on non-essential goods; things people do not really need.

As Stefan Molyneux has pointed out, if there was truly an effort to end overconsumption to solve the problem of global warming (not to mention the other issues mentioned above) world leaders would be saying the following about fiat currency and central banking:
We must end fiat currency, we must end central banking around the world. Because central banking and the continued overprinting of currency and the taking on of national debt is causing a vast overconsumption of nature’s scarce resources. [This] should be the central and fundamental and irrefutable argument for ending central banking and returning to a gold standard.
In short, fiat currency causes overconsumption. The need for fiat currency is caused by an economy that caters to women, who make 4 out of 5 purchasing decisions in a consumerism-driven waste economy. And the economy is supported by population growth which is no longer occurring in traditionally white nations since the feminist movement. It’s the perfect storm.

There have been warnings going back thousands of years in Western literature about the societal costs of not giving women proper direction. This is perhaps illustrated nowhere better than this type of economy cannibalizing Western civilization. Proverbs 31:3 is a good example of this ancient wisdom:
Do not give your strength to women, your ways to those who destroy kings.

Men Failed As Guardians

Men really have only ourselves to blame (and our parents and grandparents for not stopping the snowball before it started.) First, for letting women run wild and second for not keeping liberalism in check. As pointed out in a recent Chateau Heartiste article:
Conservatives need liberals for their creativity and (usually) aesthetic lifestyle sensibilities. Liberals need conservatives for their guardianship and wisdom. Too few liberals, and conservative society can become static and self-satisfied. Too few conservatives, and liberal society can become self-destructive.
In this view, conservatives are the more crucial linchpin to civilization. Without liberals, we might have worse movies and fewer charming coffee shops. But without conservatives, we might have no civilization at all, having handed over the keys to the White kingdom to babbling barbarians.
In normal historical cycles, the warrior would ascend in times of decadence and social disconnection to bring balance to the force. But these are not normal times. Feminism, the ideological spawn of Satan and his thousand reptilian succubi, thwarts the natural ascendancy of the warrior class, allowing the shitlib devolution to continue unhindered and unchecked.
The so-called Greatest Generation rolled the dice one too many times when they let the government construct the welfare state, promulgate radical feminism, and open the door to unchecked immigration in the hopes it would bring about a sort of Utopia. As Stanford University economist Thomas Sowell points out:
Much of the history of the Western world over the past three decades has been replacing what worked with what sounded good.
This really only leaves a couple of hanging questions. Although they’re questions that when answered will tie up all the loose ends of the societal degradation and tidal wave of immigration we are witnessing.

Is the self-destruction of Western society occurring purely organically, as Spengler predicted…or is it occurring because of (or perhaps accelerated by) forces that while not directly conspiring, do have vested interests in preserving their power and wealth which are antithetical to the interests of the citizens they are sworn to serve? And, how does one balance economic growth with the desire to maintain the integrity of a sovereign nation?

Cultural Appropriation Is a Double-Edged Sword!

via Western Spring

‘Cultural appropriation’ is a term which is currently doing the rounds among ethnic minority advocates and liberal-Marxists, and which is being used to abuse White people who have adopted some method of doing something, or some artifact or style that has in recent times become associated with non-White, predominantly sub-Saharan African or African-American culture.

As an article on The Root website states, the term “cultural appropriation” is normally thought of as “white people taking an interest in some aspect of minority culture and profiting from it”. Notice here, that just as with racism, according to those who use the term, ‘cultural appropriation’ is something that only White people can exhibit. It is a concept that is intended to be used as a verbal weapon with which to shame and abuse White people and White people only.

Let us examine an incident that has been widely publicised within the last few days, based around a video which has gone viral, and in which a black woman, allegedly identified on social media as San Francisco State University student employee, Bonita Tindle, verbally harasses and physically assaults a young White man, named as Cory Goldstein, for wearing his hair in dreadlocks.

Tindle, together with a black male, confronts Goldstein at the foot of a stairwell and accuses him of ‘appropriating her culture’ for wearing his hair in dreadlocks and following an exchange in which Tindle blocks Goldstein’s path as he attempts to escape from her, and despite his protestations pulls him back down the stairs by the sleeve of his clothing, Goldstein succeeds in freeing himself exiting the scene.

My first impression of watching this video was of how feebly Goldstein behaved throughout, but the robustness of his demeanor is not the real issue here, it is the feebleness of his verbal response.

Setting aside the argument that dreadlocks have throughout history been a feature of many cultures, European, Asian and African, an argument that most commentators have voiced in response to this incident, the hypocrisy of Tindle’s accusation of cultural appropriation has not so far been exposed.

Goldstein’s response should have been to state that he would be happy to remove his dreadlocks if Tindle and her companion would also divest themselves of all of the European cultural artifacts they were using – like their European clothing, their purses and wallets and bags and their money, credit cards, keys and cell phones. Furthermore he should have asked them to walk home instead of driving their cars, or riding on the bus or train, and he should have asked them in future to stop attending the SFSU, the European institution of learning that they currently attend, and to eschew ‘White man’s medicine’ the next time they are ill.

If non-Whites want to invent a concept such as ‘cultural appropriation’, and to use it as a weapon to denigrate and attack White people, then they should at least have the integrity to abide by that principle themselves. As we all know of course, they are unlikely to want to do that.

To conceive of a principle such as ‘cultural appropriation’, to use it to attack White people and not be prepared to have it ‘cut both ways’, is to be both a hypocrite and a racist, and what the advocates of minority rights tend to forget and would do well to remember, is that in the inventiveness stakes, we Whites hold a position that is at least an order of magnitude greater than any of our rivals.

Culture War?

via Radish

Whether Christianity is true or false, and whether European morality is good or bad, European morality is in fact founded upon religion, and the destruction of the one must of necessity involve the reconstruction of the other. -- James Fitzjames Stephen
To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. -- Theodore Dalrymple
Apparently (above), the cultural practices of a rapidly increasing population of Third World colonizers of Europe — primarily Arabs, Maghrebis, Pashtuns, etc — have actually turned out to be “antithetical” to the primarily white “civil society” of white Western civilization of white people. So… uh… was that supposed to bring your “fellow liberals” over to your side, Mr. Harris? A bold stratagem indeed.

You mentioned that certain “conservatives” are waging a “culture war” on behalf of “western standards of moral order,” which are under attack by “multiculturalists” wielding accusations of “racism,” “Islamophobia,” and a “legacy of colonialism.” “Political correctness” and “white guilt” are out of control, and your fellow Liberals, in a puzzling display of illiberalism, have rejected you. Your “reason,” “evidence” and “common sense” are not welcome. You simply do not fit in. What have we learned?

Well, the late Christian paleoconservative Lawrence Auster has an opinion — but he was one of those right-wing extremists you’ve heard so much about (2004):
Treating leftists as “liberals,” they are constantly surprised and scandalized at the “liberals’” illiberal intolerance. They deceive themselves in regarding political correctness and the double standard as extraneous to liberalism, as a mistake or silly excess or regrettable hypocrisy, which, if pointed out to the “liberals,” the “liberals” will renounce.
[…]
He never seems to notice that his brilliant exposure of the double standard fails to stop his “liberal” adversaries for even a single beat.
[…]
Conservatives never suspect that there may be something about “liberalism’s” essential nature that has generated this double standard, and that will keep generating it as long as “liberalism” itself survives.
Or maybe we can just teach your fellow Liberals to be reasonable, so we can all band together and fight the “multiculturalism” brought about by “diversity” (2006):
I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.
This difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.
[…]
My correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.
On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.
This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that “liberals are soft on terrorism.” It is, and they are.
[…]
Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization.
[…]
Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.
While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren’t.
The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.
To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.
“Moral clarity” from the big, bad right-wing Christian Crusaders (they’re usually good for that); “masochistic unreason” and a suicidal “dogma of multiculturalism” from the self-proclaimed forces of reason and tolerance. Who could imagine?
Sam, I think it might be time to trade that rapier for a hammer

Breivik vs Guevara
Yeah, I went there (images: 1, 2)

In July 2011, Anders Behring Breivik, an ethnic Norwegian, bombed a government building in Oslo, killing eight and injuring over two hundred, before travelling to the island of Utøya, where he shot and killed a further sixty-nine and injured over a hundred more, mostly teenagers, at a summer camp of the youth wing of the socialist Labour Party. In a lengthy manifesto, Breivik denounced the colonization of Europe by Muslims, and accused the Labour Party of “promoting multiculturalism and endangering Norway’s identity” (Issue 19). I include this excerpt for the record:
We used to hang out with GSV crew, or B-Gjengen as they are popularly called today, a Muslim Pakistani gang, quite violent even back then. “Gang alliances” was a part of our everyday life at that point and assured that you avoided threats and harassment. Alliances with the right people guaranteed safe passage everywhere without the risk of being subdued and robbed (Jizya), beaten or harassed. […] Even at that time, the Muslim gangs were very dominant in Oslo East and in inner city Oslo. They even arranged “raids” in Oslo West occasionally, subduing the native youths (kuffars) and collecting Jizya from them (in the form of cell phones, cash, sunglasses etc.). I remember they systematically harassed, robbed and beat ethnic Norwegian youngsters who were unfortunate enough to not have the right affiliations. Muslim youths called the ethnic Norwegians “poteter” (potatoes, a derogatory term used by Muslims to describe ethnic Norwegians). These people occasionally raped the so-called “potato whores.” In Oslo, as an ethnic Norwegian youth aged 14–18 you were restricted if you didn’t have affiliations to the Muslim gangs. Your travel was restricted to your own neighbourhoods in Oslo West and certain central points in the city. Unless you had Muslim contacts you could easily be subject to harassment, beatings and robbery. Our alliances with the Muslim gangs were strictly seen as a necessity for us, at least for me. We, however, due to our alliances had the freedom of movement. As a result of our alliances we were allowed to have a relaxing and secure position on the West side of Oslo among our age group. Think of it as being local “warlords” for certain “kuffar areas”, which were regulated by the only dominant force, Muslim gangs collaberating with anarcho-Marxist networks.
Many of these groups claim to be tolerant and anti-fascist, but yet, I have never met anyone as hypocritical, racist and fascist as the people whom I used to call friends and allies. The media glorifies them while they wreak havoc across the city, rob and plunder. Yet, any attempts their victims do to consolidate are harshly condemned by all aspects of the cultural establishment as racism and Nazism. I have witnessed the double standards and hypocrisy with my own eyes, it is hard to ignore. I was one of the protected “potatoes,” having friends and allies in the Jihadi-racist gangs. […]
In retrospect, it’s easy to understand why ethnic Norwegians are fleeing Muslim areas. No one likes to be “subdued” — live in fear, being harassed, beaten and robbed. The Muslim ghettofication process has been ongoing the last thirty years and it will continue until there is close to 100 percent concentrated Muslim areas in Oslo (the same tendency we see in Paris, London and other large Western European cities). When I was around 15–16 there was only one or two schools where the majority was non-ethnic Norwegian. Now, fifteen years later, there are around fifty schools on the East side of Oslo where the majority of students are non-natives and primarily Muslim.
It’s a miracle how I managed to successfully pass through my “vulnerable years” without being subdued by Muslim gangs even once. I know that there are hundreds, even thousands of incidents per year (I have personally witnessed around 50 incidents) where ethnic Norwegian youths ranging 14–18 are harassed, beaten, raped and robbed and it’s getting worse every year. I really don’t envy the new generations and the challenges that are facing them regarding Muslim subjugation.
If ethnic Norwegian youth or other non-Muslims attempt to create gangs of their own (for protection purposes), they are immediately labelled as racists and Nazis. At the same time numerous Muslim gangs commit thousands of racist acts each year against ethnic Norwegians and it’s either hushed down, ignored and therefore tolerated.
And so on. “At the time,” says Jonathan Freedland (2013),
there was no shortage of voices on the right rushing to denounce what Breivik had done, before suggesting he was voicing a widely felt sentiment, adding that perhaps a frank conversation about the excesses of diversity and the alienating effects of globalisation and migration was overdue. As I wrote at the time: “To listen to it, you’d think Breivik had simply wanted to start a debate, that he’d perhaps written a provocative pamphlet for Demos, rather than committed an act of murderous cruelty.”
Some shook their heads ruefully, sadly noting that they had long warned such violence would be the result of the headlong rush to a multicultural, rainbow-hued future.
Liberal and left opinion knew what it thought of such talk. It was wrong to accord Breivik’s warped beliefs such a respectful hearing. Airing his ideas this way was to reward his massacre, surely providing an incentive for others to repeat the slaughter. His actions should be treated as murder, plain and simple. To respond by debating his grievances was to cede him, and violence itself, too much power.
Freedland concurs: “Breivik’s views on Islam did not deserve a hearing by the right.”
Yes, any occasion is a good occasion not to have that “frank conversation about the excesses of diversity and the alienating effects of globalisation and migration.” Bombings, beheadings, elections, epidemics, the vernal equinox or the Witches’ Sabbath, just after a large meal or right before going swimming — all of these are appropriate times not to question the merits of the Western world’s “headlong rush to a multicultural, rainbow-hued” but mostly brown “future.” Don’t worry, if there is ever an appropriate time to have that conversation, the left will let us know! Probably through the information organs of the state — the universities and the press, which they control. Until then, you can just keep your racist mouth shut, you Christian fascist.
Yet when the killer’s cause is the matter of western intervention in Muslim countries, it seems some left voices find their previous fastidiousness has deserted them. […]
You see, a couple of imported African Muslims had just hacked off a British soldier’s head on a London street in broad daylight. So look out! — for a completely fictitious “wave” of “anti-Muslim” “hate crimes” caused by “underlying Islamophobia.”
Imagine what they would say to the claim that Breivik’s terror vindicated the old rivers-of-blood warnings, predicting that decades of multiculturalism would end in disaster, and now it was time to change course. […]
Of course they’d have rejected such logic utterly.
Yes, it’s almost as if Progressives don’t really believe that “debating grievances” will “cede violence itself too much power” — or even that political violence is necessarily wrong. (“Who? Whom?”) Meet Herbert Marcuse, “Father of the New Left” (1965):
Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. […]
The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. […] Different opinions and ‘philosophies’ can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds. […] It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don’t have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters.
(Amid pages of Marxist-Freudian hybrid sophistry, some examples of “progress in civilization” as Marcuse conceives it: the French, Chinese, and Cuban revolutions.)

More recently, the Guardian (2014) printed an open letter signed by distinguished academics including Marxist “critical theorist” Judith Butler, Marxist “critical theorist” Étienne Balibar, Marxist “critical legal theorist” Costas Douzinas, Marxist “critical theorist” Wendy Brown, Marxist “cultural critic” Slavoj Žižek, and Marxist terrorist Antonio Negri, to name a few. “Left-wing ‘extremism’” is good, the letter explains, because it is extremely “egalitarian,” and extremely “egalitarian” political theories (I’m sure you can think of one or two examples from the 20th century) are good:
Media accounts that misrepresent the importance of the growing electoral support for Syriza [the “radical left”] as the rise of leftwing “extremism” must be countered in the strongest of terms. There is no contemporary symmetry between the so-called “extremism” of left and right.
(The leaders of the Greek “radical right” are currently in prison.)

A truly cynical observer might even suggest that, to Sam’s “fellow liberals,” such high-minded concepts as tolerance and free speech were never anything more than words — words to be wielded as weapons against their political opponents, when other weapons were unavailable. Meet Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the ACLU (1934):
I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers’ rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. […]
When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies, at home and abroad.
(Consult Issue 31 for more on this fascinating subject.)

Anyway, Sam Harris responded to Breivik’s attack quite reasonably (2011):
One can only hope that the horror and outrage provoked by Breivik’s behavior will temper the growing enthusiasm for right-wing, racist nationalism in Europe. However, one now fears the swing of another pendulum: We are bound to hear a lot of deluded talk about the dangers of “Islamophobia” and about the need to address the threat of “terrorism” in purely generic terms.
The emergence of “Christian” terrorism in Europe does absolutely nothing to diminish or simplify the problem of Islam — its repression of women, its hostility toward free speech, and its all-too-facile and frequent resort to threats and violence.
Right on cue (2011):
Over at Truthdig, the celebrated journalist Chris Hedges has discovered that Christopher Hitchens and I are actually racists with a fondness for genocide. He has broken this story before — many times, in fact — but in his most recent essay he blames “secular fundamentalists” like me and Hitch for the recent terrorist atrocities in Norway.
Very nice.
Hedges begins, measured as always:
The gravest threat we face from terrorism, as the killings in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik underscore, comes not from the Islamic world but the radical Christian right and the secular fundamentalists who propagate the bigoted, hateful caricatures of observant Muslims and those defined as our internal enemies. The caricature and fear are spread as diligently by the Christian right as they are by atheists such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Our religious and secular fundamentalists all peddle the same racist filth and intolerance that infected Breivik. This filth has poisoned and degraded our civil discourse. The looming economic and environmental collapse will provide sparks and tinder to transform this coarse language of fundamentalist hatred into, I fear, the murderous rampages experienced by Norway. I worry more about the Anders Breiviks than the Mohammed Attas.
The editors at Truthdig have invited me to respond to this phantasmagoria. There is, however, almost no charge worth answering in Hedges’ writing — there never is. Which is more absurd, the idea of “secular fundamentalism” or the notion that its edicts pose a greater threat of terrorism than the doctrine of Islam? Do such assertions even require sentences to refute?
Dunno, Sam. I’m a stoopid raciss, like yoo (Issue 18).
In other news, “animal rights activist” Volkert van der Graaf (not a Muslim) was just released from a Dutch prison after serving a grand total of twelve years for the assassination of “anti-immigration” politician (and homosexual Catholic liberal sociology professor) Pim Fortuyn (2014). “More than a few members of Europe’s political establishment,” Steve Sailer noted at the time, “appear to believe that Pim Fortuyn… had it coming” (2002). And Harris — is still sparring with his fellow liberals (2014):
Increasingly, questioning Islam results in a person’s being vilified as an “Islamophobe” and a “bigot” — or, in a ridiculous but omnipresent misuse of the term, as a “racist.” These charges come from Muslims themselves and from their apologists on the Left. Even major news sites, such as The Guardian and Salon, frequently publish these attacks.
[…]
I also find it very depressing, and rather ominous, that liberal women are not celebrating you [Ayaan Hirsi Ali] as the best example in a generation of what could and should happen for nearly a billion of their sisters currently living under Islam. Your lack of feminist allies is alarming. And the fact that so many liberals ditch their commitment to gender equality and attack you in the name of “religious sensitivity,” despite all that you’ve been through — making your life both less pleasant and more dangerous in the process — is just infuriating.
[…]
So the truly mortifying answer to the question of why you are at the AEI is that no liberal institution would offer you shelter when you most needed it — and when your value to the global conversation about free speech, the rights of women, and other norms of civilization was crystal clear. And ever since, your affiliation with the one institution that did take you in has been used to defame you in liberal circles. Perfect.
[…]
It will probably seem tendentious to many readers for me to put it this way, but our critics are just dishonest.
And yet, Mr. Harris, your “ugly Islamophobia” remains a popular topic among your fellow liberals (2014). Meanwhile, Brandeis University rescinds its offer of an honorary degree to “Islamophobic” Ayaan Hirsi Ali (2014).
Years ago, when the academic left began to ostracize professors identified as “conservative,” university administrators stood aside or were complicit. The academic left adopted a notion espoused back then by a “New Left” German philosopher — who taught at Brandeis, not coincidentally — that many conservative ideas were immoral and deserved to be suppressed.
[…]
No one could possibly count the compromises of intellectual honesty made on American campuses to reach this point.
She’s none too popular at Yale, either (2014):
In an open letter sent to Buckley Program student leaders, members of 35 campus groups say they feel “highly disrespected” by the September 15 lecture “Clash of Civilizations: Islam and the West.” […] They accuse Hirsi Ali of “hate speech” and express outrage that she should “have such a platform in our home.” “We cannot overlook,” they write, “how marginalizing her presence will be to the Muslim community and how uncomfortable it will be for the community’s allies.”
[…]
These groups claim “to act on Yale’s fundamental values of freedom of speech and diversity of thought,” but they are, of course, interested in no such things. Freedom of speech and diversity of thought are agreeable insofar as the speech spoken and the thoughts pondered are agreeable to the Muslim Students Association/Women’s Center/Black Students Alliance/other acceptable grievance lobby. Verboten is speech that transgresses select political orthodoxies.
Well, best keep updating your ‘Response to Controversy,’ Mr. Harris.
Clink, clank, clink, clank…