Love or hate Donald Trump, one of the reasons he managed to win the election was that he spoke a truth we’ve all known for quite some time now, but which few others were willing to say openly: the press is the enemy of the American people. It’s a sad state of affairs, and indicative of the descent into technocratic government.
Some time ago, one of my readers linked a post of mine on Free Republic. He suggested my blog was worth following, for which I can only express my gratitude. But another individual immediately lambasted the original poster with “oh, you follow blogs? I feel sorry for you.” It was the sort of self-absorbed, arrogant snark you usually see in places like the Democratic Underground. When it was pointed out to him that the press is blatantly corrupt, and cannot be trusted, he fired back with an insinuation that at least the press is better than amateur bloggers.
To be fair, I am not a trained journalist, nor am I even a trained author. My readers have probably noticed errors here and there, and in all likelihood I will continue to make those boneheaded mistakes from time-to-time (I count on my readers to let me know when this happens, of course). But regardless of my own errors, at least it can be said that I am not an enemy of America, her culture, and her way of life.
The intrepid anti-blog freeper missed that point. No matter how much training the technocrats in government and media receive, we cannot trust them. They are no longer reporters of facts, they are agents of propaganda as dishonest and skewed as the editors of Pravda.
Blogging is relatively popular in the right-wing world, not necessarily because we are the best, or the most highly trained professionals, but because most of the highly trained professionals have stopped doing journalism at all. They are pure propagandists, at this point. The market had a demand for news that was either unslanted, or slanted the other direction in a sort of compensation for the blatant left-wing agitprop spewed 24/7 from the major news outlets (Fox possibly excepted).
In other words, the proliferation of bloggers like myself is due almost entirely to the media not performing its own stated function. Some time ago, Tom Nichols and I got into it over whether or not the public ought to be informed about unclassified material. Tom took the position that it was better to keep as much as possible out of the public eye, because the public is too stupid, and decisions are best left to the experts.
Tom isn’t even a Leftist, but he is a technocrat. And his default position is trust the experts. He used the example of airline pilots. Certainly we trust them, right? The comparison was all wrong. Airline pilots are observably good at their jobs. We can see their record, and determine that for the most part, they do a wonderful job. The media, on the other hand, is observably bad, and in many cases intentionally so. We can see it in our own lives, when they misreport everything with a political spin. But some people still believe it is better to trust them because they are the experts? It doesn’t make any sense.
Francis, at Liberty’s Torch, explains that you shouldn’t accord this respect to one who is observably your enemy:
Your enemy is, by definition, someone who wishes you ill. He intends your subjugation or destruction. If you’re sane and possess appropriate self-regard, your objective is to prevent him from attaining his objective. By implication, his opinion of you should be utterly unimportant to you.
Politicians and commentators in the Right have utterly missed that implication.
Contrast the behavior and statements of figures on the Left and the Right these past few decades. I posit that the Left has made its intentions plain at every step. Leftist politicians and spokesmen have never feared to wound persons on the Right, whether by word or by deed. Yet the Right has behaved, spoken, and written as if the most important of all its desiderata is not to offend the Left or its allegiants.
Francis doesn’t explicitly connect this behavior to the media in his post, but given their obvious left-wing bias, the implication is there. The media doesn’t like you. They wish you ill. If they could dispose of right-wing America with a wave of their hand, they would do it without hesitation. Their contempt for you is open and obvious.
Take a look at this piece of drivel from the chief foreign correspondent at ABC News.
He’s taking a petty and completely idiotic jab at Trump for the way he has chosen to decorate his office. Presumably Trump is busy, you know, doing the job for which he was elected. These sort of nitpicking jabs are one of the media’s chief weapons, finding some small thing which they can use to deliver a passive-aggressive barb at their chosen target.
In case you think I’m cherry picking (I’m not, I see these things almost every time I go to a mainstream media site), here’s a great series of headlines:
Here’s another great example:
On the off chance that you thought this didn’t apply to sports and hobbyist reporting. Gamergate should have disabused you of this notion with how video gamer journalists treated their own demographic, but still…
And another one:
Gee. I wonder why he doesn’t like you?
And the amusing contradictions are legion:
Sure, two different authors. But this *is* pretty funny nonetheless.
See, Donald Trump is right about one thing. The media is the enemy. I’m not quite sure how this happened, except to reference back to my previous post on Ideological Subversion. It is clear most of them have been subverted in the manner Yuri Bezmenov explained.
And so, they are now opposed to the idea of America, to its culture, its way of life, and, indeed, Western civilization entirely. You can count on them to be strongly dismissive of Christianity, and embracing of Islam, because Christianity is a feature of the West, and Islam is generally opposed to it. They will harp on white people for the most minor of quibbles, and excuse the actions of individuals of other races (provided, of course, the members of those races don’t become “contaminated” with right-wing ideas), because the West was European in origin. They celebrate other cultures, while denying us the right to do likewise (they call this cultural appropriation), or to even embrace our own.
Liking your own culture is bigotry, white supremacism, cisnormative heteropatriarchy, or a host of other ills and buzzwords. The specific allegations don’t matter. The fact that they are peddled by the ‘experts’ in the media does matter.
Basket of Deplorables… and now schmucks. These people don’t like you.
I’ve had my issues with Donald Trump, and no doubt I will continue to have them. But on this matter, he is 100% correct, and conservatives ought to take note. The media is your enemy. They don’t merely disagree with you, they hate you. You are a basket of deplorables. You are bigots. You are the whitelash (even if, paradoxically, you are not white). You are stupid hicks, fundie Christian loons, or whatever else they might come up with.
They see you as the enemy. You ought to see them as the same. And, having done so, the advice of Francis Porretto is important to digest and understand fully.
No, I am no expert. But the experts are liars, and once a man has demonstrated his dishonesty, there is no reason to trust him on anything. This is something Tom Nichols and other technocrats, like the guy on Free Republic, criticizing the whole notion of blogs, don’t really understand.
And so, like it or not, us bloggers must do what we can. We won’t always get it right, but it can at least be said most of us don’t deliberately try to mislead you. We don’t lie to you, or hate you, or regard you as our enemy. And when we get it wrong, we’ll fess up to the mistake and try to learn from it.
And that’s better than the alternative, is it not?
I have another post brewing later today… but for now, read this epic Twitter rant from Ace of Spades:
The thing that is most worrisome and poignant here is a reply someone posted with an archived screenshot from 2014. Observe:
This reads exactly like Orwell’s Animal Farm. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. This man considered the media to be more important, and more protected by the Constitution than actual citizens. I presume he refers to the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note that the there is nothing here which grants freedom of the press a higher status than freedom of speech. Indeed, freedom of speech comes first, and the press is accounted as a mere expansion on this general concept. There is no text that says “freedom of the press supersedes freedom of speech.” The two are one and the same. Quid pro quo. If the media has the right to do a thing then I, as a private citizen, also have that right, and in at least equal measure.
But the media and the elitists running things really believe they are more equal than you, that their rights take precedence, even supposing they deign to grant us any rights whatsoever.
Wake up, people. We’re coming up on the fucking end. I don’t know that electing Donald Trump will prevent Civil War. It may be too late to stop that. But I know, with as much certainty as any human being can claim, that Hillary Clinton means war.
I will reiterate and repeat: Hillary Clinton means WAR.
A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Civil War. No exaggeration, no rhetoric, no bullshit. Just truth. Because as Ace of Spades told us in one of those tweets:
“People are sick of being bullied.” — a simple but very astute observation on why people are in near-open rebellion
Consider what happens when Hillary bullies them more for eight years. Near-open rebellion will lose any vestige of peacefulness, because the vote will have been deemed worthless to effecting change. Look at Brexit, denied by the high courts in Britain, despite a very clear referendum. Tom Kratman has told us in the comments in his column at EveryJoe, that the vote is a stand-in for violence. It is an agreement to solve our differences peacefully, and compromise together.
When we are not allowed to use the vote, when the results are thrown out whenever the elite takes issue with them, when blatant corruption and media manipulation as shown in the Wikileaks emails are employed to destroy our voting power… all you leave us with is violence.
And mark my fucking words. Violence will come.
As we come up on Independence day, I have a few pearls of wisdom, errata, and other tidbits.
First, the esteemed Col. Kratman has written a number of articles on the character and nature of those who serve. They are worth reading.
Great Enlisted Men – Ferocity
Great Enlisted Men – Determination
My readers are probably aware that I have not served, though my esteemed colleague here at The Declination, KodeTen, has. For me, not serving has been a bitter regret. My father and brother served, as did both grandfathers. Military service has long been a sort of family tradition. On my wall, there is a picture of my grandfather, my father, and my brother, each in uniform on graduation day. And it remains a regret that I have none for myself to join them.
Samuel Johnson said it best: “Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea.”
Fortunately, Tom Kratman pointed out that the reservist age has been increased of late, and so it may be possible for me to do that, at the very least. Still, I will extol my younger readers to consider very carefully if they wish to serve. If there is ever a nagging doubt that the day may come when they want to, best to do so while still young.
Of course, if Hillary is elected, I’m not sure that would be wise… but that’s a very different kettle of fish.
On another matter, note that the political elites have decided, of late, that democracy isn’t such a good thing. As their plans to replace their constituency with third-worlders begin to fail, and the will of the citizenry reasserts itself, they become less enamored with democracy. This correction issued from the Washington Post is instructive:
Like that spin?
Of late, there is a tendency to portray the populace as stupid, and not entirely without justification, mind you. But the plan of the politicians has been to import idiots from other countries, thus to increase the pool of idiot voters. They do not want the best and brightest from Mexico (or Syrian refugees in the case of Britain), for example. They prefer a selection of random people from a country with a much lower average IQ, because they can be easily tricked into voting for bigger government.
However, as resistance increases and it becomes clear that the existing citizenry doesn’t want to go along with this plan, suddenly the elites are saying things like they say of Brexit now: ‘well, the will of the people is stupid, so it shouldn’t count.’ The Washington Post accidentally revealed this, but quickly corrected themselves.
Still, the spin should be obvious for anyone to see.
Lastly, the ISIS attack in Istanbul is interesting. Until now, Turkey has been tacitly supporting ISIS (even The Guardian suggests this), or at least running some level of political interference for them. So what changed? Or is there something else going on here?
This is damned odd… with the European Union coming apart at the seams, while Turkey simultaneously bids for admittance into it, there seems to be some kind of political funny business going on behind the scenes.
If any of my readers have insight into this, I’m all ears.
A year ago or so, I wrote this post, a short history of why the Crusades happened, what the historical context was. In light of escalating Islamic violence, it bears repeating:
Vox.com is nearly as terrible a propaganda machine as Gawker, or the whole city government of Chicago. It is a machine, spewing lies for the benefit of its paymasters, filled with inane Social Justice Advocates. And they want you to know that Christians and Crusaders are as much a threat as militant Islamics.
Now, before I tear this pithy, oft-repeated argument a metaphorical orifice for the excretion of bodily waste, I will explain why this particular lie enrages me so. The Crusades touches upon a subject that has, in many ways, been my life’s work. The histories of the Byzantine Empire, the succeeding Ottoman Empire and the regional conflicts of Islam and Christianity have immense personal interest to me. In the interests of full disclosure, I will tell you that I am part Armenian by ancestry. Don’t let that influence you overmuch.
I can’t begin to impart what I have learned on this subject in one post. Forgive this brief summary, but also allow me to recommend some reading material if you want to dig deeper yourself: John Julius Norwich’s three volume series on Byzantium and Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy by Emmet Scott. I have dozens more I can give you if you want to read more than that. If it exists in English and it is a scholarly treatment on the subject, the odds are good I’ve read it.
Now, shall we see the best of Vox.com’s excuse for journalism?
Obama’s point was actually pretty simple. Let’s not pretend that Islam itself is to blame for ISIS or that Muslims are inherently more violent, he suggested, because the problem of religious violence is not exclusive to any one religion. In other words, don’t oversimplify the problem of ISIS to “Muslims are different from the rest of us.”
For an opening salvo in the ongoing Culture Wars, this is pathetic, worthy more of mocking than serious intellectual treatment. You see, Islam is different in this regard. Pew Research is widely regarded as Gospel by the Left. Let’s use their own data against them.
This study is oft-cited by them, because it shows that a majority of Muslims do not support the actions of terrorist groups and suicide bombers. Yet, look at the graphs. Double-digit percentages DO support these actions. In Palestine, support for suicide bombings is 46% (over 60% in Gaza). Even in moderate Turkey, it is 18%. Does anyone on God’s Green Earth think that 18% of Christians in America would support suicide bombings on Muslims? If so, that person is an unrecoverable addict to ignorance. And this is their data, not mine.
Many critics have described Obama’s assertion that Christians are equivalent to Muslims as insulting to Christians. Whether this is because they believe that Christians are inherently superior or that Muslims are inherently inferior is irrelevant. It is not so different from, say, 1960s white supremacists who called Martin Luther King an anti-white racist for asserting that white and black people are fundamentally the same.
Yes, it is different. Because we have data, right there, combined with common-sense understanding that terrorism is more likely to come from a specific source. A Muslim source. Think about it for a moment and chalk up all the terrorism to come from Christian extremist groups. Let’s be fair and include the Irish, quite possibly the only modern instance of organized Christian terrorism in recent memory. Islamic terrorism dwarfs it by orders of magnitude. Not only is identifying this not racist (as Vox.com implies here), but NOT identifying it is proof of a level of ignorance that should not be possible among anyone seriously claiming the title of journalist.
Amazingly, some have tried to dismiss Obama’s comparison altogether by arguing that, even during the Crusades, in fact Christians were the victims and Islam the aggressor.
And here comes the history lesson. It is true that Christians were not the aggressor. Your Social Studies teacher (why don’t they call that class history, I wonder?) lied to you. Your textbooks lied to you. Pop culture lied to you. President Obama is lying to you, right now. To understand the depths of lie, we must go back in history to a time before Mohammed, before Islam even existed, because this lie is so deep, so systemic, its tentacles reach into our entire understanding of European History. It hinges around a nation referred to repeatedly as the Byzantine Empire. Even now, some sense of the thing can be had in the phrase “byzantine politics”. That Empire is a black hole in history textbooks, and Leftists want to keep it that way, because any support for Islam in the West is likely to evaporate like a fart in a hurricane otherwise.
After the first Germanic invasion of the Roman Empire, in the Third Century, it became increasingly apparent that the Empire was too large to be ruled by Rome alone. The old classical civilization we know as “Roman” began to fall apart. Economic damage was great. Plagues and frontier wars increased. Sassanid Persia was a constant threat in the East. New religions (Christianity among them) sprung up all over the Empire. Much of the apocalyptic tone of early Christian writings serves as a dim cultural memory for what life in this time was like.
Christianity, in the person of Constantine, eventually reached the highest levels of State, and the Empire rapidly Christianized. The message of a better life in the next world reached receptive masses of people who knew their civilization was on the decline. Paganism hardly even put up a fight, and was extinguished in the Empire in a few generations. Rome’s syncretic meta-culture merged with Christianity to become what we now call “Western civilization.” Even as the second wave of German invaders entered the Empire, conquering vast territories, they were in turn converted by it.
There is an old quote that may or may not be apocryphal. But it captures the essence of how even the Germans felt about the situation: “An able Goth wants to be like a Roman; only a poor Roman would want to be like a Goth.” The height of the Germanic second wave captured approximately half the old Roman Empire.
500 AD. The classical configuration of the German successor kingdoms. The largest, most powerful realms were the East Roman Empire, the Ostrogothic Kingdom, the Vandal Kingdom, the Visigothic Kingdom and the Frankish Kingdom.
They were all Christian, by this point. Many had been for over a century. To see how pervasive the Roman influence was, look at a common Spanish surname: Rodriguez. This is a Latin pronunciation of a German name, Roderic (the Latinized variant would be Rodericus). The Germans were speaking Latin, by and large, within the old Empire. They embraced the culture, the language and the religion. Who knows what modern Europe might look like today if this had been allowed to continue? Even then, the Romans were not done.
Scratch two German Kingdoms, and part of a third.
What we call “Western” civilization was actually once Mediterranean civilization. The inner sea had produced a sort of united meta-culture over top the local polities, and the Romans brought them together into one Empire (often through violence, but also often enough through peaceful means). Christianity provided them with one religion. Greek and Latin with two languages. You see, Europe in those days really was a sort of union, not like the pathetic excuse for a modern European “Union”. Even the distant Franks considered themselves to be a part of it.
Islam brought an end to all of this. I cannot overstate the damage Islam did to Western civilization. In the 600s, even the semi-barbaric Lombards, who had established themselves in northern Italy, used gold coinage. The Carolingians, arguably the most powerful successor to the West Roman Empire, could only manage silver coinage, and even then not a whole lot of it. The inner sea became rife with Muslim pirates. Muslim invasions destroyed ancient monuments and wrecked ancient cities. Even after the devastating destruction Rome visited upon Carthage, that city had been rebuilt and repopulated within a few decades. It was even the capital of the Roman province and the Vandal Kingdom.
Carthage was completely destroyed by the Arabs, never to return. Islam flooded the Empire, licking its wounds from a freshly terrible war with Persia. In a century, two-thirds of the Roman Empire was in the hands of Islam. The connection between the Eastern and Western Roman worlds was severed. But, somehow, both survived. Charles Martel defeated the Muslims in France, and the Romans defeated them in two of history’s most brutal sieges at Constantinople.
But the economy was devastated. Literacy rates dropped through the floor, because subsistence farming became the norm. Trade was reduced by an order of magnitude, and it would be almost 600 years before the Italians brought it back. There was no time available for scholarly studies. Only the church could afford such extravagance, and even then only in moderation. Vox.com and the Social Justice crowd would have you believe Christianity is some backward, anti-science cult. The fact remains that the church was the only scholarly light in that age. Modern science would not exist without Christianity. This is how much damage Islam did.
Do you see what he’s working on? Yes. That’s a book. And Monks were pretty much the only ones who had them. Even Emperor Charlemagne was *barely* literate. Things were so bad, even Kings didn’t have time for books.
In modern politics, it is fashionable to think of an Islamic “Golden Age” of learning and prosperity. In reality, this was the final flowering of the conquered cultures. Most great Islamic philosophers and architects were converts to Islam. And Islam was serious about those conversions. Oh, “People of the Book” were periodically tolerated to some degree, but immense economic and social pressure was placed on them to convert. And convert they did. The Persians were also conquered by Islam. They practiced Zoroastrianism. Today, the only Zoroastrians you’ll find are in India, where some of them fled to escape Islam. The religion was equally effective in scouring the Middle East and North Africa of Christians and Jews. By 900 AD, the Islamic “Golden Age” had become a nightmare. The Arabs couldn’t run a whorehouse in port full of drunken sailors, much less a functioning multi-ethnic Empire.
Christianity seems to have done the same, some would say, except that when Christianity took over the Roman World, it did so largely peaceably. Christian nations functioned, and did so even after the population converted. Not so with Islam.
For nearly one thousand years, the rump state of the Roman Empire, which modern history contemptuously dismisses as the Byzantine Empire fought a life-or-death battle with Islam. And, in 1453 it lost. Istanbul, not Constantinople, as the song famously tells us. Anatolia, once one of the greatest bastions of Christianity would henceforth be Islamic. Can you imagine that titanic struggle? It is almost inconceivable to the modern historian, who has no contemporary basis for comparison.
Siege of Constantinople, 1453. You think the Alamo was a good last stand? This was history’s greatest siege, bar none. 7000 Christian militiamen and sailors against 100,000 Turkish soldiers for almost two months. Yet you will never see a movie about it — it would offend Muslims (even though Muslims WON).
Emperor Alexius asked Pope Urban II for help against the invaders. Even he could not have foreseen the response he got (he just wanted to borrow some knights). For a moment all of Europe and even the Byzantines themselves (Eastern Christians and Western Christians were not always very friendly) united against Islam. And Islam lost. Badly. Everywhere, Islam was on the defensive. They lost ground in Spain, the middle East, Anatolia and even Tunisia (where the Normans established an African kingdom in the 1100s). For a short time, it looked like Islam would be kicked out of the old territories of the Roman world, that 500 years of Islamic conquest would be reversed.
Alas, it was not to be. The Christians squabbled among themselves. The Fourth Crusade betrayed the Byzantines and gutted their strength. King Guy proved himself the worst ruler the Kingdom of Jerusalem would ever see, marching out to fight Saladin without even having a secured water supply, in the desert. Only in Spain would the reconquest become permanent, even then that war lasted 800 years. Elsewhere, it was all undone. Not only were the Crusades a defensive measure, a reaction to 500 years of Muslim conquest, they were an ultimately ineffective measure. Christians were their own worst enemies. Shortly after the Crusades were done, the Byzantine Empire would fall, and with it the last great defensive bulwark in the East. The Balkans would henceforth be the plaything of the Ottoman Sultans. The resulting cultural and religious mess (wherever Islam goes, chaos follows) would be directly responsible for World War I, and as a result, indirectly for the World War II. Bosnia still seethes with the aftermath of centuries of Islamic rule.
For some reason, most of this history is censored from public schools and universities. Disdain for the Byzantine Empire is evident going back even to Gibbon’s time. But it metastasized with the advent of Leftism. Analyzed by itself, the Crusades look pretty bad for Christians, but that’s only because modern Social Justice Warriors have expanded on this and censored the entire Muslim Jihad. A millennium of violence was excised from the high school textbooks. Go pick one of those Social Studies books up. See if you can find even a hint of any of this. This is deliberate on the part of Leftist intellectuals. They know this and desire for the West to be destroyed. With the end of the Soviet Union, their best hope for the destruction of the West is Islam. They will suppress the truth at every opportunity in pursuit of their totalitarian, apocalyptic goals.
Islam is a plague, worse than the locusts of Egypt. It destroys entire civilizations, erases history and replaces it all with a religion that hasn’t advanced in 1400 years, a religion whose people have double-digit support for outright terrorism and suicide bombing. Even in Nazi Germany, it’s hard to imagine support levels like that.
To be crystal clear: this is not a fight over the fine-grain imperfections of Obama’s historical analogy or over the implications for US foreign policy. It is a fight over whether it’s okay to hate Muslims, to apply sweeping and negative stereotypes to the one-fifth of humanity that follows a particular religion. A number of Americans, it seems, are clinging desperately to their anti-Muslim bigotry and are furious at Obama for trying to take that away from them.
Vox.com conflates hatred of a belief system (Islam) for hatred of a people. Does that mean all Muslims are evil? No. Not even a majority are evil. No totalitarian regime in the history of Earth, not even the Nazis, not even the worst Muslim regimes, have ever managed to excise all the good from people. It is not possible to do. But Islam tries anyway. And that’s the whole point. Christians have done great wrongs, same as any other people. But Islam encourages the wrongs. Islam desires the wrongs. It will not stop until the world is Muslim, until every other culture and belief system has been systematically eradicated, as it has already achieved in its own territories (see: ISIS). And then it will work on those people it deems as insufficiently Muslim. Many of the worst victims of Islamic violence are other Muslims. Go ahead and preach female equality in the Sudan. I dare you.
It must be stopped. The Crusaders tried and failed. Too much petty bickering. Too many bad men seeking only power got involved. But the idea remains.
So let me say what ought to be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell: WE NEED ANOTHER CRUSADE. Not some namby-pamby nation building exercise. I mean rapid, violent, and complete destruction whenever *any* Muslim nation dares attack the West. Take ten of them for every one of us. Blow up one of our schools? We blow up ten mosques. They blow up our office buildings? We blow up whole cities. Escalate until even the most pig-headed (pun) Islamic says enough and cries uncle. Imams should fear us. Muslim fathers should hush their children at the first mention of Allahu Ackbar in a public space. Then, perhaps, the moderate Muslims everyone talks about will overthrow their extremist brethren, for fear that we will kill them if they don’t.
Let’s work on reducing that double-digit approval rating for terrorism, shall we?
That was it for the original post.
But there is more to tell. A year ago, I saw very little mention of the Crusades, except the usual Leftist claptrap about how they prove that Christianity was just as bad (but they really mean worse) as Islam. It provided them with an excuse to dismiss Muslim violence: it’s all just payback for a few wars a thousand years ago.
Their point, of course, is that we deserve it, though they rarely say so openly. They’ll weasel out of the position if accused. But we know their hearts on this matter. If they could snap their fingers and make Christianity disappear, they would do so without hesitation.
But today, I see Christians waking up to the threat. I see dawning realization in people that Islam is not the religion of peace. It is the religion of submission, of conquest. And, lastly, I have seen those two famous words echoing within communities of Christians…
In light of how the American government has been caught tacitly supporting ISIS, the new Crusade I call for must begin here. The Reconquista begins at home, as it did for the Spanish centuries ago. And only then can we utter the words that, someday, must be repeated if we are to survive:
Islam has been the darling child of the Left since I was a child. I would see adults on television clamoring to excuse Islam for this or that atrocity. There were good Muslims, we were told, and somehow Christians had wronged them all throughout history. It was always Christians doing the wrong, you see. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is conveniently forgotten by the Left. The centuries of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is more or less whitewashed and, somehow, probably the fault of Christians anyway.
Can you imagine how confusing this might be to a child? My Armenian grandfather would tell me one thing, and the television would spout off something entirely different. I knew my Grandfather, he was a good, honest, and righteous man. He was also nobody’s fool. Despite the protestations of the media, the actions of the Muslim world lined up squarely with the worldview of my Grandfather.
In simple terms, reality was with my Grandfather, and the mutterings of the media were either a form of willful blindness and ignorance, or an outright lie. Even at the age of ten, I was able to see this and decide which was more likely to be the truth. If a ten year old could do it, why not fully grown, educated adults? The old saying “actions speak louder than words” applies.
If actions speak louder than words, what do you think radical Muslims are telling us here?
Of course, it goes further. Socialism has been tried in many forms, from the Authoritarian, International model of the Soviets, to the Nationalistic, Xenophobic form of the Nazis. In each case, it has failed, and the death toll from this philosophy has reached the millions. Yet, again and again, we are told that Socialism is morally superior, that more equality is needed, and that it must come from the State, from taxation and redistribution.
More modern interpretations of it are softer, for we must at least give the Socialists credit for trying something slightly different with the Nordic idea. But, that too, appears to suffer a critical weakness: demography. The Nordic peoples are slowly giving way to their Islamic immigrants. It appears that the velvet glove variant of Socialism requires an ever-greater number of immigrants to sustain it, and at the same time, has had the effect of numbing the native population and dropping birth rates precipitously.
Children are difficult and expensive in any era, but it used to be that your hope for retirement and care of the family lay with your children. Before the days of Social Security, for instance, your son was probably your retirement plan. When you got too old to work, you would stay with him and, perhaps, help to look after the grand kids. Socialism destroyed one of the primary motivations to have a family. And also, the subsidy of birth control in many of these countries has contributed to this problem as well. Add to this the new strain of militant feminism and its hostility toward men, and you begin to see how Socialism can destroy the family and, in turn, destroy the nation’s ability to propagate itself.
In any event, children are seen as a major burden in the West, but not among the Islamic immigrants. Crime rates in Muslim-settled areas have gone up significantly as they import more people from violent parts of the world. As the native birthrates drop, the Muslim immigrant birthrates are far higher. Yet the Left doesn’t even seem concerned about this. This is repeated across Europe, as opposing mass immigration has become linked to racism, Nazism, etc… Debate on this subject gets shut down quickly and effectively by screaming rhetoric as loudly and obnoxiously as possible.
Mark Steyn makes the argument far more effectively than I can.
At this rate, in a century there will still be a place called Sweden, or even a country called Britain. But they will be Muslim countries, by and large, and the civilization which we know as the West will be gone. The alternative possibility, of course, is that native Westerners wake up to this phenomenon and turn violent and genocidal themselves. After all, Europe has some seriously dark history in this regard.
The Left assures us that this isn’t true. But, again, their actions speak louder than words. They import as many people as possible from the Third World, and especially from Muslim countries. At the same time, they push a narrative of White guilt to prevent any outcry. In effect, the Left desires to replace its native populations (whatever they are) with Muslims. Islam, of course, is a religion utterly incompatible with the Leftist notions of LBGT rights, freedom from religion, sexual liberation, feminism, etc…
They are, in effect, destroying themselves, but ensuring that we on the Right will be defeated first. Like the suicide bombers in the Muslim world, they are annihilating themselves in the effort to take their ancient enemy with them.
Again, I’m ignoring what the Left says they are doing, and instead noting the actions. Donald Trump’s surge in popularity is partly explained by a backlash against this. And what is he really saying he wants to do? Build a wall and deport illegals. That’s it. And yet this is viewed as controversy, as racism, as outright Nazism, by some. Those who ask for peaceful solutions to this problem, like myself, may very well be replaced with people who demand violent solutions. Yet this possibility, too, is ignored by the Left. If they cared at all for the Mexicans and the Muslims, they would consider their actions very carefully. This tells you that the Left doesn’t want America to control immigration. It wants the maximum amount of Third World immigration humanly possible at absolutely any cost, including war and genocide.
It wants to replace you, the existing Americans, with new and different Third World Americans. Mexico is closer, and so they concentrate on them, but don’t mistake the desire to import as many Muslims as they can, as well. Obama’s administration is telling us that 10,000 new Muslim immigrants is not enough. We need more.
Consider this in incredibly simple terms: Muslims come to America and blow up a bunch of buildings, killing thousands of people, and the Left’s reaction is to import as many of them as they possibly can. Ignore what they say, watch what they DO. They WANT more terrorist attacks, people.
This isn’t conspiracy theory, it’s truth. Consider the motivations of prominent SJW, Arthur Chu.
His fantasy is to wipe out his own gender.
Note the confessions of a self-declared white woman who wishes to destroy her own race. Now look at this, people. They want to destroy an entire race. I don’t want to destroy any races (least of all my own). I don’t want to annihilate either gender. And for believing this, they call us the Nazis.
Some Leftists overtly cry out for genocide but we are the bad guys. Yes, I know these are their extremists, the worst of the worst on the Left. At the same time, for every one of these people who admits their genocidal inclinations, there are many more who lie about them and say “but all we want is equality.” Right. I’m the f*cking Easter Bunny, too.
The #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, the Baltimore and Ferguson riots, the uptick in police officer assassinations are all symptoms of a nation in deep ethnic turmoil. President Obama has done nothing but pour fuel on this fire, attempting to spark violent revolution. Attempts to unify people with hashtags like #AllLivesMatter are spurned, because to the Left, if you’re a Right winger, your life categorically does not matter.
Again, ignore what Obama says, and watch what he does. I.e., nothing. Ferguson and Baltimore burn, and all he can manage is to spout off some platitudes about his theoretical, non-existent son looking like Mike Brown. Again, two conclusions are possible. One, he is such an idiot, so incredibly stupid, that he doesn’t see the danger in these riots and assassinations or two, he is fully aware and intends for them to happen.
Fortunately, nothing has snowballed into an avalanche yet, but the Left stirs this pot as much as they can, undoubtedly hoping for the day that some kind of insane ethnic violence is sparked. I cannot attribute this lunacy of throwing hundreds of thousands, even millions of Islamic immigrants into places where Islamic terror has struck many times in recent memory to anything but outright malice.
It’s time to face the truth: the Left wants terrorism. The Left wants ethnic and religious violence. The Left wants to replace the populations in Western nations because they believe the West is evil and must be destroyed at all costs — even their own survival. The immigrants will vote Left wing, at least for now, because they know where their gravy train comes from. So the Left can use them to win their war on the Right.
Think I’m wrong? Ask yourself this question. Take a prominent Leftist and give that person the power to let in as many immigrants as they wish to any country in the world that they wish. How many would they let in?
They would let in all of them, or at least every single one that wanted to go or could possibly be convinced to go. They foisted 800,000 Muslims on Germany only because they realized they could not foist 2 million on them. They don’t want border security in America because as far as they are concerned, it is a travesty that the entire population of Mexico cannot freely immigrate to the United States whenever they want to, as it is. If there is a problem with illegals in America, they will tell you, it is that there are not enough of them. “The Jobs Americans Won’t Do.” That’s the war cry, demanding more illegals. Ironically, they are half-right. There are 100 million able-bodied Americans who don’t work. So the only reason Americans won’t do those jobs, it seems, is because they don’t want to do anything.
Sometimes I wonder if they realized, deep down, that Socialism was never going to work, that it ultimately led either to mass murder and tyranny, or to the slow (but relatively comfortable) death of Europe today. But they figured if their time in history had come, they sure as well weren’t going to let us survive either. But, yeah, I’m reaching there.
What I do know, by careful application of Occam’s Razor and by watching the actions of the Left and those of the Islamic world, is that they are both deliberately attempting to destroy the West. This is not speculation, this is not conspiracy theory, this is truth.
I just hate that it’s come to this, you know? My own family escapes Islam, and here it is again, still promoting violence, only this time they demand entrance into the place my family has fled to. And the Left continually enables them, acting as their very own fifth column.
I can’t turn my eyes from it anymore. The Left and militant Islam wants the West destroyed, and I don’t give a flying fuck what names they call me any more. I oppose this. There is no compromise to be had with those who do not concede your right to EXIST.
And as a head’s up, Francis at Bastion of Liberty tells us what each us should be doing in this new world. Read it. Learn it. Live it.
I was going to post this as a reply to Friar Bob, but the reply became as long as the original post. Again, this is a subject which I could write a book on, and it defies quick and simple analysis.
Friar Bob explains the nature of Christ and peace:
Christians ARE enjoined to be “wise as serpents, yet harmless as doves”. Yet calling Him “pacifistic” isn’t really accurate by many contemporary uses of the word. Because today that often implies supine surrender regardless of the cost. It means go along with anything just to avoid a fight. It means Chamberlain-style negotiations with “Mr. Hitler” promising “peace in our time”. And none of that is an accurate description of Him.
He is, of course, entirely correct. Notions of the Just War entered into Christian thinking right around the time Constantine. Constantine was, of course, engaged in that perennial feature of Roman political life: the Civil War. Hardly a succession went by without intrigue, assassination and outright open war, the exception of the Five Good Emperors non-withstanding. Just War tells us that there are certain things for which Christians must fight, certain things that they cannot countenance.
Self Defense is, of course, paramount among these. But there are other things. Going to war to, say, stop the doings of Hitler is justified whether defensive or not. War purely for the sake of power, money, or love of killing is prohibited. But war to save innocents, defend your own territory and protect your loved ones is justifiable. Naturally, slippery Weasels will rationalize their wars thusly, claiming that the war they are fighting for money is really for the oppressed people of… wherever. But, nonetheless, the Just War theory requires a casus belli. World War I was, ostensibly, started by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This was the official casus belli even if the “unofficial” reasons were somewhat less pure.
The issue here is that in Christianity war must be justified. War for its own sake is not a feature of the religion.
Islam, on the other hand, requires the exact opposite. Against the denizens of the House of War, war is required unless there is some justification NOT to do it. Islamic nations do not require a casus belli. You not being a Muslim, or even being insufficiently Muslim is cause enough.
The reason is that Christ loved peace. It is true, he turned over the tables and cracked whips at the moneylenders. It is true he fought a culture war against the Pharisees. At the same time, Friar Bob’s assertion is on point: there are things Christ would not tolerate. Indeed, there are things that God has repeatedly declined to tolerate.
Nonetheless, the foundation of Christianity is peace and the foundation of Islam is war.
But Islam has been a good teacher for Western civilization. From Islam, the concepts of Jihad (Crusade), the ferreting out of the insufficiently pious, the heretic, the infidel were learned. Islam also brought back slavery into the Christian world.
It is difficult to overstate the damage Islam has done. Slavery continues to exist today in the Islamic world. Roman Christians BANNED the practice and freed their slaves. Rome, the great consummate slave regime of ancient history was forced to abolish the practice without even so much as a fight, because Christianity’s distaste for it was THAT great. Then Muslim slave traders, pirates and traffickers reintroduced the practice in places like Spain, and the borders of Byzantium, the Holy Land, etc… it is no coincidence that the Spanish & Portuguese were the first to reintroduce slavery, or that they formed, for a great while, the bulk of the slave traders. Even when the English picked up the practice, it was only after they had observed the other colonial powers doing it. This was around the time that increased contact with the Ottoman world was changing the perceptions of the West.
Even still, the Europeans knew the Good Book did not justify such activity, and made sure to practice these things only outside of their core territories. It was almost as if they felt guilt for what they were doing.
Islam feels no guilt for it.
Interestingly enough, as Europe finally achieved military supremacy over Islam in the 19th century, suddenly slavery begins to vanish. Imperialism has one last great flare in Africa and India, and then is gone forever. Religious Holy Wars become a thing of the past. Intolerance of heretics vanishes. Secular government, as in the 7th century Classical world, reasserts itself. The Divine Right of Kings is expunged. The Church loses power all over Europe, becoming ancillary to government, and finally cut off from it entirely.
Without the threat of militant Islam, Christianity dispensed with the foul tools they had copied from the Muslim world. They had no need of them any longer.
And yet history absolves the Muslims of guilt for these things, and blames Christianity instead. Christianity, which only used these tools when pressed for survival, and eliminated them soon after. While Islam has always practiced Holy War, and continues to do so today. They continue to ferret out Jews and Christians, exterminating them, exiling them or oppressing them. They continue to practice slavery and oppress women. And yet the WEST is decried as the Imperialist scum, the slavers, the oppressors, the killers. Furthermore, Christianity gets blamed for it, even though the Bible condemns these things.
It is disingenuous in the extreme, and proof of the Anti-Christian sentiment common in the West today. And, as Christians put down the tools of Tyranny, so did the Atheist Socialists pick them up and improve upon them.