See the Face of the Enemy

Tom Kratman has written more than a few pieces on the Progressive mindset, the sort of velvet-gloved tyranny they seek to impose on everyone else. But today’s column is a doozy. Observe:

A look through the enemy’s eyes, Part II

It ties in neatly with another piece I read this morning from the esteemed Daniel Greenfield: THE CIVIL WAR IS HERE.

For some time now, Leftists in California have made mouth noises about secession, though nothing has come out of that (nor do I expect it to). The reason is that Progressivism doesn’t desire peaceful coexistence. Progressives are unable to share power. Indeed, they are unable to share anything.

The notion that some folks of like mind might get together and form a country of their own is anathema to these people. They suffer no equals where power is concerned. It is all or nothing with them.

If you asked the average Southerner on the street what he thinks of California leaving the Union, he’d probably say something along the lines of “good riddance, the sooner they go, the better.”

Nothing is stopping Progressives in America from moving to Canada, or the European Union, or any place, really, that is more Leftist than America. Yet they stay. Why?

Daniel Greenfield explains for us:

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The Left wants to rule. It wants dominance across the entire world. They won’t leave the United States, nor secede their portion of the country from the rest, because they want absolute control over the entire Earth.

It’s about world domination, the old game of tyrants and would-be conquerors. It’s not about helping the poor, or the sick, or the disadvantaged. Just as World War I wasn’t about liberating the Serbs from Austria-Hungary.

It’s about defeating all opposing ideologies, and imposing a singular worldview on to every living human being. Naturally, the humans who fail to accept the program won’t be suffered to live.

Observer the glee Tom Kratman discovered in our enemy:

Another use is after the cops have drawn blood. Destruction of police vehicles via Molotov to the back seat and fuel intake is an effective way to escalate things. And watching police dance like a damned soul all aflame is still a beautiful thing.

Tom explains his own opinions on this man’s celebration of lighting people on fire:

“A beautiful thing” to burn someone alive, is it? I can see it being a necessary thing, in military terms, where necessary means little or nothing more than advantageous. But “beautiful” he says. And some people think it would be overreaction to shoot these people on sight. My ass.

Understand this clearly. To a Progressive of the Black Bloc persuasion, your violent, painful death is beautiful. Are you still concerned what they think of you? Does it still make you feel bad when one of these guys calls you a racist, or a sexist, or some other thing? They want to kill you.

Now, of course, the average garden-variety Leftist isn’t as overt as his Black Bloc ideological kin. And to be fair to him, he probably wouldn’t want to see you die, certainly not violently and painfully. But at the same time, he is willing to turn a blind eye to this violence, to make excuses for it, and to protect the guilty when they are caught.

But again, if he’s willing to allow this behavior, however tacitly and unofficially, does it matter what he thinks of you? Should you care about his opinion of you whatsoever?

Daniel Greenfield explains our choices:

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

In other words, the options are to fight, or to embrace social justice in all particulars. Escape is no longer on the table. Secede isn’t on the table either. There is no where to run, and no legal recourse which the Left will respect.

The settling of our grievances has come to civil war. For now, the war is mostly a cold war, fought within the government itself, as Trump’s administration attracts the ire of almost every branch of the bureaucracy, media, and entertainment factions of the Progressive movement.

But don’t misunderstand, it is a war that could go hot at any moment. Best to be prepared.

If there is any optimism to be found here, you may see it in Tom Kratman’s piece, where he informs us that, in the end, our enemies may be making a serious error by pushing things this far. They have forgotten that wars are fought by human beings.

One is tempted to counter with, “What right have you, as an anarchist, to try to impose rules on my machine gun teams as they mow you down?” This whole section illustrates something I strongly advise the reader to look into in Lee Harris’ excellent book, Civilization and Its Enemies. The short version is that these people are, however dangerous, fundamentally unserious. They are not revolutionaries; they are unpublished and unpublishable playwrights, writing fantasy plays in their heads for themselves to star in, in which plays we lesser beings are reduced to the level of morally insignificant stage props.

They think of us as stage props, as their moral and intellectual inferiors, as dullards, rednecks, and uneducated hicks. They have more hubris than Napoleon taking on Russia. One suspects that their assault will fare just about as badly in the end. But either way, best to be ready for them nonetheless.

Tyranny from the Bench

Francis at Liberty’s Torch provides us with some illumination: The Anarcho-Tyranny Chronicles.

Judicial Tyranny is, of course, nothing new. The courts have long found excuses to rule on things which the Constitution grants them no power over. The most recent, of course, being gay marriage. Now, wherever you stand on the matter of gays getting married, it is factual to say that the Constitution is absolutely silent on the matter. There is nothing in it which grants or denies the act.

Therefore the Supreme Court should not be able to rule on it.

There have been many other such instances, such as abortion, education, etc… and always, it seems, the courts rule on these matters anyway. But Francis explains how this can lead to a sort of twisted judicial tyranny, or, as he puts it, anarcho-tyranny.

If you’ve been a Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch for a goodly while now, you’re probably familiar with the late Sam Francis’s coinage anarcho-tyranny. For those who haven’t yet made the acquaintance of this useful term, here’s the original formulation:


“What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny – the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny. [From the essay Synthesizing Tyranny, written shortly before Francis’s death.]”

The longer I live, the more I come to view anarcho-tyranny as the terminal state toward which all governments tend as they mature and degenerate.

This is essentially the state in which we live today. Think about it, the state will tax you, the state will regulate you, the state even consider disarming you. You are punished by being lawful. You may utter a word that offends someone, and for this you may be fired, or your privileges taken away from you, or otherwise ostracized for this. No laws have been broken, but this is allowed because it is deemed private.

Yet the criminal may get away with less punishment from the state because of his race, or religion, or because someone makes an excuse for his behavior. Consider that each state has arcane and difficult-to-navigate firearm restrictions. I’ve a 32 round magazine for my Ruger P95. That mag is perfectly legal in my home state of Florida. If I were to cross into New York bearing it with me, I could be arrested for a felony even if I didn’t know better.

Meanwhile, the guy who stole my friend’s car and drove it into a ditch didn’t even serve jail time for the offense.

Now, consider the concept of justice here. What society-at-large is telling us, regardless of the source of justice, is that carrying a 32 round mag, even if you don’t have the firearm it goes with on your person, is objectively worse than stealing a car and crashing it into a ditch. It is saying that the person who says a bad word should suffer more than the person who breaks into your home.

Just as Leftists dream of redistributing the wealth, they also want to redistribute the justice. The law-abiding white guy in the suburbs must pay the price of his entire livelihood for, say, calling a woman fat. The criminal with a record as long as my arm, meanwhile, must be forgiven his crimes — even if he charges a police officer and tries to kill him.

It’s okay for Black Lives Matter protesters to set their own city on fire. It’s not okay for me to own a means of defending myself.

But I digress. Francis was talking about a much more specific miscarriage of justice, a case where the courts have divorced themselves utterly from the purpose of their existence:

James Madison, often called “the father of the Constitution,” regarded the courts as “the least dangerous branch” of government. The widespread belief is that that was because the courts were allowed no enforcement arm, apart from the bailiffs allowed for keeping order during a court proceeding. However, this reverses cause and effect. The courts were allowed no enforcement arm because of the danger they would otherwise pose, as is well established by English history.


The great majority of judges in pre-Industrial Revolution England, from which much of our legal tradition derives, were not government employees, neither elected nor appointed nor hired. They commanded deference on the basis of their personal qualities and their willingness to sit as judges; in other words, from popular respect for their wisdom and diligence. If you’ve heard the term “circuit judge” and have wondered about its provenance, it comes from the time when a judge would routinely “ride a circuit:” i.e., he would regularly travel a known route from place to place, hearing such cases as were presented to him in each place and ruling on them according to the “common law,” another American inheritance from England.


To make this a workable living, a judge needed to be known and respected in each of the stops along his circuit. A judge’s enforcement arm was the willingness of the commoners whose cases he heard to enforce his rulings. Thus, he had to have a reputation for fairly and consistently applying both the common law and what precedents might exist for its enforcement. For a judge to become known as capricious or arbitrary – e.g., for promoting his personal views over the common law as English commoners knew it – would spell the end of his career.

Amazing to think of, right? A judge who rode from town to town, dealing justice based primarily on his own reputation, not any appointment from up on high. The king did not command him thusly, he did the thing on his own.

Ironically, an equivalent does exist in modern American jurisprudence: arbitration. Have you ever seen those bizarre court shows on TV? You know, Judge Judy and the like? Before entering the “courtroom”, the parties sign an agreement to abide by Judy’s arbitration. She’s not really a judge anymore (she used to be).

But she is, in essence, a circuit judge of the old style, albeit with a heavy does of entertainment to go along with it. I imagine, however, it may have been similar in old England. Perhaps that was a form of entertainment for the villagers as well, their equivalent of Jerry Springer, or something. The circuit judge would ride into town, and people would line up to hear the arbitration, and perhaps laugh at the loser if he was particularly stupid.

Point being, though, that Americans are accustomed to thinking of judges in a sort of top-down manner. As deriving authority from the government, and not from popular reputation. Thus can a miscarriage of justice happen. What the King wants is usually not what the commoner wants, regardless of what is actually just.

England’s problems with “star chambers” and the like came about because of courts whose authority descended from the Crown – i.e., whose enforcement arm was the force commanded by the King. Common-law judges posed no such problems, precisely because they had no enforcement power of their own. Indeed, it was often the role of a common-law judge to prevent a lynching or other variety of mob “justice:” something only a very well known, well respected jurist could do by force of character.


Even though American judges are government employees, the essence of the English common-law judicial system – that the court have no enforcement arm of its own – was largely preserved by the Founding Fathers. The courts’ authority is essentially one of popular consensus concerning the probity and wisdom of the courts: i.e., that the courts are assessing the laws faithfully rather than whimsically or capriciously.


But by innumerable capricious judgments: both failures to uphold the black-letter law and usurpations of jurisdiction that in no way belong to them, the courts have destroyed that consensus. Where, then, do we stand?

Today, we stand in a strange place. I remember some time ago that a woman was on the news for having ordered a coffee from McDonalds, and then spilling all of it over ah… shall we say, a very sensitive area.

There were lawsuits, and media talking heads discussing it. At a high level, the assumption was that the woman would gain a respectable settlement, at least several hundred thousand dollars, for her pain and suffering.

The consensus on the street was that this woman was a fucking idiot, pardon my French, and that if you order hot coffee, putting it between your legs is the height of folly. This was common sense, as distinguished from the sensibility of the aristocracy. The working stiffs were irritated, because everyone thought McDonalds would lower the temperature of their coffee, and that now their drinks would be cold by the time they got to work, the extra temperature being useful for keeping it warm long enough to get to the office.

High courts and commoners can no longer even agree on what justice is, much less how it might best be applied.

The term “court of public opinion” is interesting here, too. For these days, there’s an entirely different court which may preside over you. Not the respected justice, travelling from place-to-place, ruling on matters according to the will of the people. No. This is different. This is government, media, and entertainment celebrities agreeing on what justice is, and what it ought to be, and then telling you that if you do not comply with it, they will sic their hordes of Social Justice Warriors on you. They call it a court of public opinion, but it’s really a court of aristocratic opinion.

We don’t have much of a lower court anymore, for even the lower courts are starting to act like high courts.

This is, as Francis put it, part of a much larger cycle:

Why, right where we are today, of course: enmeshed in a steadily deteriorating, ever more anarcho-tyrannical context. At the moment, the only escape is to even less desirable places. That might change; developments in space flight and workable space habitats are ongoing, and it’s impossible to say if or when they’ll mature. But the cycle itself appears to be embedded in human nature. If that’s the case, then no matter where men go, the cycle will go with them.

And there you have it. I wish there were viable starships and space habitats today. I’d be off this rock in a heartbeat. Let the Communists and Islamists eat each other. I want out.

But, failing an escape route… we will have to fight.

The New America: Thuggery and Hate

So I think most of my readers are already familiar with the events at the Trump rally last night. A combination of Bernie Sanders supporters and Black Lives Matter protesters stormed the event, committed acts of violence, tore up signs, assaulted people, screamed at the top of their lungs, and shut down the rally.

Nicki Kenyon, a friend of mine, and categorically not a Trump supporter in any way, shape, or form, weighs in for us:

Freedom of speech is for everyone, their precious feelings be damned.

They seem to have forgotten that little fact in their zeal to shut down speech they don’t like. And I guarantee you they will be the first to complain and demand action when it invariably happens to them.

How much of a tyrannical asshole do you have to be to make me defend Trump?

Last night we got he answer to that question.

That’s the money shot right there. I’m not exactly a Trump fan either. I might consider voting for him in the general supposing he wins the primary. Then again, I might not. I don’t like him at all, and I’d really prefer someone else. The GOP has failed us terribly in this regard. But last night we got a glimpse of what a Bernie or Hillary administration might look like, and it’s not pretty, either.

The Trump fans weren’t exactly peaceful lambs, either. Fist fights broke out during the event, and one video I saw seemed to show someone (unclear if pro-Trump or anti-Trump) shooting a gun into the air outside the venue.

Let me explain for my readers what’s really going on here in clear and plain language. This is something akin to a race war. What has happened is that, in America, whites have been denigrated and blamed for all manner of historical ills. They have been told to go to the back of the bus, so to speak, to make up for their past sins. Affirmative action, notions of white privilege in the media and education system, history books written to make whites feel guilty, etc… Then, on top of this, they are told to surrender the countries in which they are a majority to third world immigrants. Syrian refugees, Somalians, illegal Mexican immigrants, etc…

A lot of them are very, very mad about this. And they don’t have to be Klansmen to be angry. I understand their anger. But the anger is unfocused, it doesn’t have anything to latch on to. Who did this? Who is to blame? Something as diffuse as a government and crony capitalist system defies having a single target, or a single person to whom blame can be properly assigned. So scapegoats are created. We’ve seen this pattern in history before (once, the scapegoats were Jews. Today, who knows?). And Trump has focused this anger to benefit his campaign. He has appealed to this anger and directed it where he wants it to go.

On the other side of this, people like the Black Lives Matter supporters have been told their whole lives that whites are evil, that whites are “The Man,” that whites owe them for all of the sins of the past. Hatred of white people is a real thing, and don’t let SJWs claiming “reverse racism isn’t real” convince you otherwise. #KillAllWhiteMen was a real hashtag on Twitter. Look at the videos from the Trump rally and tell me with a straight face that there isn’t a racial motivation here.

So what happened last night, seen in this context, is basically an escalation in our political battles, the tacit admission that this won’t be solved at the voting booth, that America is increasingly resorting to violence to solve its political problems.

It is, in effect, a nascent Civil War, and the ones in charge are full of hate. They can’t tolerate other opinions, other races, they can’t abide free speech, freedom of religion, or any of that. They see it as an all-or-nothing fight for the benefits and entitlements of big government.

This is going to get more ugly, mark my words. If Trump gets the nomination, we may see a second Civil War. I’m 100% serious about this. But even if he doesn’t get the nomination, things aren’t likely to get any better in the foreseeable future.

Thanks for the Support

The SJWs who were threatening me seem to have declined to press further. Perhaps it was the showing of support here and on other outlets that were attacked recently. And I am very appreciative of that. Or maybe the guy(s) chickened out and didn’t want to make the leap to meatspace. Probably a wise choice considering that us Right-wingers have a reputation for being armed.

Or maybe someone brought the fight to him. I’d like to think that was the reason, because karma.

Anyway, there are some lessons learned here.

First off, don’t delete your stuff when threatened by them. This will embolden them. We need to stop these people, not encourage them.

Second, I can confirm that the “hate speech” campaigns on Social Media won’t apply to you if you are known to be Right-wing. Facebook declared that the SJW did nothing wrong, despite mentioning explicit threats and personal names/information. If a Right-winger did it, it would have been removed immediately. If a Right-winger even tells the wrong Progressive that they are “woefully misinformed” they are suspended. The bias is real. My own case confirms it. Social Media is controlled by the SJWs. You will get no help or support from that avenue. Indeed, I highly suspect Facebook is helping this particular guy and his compatriots.

Third, as others have stated, go anonymous if you can. Have no connection between your Social Media data and your comments/blogs/posts. For instance, I have a sidebar with my Twitter account on the right. Don’t do that. It’s too late for me on this . But if they haven’t come after you, now is the time look into this. Do not let them track you across platforms. Maintain discipline on this. Use random names with no ties to anything. I thought to link some of my accounts because it allowed certain kinds of cross-postings. And I did not fully anonymize myself. It helped generate some cross-traffic, but it also turned around and bit me in the ass.

When some other bloggers and public figures on the Right suggested doing these things, I scoffed. It wouldn’t happen to me, I thought. I figured the odds were very low. And SJWs make up personal attacks all the time (notably, Brianna Wu has been caught threatening herself for attention repeatedly), so I figured at least some were bullshitting. Well, I learned the hard way. The Thought Police exist, and they are perfectly willing to bother regular folks.

But SJWs are still cowards, in the end. They criticize Right-wingers who go anon, but attack us from anon accounts themselves. They are hypocrites and liars.

Anyway, when all is said and done, I just wanted to say thank you to my readers, and folks I didn’t even know showing up to help me with advice and support on how to deal with it. I’m not a public figure, and my blog is a small one. It’s not something I expected to deal with. I hope my example can be a lesson for others.

But above all else DO NOT BE SILENCED. That’s what they want.


Some Errata

Tom Kratman makes a good point regarding the SJW attack:

It’s funny, but I’m a lot more offensive than you are and they never really try that with me. One can only guess at why that might be…

I’m just a regular guy, and that’s probably why the SJWs came after me. They are too cowardly to go after hard targets like Tom Kratman, for obvious reasons (mugging the Devil is a stupid idea, generally). And antifragile targets like Vox and Milo actually profit from attacks. The more Vox is attacked, the more notoriety he gains.

Nonetheless, SJWs have been on the warpath in the last few weeks. As Francis noted at Bastion of Liberty, both Roosh and his Return of Kings site were subject to recent attack. And, indeed, it looks like the same attackers who went after me may be responsible.

Breitbart noted, only a day or two after my own post on the subject, how Facebook has gone full SJW, handily deleting pages and posts that are critical of Leftist talking points and remaining firmly silent on those critical of the Right. It is clear to me that the SJWs made sure they had Establishment backing before they began their doxxing campaign.

Now, there are two courses of action open to one who was attacked. The SJWs claim to have silenced as many as 37 Right-wing outlets in their campaign. You can delete your blogs, your Twitter accounts, etc… and cave in to them. But it’s unclear whether this will stop their attacks against you.

The better option is to harden yourself against assault. Do you rely on a job with a sensitive HR department? This is a point of weakness which may be used to attack you. They will take a quotation out of context, screenshot it, and send it to your employer en masse. This is a tactic they have used repeatedly in the past. Indeed, there’s an entire website dedicated to this called “Getting Racists Fired” which I refuse to link to from here, on general principle. Of course, what constitutes racism is defined entirely by your accuser.

I am fortunate in that much of my income comes from contracting and independent sources. I could survive a loss of my primary income stream for a good amount of time. Therefore, as you can see, my blog remains up, and my Twitter remains active. Should the SJWs make good on their threats to stir up trouble with my clients, family, and friends, I will fight them every step of the way.

They don’t fear me like they do Col. Kratman, but as they say of bullies in the schoolyard, even if you lose the fight, if you get in a few licks before they take you down, they will likely leave you alone in the future. Make the price of their attacks as high as you can.

I have several less-than-reputable individuals already tracking down this particular SJW. When I discover his identity we will see how he likes a taste of his own medicine.

The Consequences of Weaponized Empathy

Normally, you’ll find that I don’t care much for France, or the French. The fact remains that in recent years they have always been one of the weaker links in the chain of Western civilization. It’s a case of too much Nicholas Sarkozy and too little Charles Martel. Prior to World War II, they were waffling on fascism themselves. They did little to prevent their neighbors, Spain and Italy, from falling into the same. During the war, the conflict between the French Resistance and the Vichy France regime took on the character of a Civil War. Where Britain, at the last possible moment, discovered competence and national resolve, the French failed to do so.

France was perfectly happy to hide behind NATO and the United States during the Cold War and, in the World War that rages today, between the West and Islam, France has waffled, leading the charge to let in as many Muslims as possible. Angela Merkel may have resolved to catch up to France, but so far, France leads the charge, as they have in the past, to civilizational surrender.

All that being said, the attack upon Paris is nonetheless a great tragedy. It was avoidable, to be sure, as one of the attackers was found with a Syrian passport. He had, apparently, passed through Greece in the recent tidal wave of immigration.

I’ve spoken at length about this. Officials from Jordan even took it upon themselves to warn us of this possibility. Nobody was listening, it seems. ISIS told us, point-blank, that they were seeding the refugees with fighters. 70% of the immigrants were military-age men. There were red flags and warnings all over, and they were ignored.

And so, here we are.

Photographs of children dying, drowned on the beach, were used to move us. Weaponized Empathy was deployed in the service of bringing as many Muslims as possible to the West.

Why are we so vulnerable to this tactic? Having empathy for fellow human beings is good and well, and a part of being civilized. At the same time, understanding that it is not carte blanche is important here.

I’ve been accused of being racist against Middle Eastern peoples. This is lunacy. I am of Middle Eastern descent myself. I am not self-loathing, as many of my SJW enemies appear to be. I’ve been accused of hating Islam. That’s closer to the truth, but even then, I loathe the ideology not the common people, which is a distinction that must be made.

But even if I do not hate the common Muslim man, neither do I wish to allow him into my country. Why? Because a significant fraction of his compatriots are threats, and there is no way short of mind-reading to determine who is good and righteous, and who is evil. The proportion of Muslims who support terrorism and wish to force the rest of the world to convert to Islam or die is too great.

I was reading the other day that 45% of American Muslims desire Sharia Law, and prefer it to Constitutional Law. You might say “but Dystopic, what about the 55% majority who don’t?” Well, good for them. Is the advantage of having that 55% worth the cost of having 45% who are actively disloyal to the Constitution of the United States? I do not view diversity as a good. At best, it is neutral, neither here nor there, as they’d say. At worst, it is as Vox Day is fond of saying: Diversity + Proximity = War.

So diversity alone is not justification for importing Muslims, and it certainly does not justify the risk to the people already here.

You might say, well so far only two of the refugees are confirmed terrorists (there are actually more, but more on that later). Well, good for them. Why import people when you know for a fact that some of them are, in effect, waging WAR against you? The empathy is misplaced. People welcome the invaders with open arms, welcoming their own doom.

They value Muslim migrants more than their own kin. There is an argument made that failing to offer equality, or equivalence, between those who are closer to you ideologically, religiously, culturally, and ethnically, and those who are distant from you, is a quasi-criminal act. In other words, you are supposed to value equally the distant Zulu tribesman you’ve never met and your WASP neighbor who you’ve been friend with for 20 years. But this goes counter to human nature, generally, where there is a tendency to value those who are your kin in various respects over those who are not.

This need not become malevolent, as in a genocidal fascist regime. A minor preference for those who are like you is natural, and tends to cancel itself out anyway, because everybody else does it too. It doesn’t always work to your benefit.

Even so, the forced equality of the Progressives wasn’t enough for them. Because, they knew deep down, that people still had preferences. All things being equal, Christians had a mild preference for the company of other Christians. Blacks preferred the company of other Blacks to greater or lesser degree. Conservatives would rather hang out with each other than attend a Liberal fundraiser. Etc, etc… Crimethink, in other words, was still being practiced.

And so Social Justice demanded favorable treatment for non-kin. In essence, this meant deliberately favoring the out-group over the in-group. When a member of the out-group kills a member of the in-group, it isn’t murder (which they define as power + privilege + killing), it’s just a killing. Meanwhile, a member of the “privileged” group even looking at a woman might be “stare rape.” In the eyes of Social Justice, then, this isn’t even a terrorist attack, per se. It’s marginalized people of color striking back at the Privileged White Establishment. We made fun of their prophet, so they get to kill us.

I imagine this is very confusing for Muslims in general. It took them awhile to catch on to this phenomenon. But, once they did, they took maximum advantage of it. The Palestinians have been playing this game for decades now. Attack Israel (the equivalent of poking the bear), then play victim when Israel drops the hammer on them. If Israel really wanted to do it, they could annihilate every Palestinian in a matter of weeks.

But Israel doesn’t do it, and they are one of the most unashamedly ethnic-centered states in existence right now.

The West cannot be defeated through conventional arms, through state vs. state action, for it has absolutely mastered that style of warfare to such an extent even the Russians, the challenger in this arena, were hesitant to engage them. So, Fourth Generation warfare provided the solution: winning with the Moral High Ground.

The Social Justice Warriors are a fifth column in America, deliberately conspiring to bring down their own civilization. And their purpose is to bring as many people as possible who are hostile to their culture and civilization.

Let me repeat: the Social Justice Warriors WANT more terrorist attacks. They want more dead bodies. They want to kill Western Civilization entirely.

Islam also desires this, and so a tacit alliance of sort has revealed itself. Progressives in power conspire to bring in as many militant Muslims as possible, and the militant Muslims kill as many people as possible, wherever they think they can get away with it.

Of course, if Islam achieves ascendancy in the West, they will kill the Social Justice Warriors, as well, but as Yuri Bezmenov explained to us long ago, that’s a given anyway. Even if the Socialist Utopia they advocate were to come about instead of the Caliphate, the Socialists would kill the intellectuals as a matter of course.

Some of them, I imagine, know this deep down. They are self-loathing.

In effect, we have put the crazies who slit their own wrists in charge of our civilization, and then wonder why they keep importing crazies who want to kill us. They are suicidal, and want to take us with them.

Weaponized Empathy is the sword in their hands. See? Look at this dead child? Now, let in millions of military-age men who will kill the children of your cultural kin.

I’m not sure in what universe this makes sense, but there it is.

Are you afraid of being called a racist? A sexist? An Islamophobe? This is their club to beat you over the head with. It’s strange seeing people who I know are willing to die in the service of freedom caving because Progressives call them names. Yet it happens.

At this point, it is best to follow Francis Porretto’s advice and let them call you whatever they like.

In this way, I prefer the French, even though they waffle, and have been at the spearhead of this international Progressive movement, to the Islamics. They are Western cultural kin, even if they are the ugly step-child of the family.

More importantly, we must learn from their mistakes. I’ve already said that Europe now faces the most unpleasant of choices: Jackboots or Submission to Islam. America is fast-approaching the time when it must face a similar choice: Jackboots or National Suicide.

We must head off that conflict now, while there is still time. This is what must be done:

  1. Build a wall on all land borders. Defend the wall.
  2. Deport all illegal immigrants.
  3. Freeze all immigration from Muslim countries.
  4. Disallow the immigration of any Muslim from any country whatsoever.
  5. End the ‘anchor baby’ birthright citizenship phenomenon.
  6. Any Muslim caught preaching terrorism or support of terrorism must be deported immediately.
  7. Any Muslim who cannot declare unwavering loyalty to the Constitution of the United States (note: not the government) must have citizenship revoked. Stomping on the flag, burning, chanting anti-American slogans, etc… will be accepted as prima facie evidence of disloyalty. Deport to the Muslim country of their choice.
  8. Those Muslims that remain will be encouraged to assimilate and/or convert to a non-hostile faith with all possible social pressure. Personally, I suggest the Ba’hai faith for them if Christianity is unpalatable, as it may be regarded as a genuinely peaceful development of Islam which still accepts the prophethood of Mohammed. But pretty much anything non-Muslim will do.
  9. End all H1b Visa programs with regards to Muslim countries and those of Muslim faith.
  10. Severely restrict the Visas of any Muslim, allowing only limited, thoroughly vetted, individuals who are on specific business. I.e. diplomats, corporate representatives, etc…
  11. Do NOT “colonize” or otherwise occupy Muslim countries. Leave them alone if they leave us alone.
  12. If they do NOT leave us alone, kill their leaders, bomb their religious sites and depose their governments, then leave, don’t stay trying to build a secular Western-style democracy. They don’t want one. They don’t want us there. Punish the guilty and go. Do that once or twice, and even the most militant of Muslims will get the idea.

Following that plan will likely work for America. For Europe, it is far too late for that, there are too many Muslims there. Tom Kratman warned us in his book Caliphate, that Europe would eventually have to make this unpleasant decision.

It will come to genocide or submission there. Mark my words, the next few decades will see the fruits of Progressivism laid bare for what they are. This will be a warning to future generations that Weaponized Empathy is as dangerous as any bomb or invading army.

You defy human nature and notions of kinship at your own peril.

The French, unfortunately, had to learn the lesson of this through blood. And there will be more blood. The streets will run red, and the camps and ovens of World War II may see a revival. Whose ashes fall from the sky will be their choice.

I want my readers to know that, as I contemplate these matters, I feel a profound sadness. I remember reading books about the Holocaust when I was a child. And, of course, books about the Armenian genocide conducted against my own relatives.

I often wondered how things got so bad that people chose genocide over any other option, how people justified such evil in their minds. How could any non-psychopath sleep at night doing such deeds? How could a guard at a concentration camp go to his barracks at night, sleep, wake, eat breakfast, and then go on killing people like it was just another 9-5 job?

This is how. Progressives, we kept warning you, pleading you, begging you not to do this, not to open our borders like a sieve. Because we understand human nature. We knew where this was going to end up.

Multiculturalism is a disease. And if you do not seek peaceful forms of treatment, by defending your borders and avoiding substantial immigration from hostile countries and religions, you bring the disease to your shores. Even so, treatment at first is not very expensive. Cultural Assimilation can and does work for small numbers, and those who are relatively close to your cultural values already.

But mass migration is invasion. And Progressives discourage cultural assimilation, because they hate their own culture. They also prevent reverse assimilation (i.e. existing Americans assimilating in to the immigrant identities). They call THAT cultural appropriation. So there can be NO evening out or blending of the cultures.

They don’t want more defenders of Western Civilization. They don’t want another Thomas Sowell, they want more Al Sharptons. They don’t want people like my Armenian family. They want welfare recipients, junkies, drug dealers, leeches, mooches and people with axes to grind. Why? Because they want to slit the culture’s wrists, and those people are the blade.

And Weaponized Empathy is how they get the blade past security.

They want immigrants who think the American flag is a symbol of hate.

Paris, France. Coming soon (again) to an American city near you. Coming much sooner to Europe.

%d bloggers like this: