Resist or be conquered

Peter Grant considers Mark Steyn’s words in the aftermath of Manchester:

Poland and Hungary and Slovakia do not have Islamic terrorism because they have very little Islam. France and Germany and Belgium admit more and more Islam, and thus more and more terrorism. Yet the subject of immigration has been all but entirely absent from the current UK election campaign. Thirty years ago, in the interests of stopping IRA terrorism, the British state was not above preventing the internal movement within its borders of unconvicted, uncharged, unarrested Republican sympathizers seeking to take a ferry from Belfast to Liverpool. Today it declares it can do nothing to prevent the movement of large numbers of the Muslim world from thousands of miles away to the heart of the United Kingdom. It’s just a fact of life – like being blown up when you go to a pop concert.


All of us have gotten things wrong since 9/11. But few of us have gotten things as disastrously wrong as May and Merkel and Hollande and an entire generation of European political leaders who insist that remorseless incremental Islamization is both unstoppable and manageable. It is neither – and, for the sake of the dead of last night’s carnage and for those of the next one, it is necessary to face that honestly. Theresa May’s statement in Downing Street is said by my old friends at The Spectator to be “defiant”, but what she is defying is not terrorism but reality.

There’s much more at the link.  Recommended reading.

I want to disagree with Mr. Steyn, but I can’t.  I disagree profoundly that Islam as a whole is the source of our terrorism problem;  but the fact that the terrorists are overwhelmingly fundamentalist Muslims undermines my argument, because it’s almost impossible to tell them apart from Muslims who are not terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.  If you can’t distinguish the dangerous from the harmless, you’re left with only one alternative to ensure your safety.  You have to regard all of them as dangerous until proven otherwise.

This is a tragedy of monumental proportions – and it’s one that until recently simply was not a factor.  I was discussing this with Lawdog last night.  He and I can recall many encounters with Muslims in Africa back in the 1970’s and 1980’s, he in the west of that continent, I in the south and east.  Almost universally, the Muslims we knew then were not radicalized, were perfectly happy to coexist in peace with their neighbors, and were not interested in terrorism as a tool to promote their beliefs.

If there was a single, seminal event that changed everything, it was the war against Soviet invasion in Afghanistan.  So-called ‘mujahideen’ flocked there from every corner of the world to resist the invaders – and the survivors took back home with them the newly radicalized Islam they had learned there.  Now, in the aftermath of Afghanistan, things are radically different in Africa, to the point where Lawdog and I can no longer recognize the socio-political-cultural landscape we once knew.  From Boko Haram in West Africa to Al-Shabaab in East Africa, from Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in North Africa to Qibla and PAGAD in South Africa, radicals attempted (with varying degrees of success) to subvert and take over more moderate Muslim organizations and activities.  Their efforts have been beaten back, but continue to this day.  The same is true all over the world.

I don’t see why so many people are having so much trouble grasping the fact that groups go through quiescent and expansionist stages. 200 years ago, the English were imperialist. 60 years ago the Germans were imperialist. Now the Islamic world is imperialist. It is meaningless to observe that a group was once what it now is not, or that it once was not what it now is. We have to deal with the situation that presents itself today, not 500 years ago or even five years ago.

Either the natives resist the imperialist invaders are they will be ruled by them. This isn’t rocket science. It is just history in action.


SJWs ruin everything

Even classic chick flicks like Dirty Dancing:

The remake departed from the original in several significant ways. Most of the Dirty Dancing’s original themes — a hypocritical upper crust, social and class tensions, and frigid family dynamics — were watered down with heartwarming family reconciliations, interracial friendships, and empowered girls being empowered together.

Of course, they kept abortion sub-plot. Frankly, I’m only surprised that they didn’t have Baby get pregnant by Johnny, then have her father perform the abortion after telling her how proud he is of her decision to not ruin her college prospects by having the baby and marrying Johnny.


Immigration is uglification

Miss “Helsinki” and the runners-up

Miss Russia

Immigration is also literal enstupidation as well as war, as per Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld. The great irony, of course, is that immigration is also, contra its dishonest defenders, a net negative for the economy.

Imperialism boosts an economy, both overall and per capita. Immigration causes it to grow overall in terms of GDP, but to decline on a per capita basis. Immigration is one of the two reasons that wages have fallen since 1973 and has contributed to the inability of  the GDP growth rate to return to the level of the 1950s and 1960s.


America endorses punching journos

Or at least reporters from the Guardian.

Republican Greg Gianforte has won the special election for Montana’s sole U.S. House seat a day after being charged with assaulting a reporter. Gianforte defeated Democrat Rob Quist on Thursday to replace Ryan Zinke, who is now President Donald Trump’s interior secretary.

Gianforte was elected despite being charged with misdemeanor assault on Wednesday after witnesses said he grabbed a reporter for the Guardian newspaper and slammed him to the ground. The multimillionaire technology entrepreneur is an enthusiastic Trump backer, and his victory was seen as an endorsement of Trump.

He must have won pretty handily. None of the AP results report the actual numbers. But all is not well in journo-punching land.

Newly elected Republican congressman Greg Gianforte apologized to the reporter he’s charged with assaulting.

After being declared the winner in the U.S. House race in Montana, Gianforte told supporters Thursday night that he should not have treated Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs the way he did.

Gianforte told the crowd: “I should not have responded the way I did and for that I am sorry.”

Uh oh…. Seriously, everyone to the right of the corpse of Che Guevara really, really, needs to read SJWAL.  It is unsurprising, though, how what was previously claimed to be “a barometer on Trump” is suddenly “NOT SO MUCH A TRUMP TEST” now that the Republican won.

Breitbart reported the numbers: Despite all those factors in Democrats’ favor, it seemed that Gianforte’s win was a comfortable one. When The Associated Press called the race, Gianforte was leading Quist by approximately seven points.


We, the Dread

Electric Pence has revealed the plot of Far Cry 5: Theodore Keal, leader of the Red Ilk Gang, has been terrorizing the inhabitants of Justopia for years…until Joan Kalzi resisted.


That is the header from my old WND column, by the way, colorized by an artist.


CUCK, he cucked, worriedly

Rick Wilson‏, one of the slimier NeverTrumpers, is waxing outraged over the “body-slamming” of a Guardian reporter.

  • This Gianforte assault story is one of those moments where the cultural collapse of the GOP into the Trump Troll Party is captured
  • First, if you’re defending someone assaulting a reporter because “duh lubrul media lies” allow me put the jackboot on the other foot.
  • How would you feel if the parents of Seth Rich took out a tire iron and beat the living shit out of Sean Hannity for his repulsive lies?
  • How would you feel if this rule got applied to Trumpbart “reporters” who are lying, tendentious, shitbirds of the highest order?
  • Is it cool for me to beat that freakish, pasty recluse John Nolte’s head in because he literally *joked about my daughter being raped* ?
  • Are you so past the rule of law, and lack so much confidence in your ideas that this is where you take political satisfaction?
  • Because if this is where you are, you’re not a party; you’re a mob. If this is where you are, you’re not a conservative; you’re trash.
  • the vast majority of people beating their chests and macho ball-walking on this issue have never been in a fight, never landed a punch
  • But I guarantee you some of them, including the clickseratives, will defend this even obliquely
  • the problem with political violence is twofold; first, it accelerates. 2nd, the set of acceptable targets widens.
  • If you’re a Republican or conservative defending this, please stop identifying yourself as either

It’s amusing that we’re supposed to care. Our motto is PUNCH BACK HARDER. The Alt-Right did not start this. But the Alt-Right will finish it. The gloves came off once and for all when the Left, and the mainstream media, decided it was perfectly acceptable to “punch a Nazi”. Well, all Gianforte was doing was punching Nazis. He just defines the term “Nazi” a little differently, although no more flexibly, than the media does.

You can always tell with whom the cuckservatives truly identify. They never miss a chance to signal their virtue to the Left, and demonstrate that they are not like us. Well, that’s absolutely fine. We know their worth; they’ll do us more good on the other side anyhow.

We’re not conservatives. We’re not Republicans. We are the Alt-Right and both the Left and the cucks are terrified of us, because unlike the cucks and cons, we are trash that not only punches back, but punches back harder.

My only opinion on the Gianforte story is that I hope he has the sense to refuse to apologize, refuse to withdraw, and runs his campaign on an openly anti-media theme.


The futility of virtue-signaling

Be as tolerant and inclusive as you like. It’s not going to protect you in the slightest.

Some would call his death tragic. I wouldn’t. I consider it to be unintended suicide by virtue-signaling. There is no reason to have any more sympathy for people like him than one does for the idiot who get hammered and proceeds to wrap his car around a tree.


The power of /pol

Antifa’s Bike Lock Warrior is now in police custody:

A former Diablo Valley College professor was in custody Wednesday evening after his arrest Wednesday afternoon in Oakland, according to county records.

Eric Clanton, 28, was being held on $200,000 bail after he was booked into Berkeley City Jail Wednesday evening. He was arrested on suspicion of use of a firearm during a felony with an enhancement clause and assault with a non-firearm deadly weapon.

Clanton faces a 9 a.m. Friday arraignment hearing at Oakland’s Wiley W. Manuel courthouse.

A former Diablo Valley College staff directory Web page said Clanton, who earned a bachelor’s degree at California State University, Bakersfield, and a master’s degree at San Francisco State in philosophy, worked at the school since 2015, teaching an “introduction to philosophy with a background in teaching ethics, critical thinking, and comparative philosophy East/West” with “primary research interests” of ethics and politics.

Employee records for 2015 and 2016 listed Clanton as a lecturer with the California State University system and a philosophy instructor with the Contra Costa Community College District, according to Transparent California.

Berkeley police were not immediately available to confirm any connection between Clanton’s arrest and social-media-fueled accusations within the last month about attacks during at least one of a series of protests earlier this year.

Autism, weaponized, for the win. Well done, gentlemen.


Why Wikipedia can’t change

I received some questions from a tech site about Infogalactic. Here are a few of the interesting ones, since neither I nor most of you tend to read this particular site.

Do you think Wikipedia has a liberal bias? Why is that?

I know that Wikipedia has a very heavy left-wing bias. The 538 active admins are almost exclusively hard left, and they do not hesitate to impose their perspective on the editors. For example, there are three who camp on the page about me; just do an edit sometime and see how fast they act to revert it. The way they treat pages devoted to approved individuals is observably very, very different than the way they treat pages about those of whom they disapprove. There is no need to take my word for it, just look at the various Criticism sections. The page about the approved individual invariably reads as if it was written by his defense attorney and inevitably violates the reliable sources rule. The Sam Harris page is an excellent example.


Harris states that he advocates a benign, noncoercive, corrective form of intolerance, distinguishing it from historic religious persecution. He promotes a conversational intolerance, in which personal convictions are scaled against evidence, and where intellectual honesty is demanded equally in religious views and non-religious views. He also believes there is a need to counter inhibitions that prevent the open critique of religious ideas, beliefs, and practices under the auspices of “tolerance”. He has stated on his blog that he has received death threats for some of his views on religion.


On the Sam Harris Talk page, an editor notes: I don’t see how anyone can justify purging the article of almost all criticism of Sam Harris, since that would seem to be a rather obvious NPOV violation.


Is it possible for Wikipedia to become more nonpartisan? What would it have to do?

It is theoretically possible for Wikipedia to return to its nonpartisan mission, but it is very unlikely because the inmates are now fully in control of the asylum. The admins vet very carefully for ideological correctness; no matter how long or how well an editor has contributed, he will not be permitted to become an admin if he does not fit the approved ideological profile. It would probably be necessary to completely replace all of the current admins and most of the Wikimedia Foundation board with individuals committed to objectivity and neutrality. Needless to say, that is not going to happen.


How do you create an encyclopedia or reference source that people across the political aisle agree on? Is that possible? Should we want such a source? 

Your question indicates a failure to grasp how Infogalactic is designed to operate. Wikipedia is organized in a vertical, centralized, absolutist manner where there is One True Page over which the various editors war, and which the admins ultimately exert control. Infogalactic is designed to be organized in a horizontal, decentralized, relativist manner so that the user, through his perspective filters, will dictate which of the hundreds of versions of the page he wishes to see. This is not only possible, but you will see it in operation within nine months. And yes, we should want such a source, because there is no reason that anyone, from any point on the ideological spectrum, should be permitted to define what is, and what is not true, for everyone else.

Speaking of Infogalactic, you may wish to note that there are now two blue icons that appear on Infogalactic News and Infogalactic Tech. The logo indicates a link to the Infogalactic page about the subject. The letter A indicates a link to an archive version of the page, which can be used in lieu of the link to the media site, in case the media site changes the story or blocks your browser.

Support Infogalactic here.