Citizen Vigilante

The film is sort of Death Wish meets contemporary European immigration.  With Armie Hammer stepping in for Charles Bronson.

I cannot say that Death Wish was ever my cup of tea.  Too much gratuitous violence, and in this case gratuitous sex, for my taste.  But if the powers that be in Europe, particularly the increasingly authoritarian German regime, feel the need to censor it, then I must do my small part to fight the censorship.

So is the movie any good?  Again, it's not really to my taste.  But if you like the John Wick series, you will like this.  And because the targets are immigrants rather than the mere thugs and criminals in Death Wish, there is definitely a political dimension to this film.  In the end, whether or not you appreciate this film probably depends on your own political convictions.

I will add that both Armie Hammer and Costas Mandylor are excellent in their roles.  Same for the supporting cast.  I suppose the film is classified as low budget, but it is well made and the reduced budget did not interfere with the story.

In summary I would say that the movie is worth watching for its message.  And here I mean, whether you agree with the message or not.  You need to hear it.  This problem is not going away.  And I do not believe that European leaders will sincerely address it.  European elites do not suffer the consequences of their policies and actions, so they do not care.  Ultimately that is the message of this film.

I hope it is the most widely seen film this year.

𓐵

The Lowe-Down on Britain

Rupert Lowe asks:  Is the British government a criminal enterprise?

Lowe says that change can be driven through the ballot box.  Well as a politician, he would have to say that, right?  But as in California and Minnesota, I'm not at all sure that will work any more.

Lowe thinks that people will vote for things to get worse before they get better.  That is wishful thinking; I do not believe that people will do that.  Collapse is inevitable.

I mean in Britain you have an elite class and a government class who absolutely refuse to hold rapists accountable.  Mind you, over decades.  They minimize it, they dismiss it, they hide it.  And it doing so, they prove themselves worse than the actual rapists.  It is, in fact, criminal.

Can the government at large be guilty of accessory and/or obstruction?  Or aiding and abetting?  Because that is exactly what happened.  And Keir Starmer was the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

And this is before we get to the vast crimes of the Covid "pandemic" response.  Weinstein wonders aloud if the mRNA "vaccines" were not designed to create immunity (which so clearly, they were not), but rather purposefully designed to create some future vulnerability.  To what, we cannot yet know.  But given the players involved, this clearly is a possibility.  This would certainly explain the unhinged enthusiasm for the jab from the powers that be.

Whether designed for immunity or future vulnerability, my question is, what other alternatives are there?

Well there is pure profit.  But to me, that does not adequately explain the multi-government fervor, both domestically and internationally.  And the punishments for noncompliance.  The governmental actions and supposed reactions were unexplained, dark, and sinister.  We may not know the tree, but we sure saw the fruit.  It was not merely profit-driven; just my opinion.

In any case, these same people are in charge of the election processes.  So my question is:  Have we reached the end of functional democracy?

I think we have.  These people must be dislodged and prosecuted.  Keir Starmer must be jailed.  Along with many thousands of his ilk.  And now, I hear that Andy Burnham will be even worse.

But how will this happen?

The answer is obvious.

𓐵

The United Kingdom Today

Do not lay the blame at the feet of the immigrants.  Of course, they should be removed, but they are who and what they are.  No, the blame lies with the elites and their government minions.  They must pay dearly for what they have done to the country.

𓐵

Islamic Immigration into Europe

Peter Boghossian and Raymond Ibrahim, and the Cameraman

Boghossian and Ibrahim talk about why Europe is dying, but about ninety minutes in, their cameraman injects himself into the conversation, with a real time demonstration of suicidal empathy.  The argument of the left on full display.  And they allow the cameraman to make his points.  Then after quizzing the cameraman on what exactly he believes, Boghossian makes the point the we are going to get the Europe that the cameraman is championing.  The cameraman seems to be okay with that because he does not believe that Islam offers any danger to Europe.  And besides, Muslims are too low of a percentage of the overall population to make much difference.

Listening to the cameraman, I could not help but reflect that this is what millions of Europeans believe.  They either don't think about this at all, or they believe what the cameraman believes.  And there is no reasoning with the cameraman because he has his doctrine and his dogma, and these convictions are immune to reason.  As with any religion.

I love the way Boghossian dealt with this guy.  He did not argue with him.  He let the cameraman make his points, and then he simply asked a few questions to clarify what the guy believed.  And here, if you do not understand the reality of Islam and European political leadership, you might think that the cameraman got the better of Boghossian and Ibrahim.  But I think Boghossian is well aware of who is watching, both in the live audience and online.  And to those people, the cameraman is simply yet another naive leftist.  So Boghossian just let him dig his hole.

Ordinarily I would say that this was painful to watch.  But it was not.  Watching this was like watching someone predict a train wreck without realizing that is what they are doing, but you know with certainty that they are correct.  By the time that the bien-pensants wake from their trance, it will be too late.

What this shows is that suicidal empathy is a choice.  A warmly embraced and welcome choice.  It is also a bit smug; you hear this in the cameraman's responses:  He looks down on Boghossian and Ibrahim for their obvious bigotry.

This is not entertaining; this is a snuff film.

𓐵

David Starkey and David Betz

Civil War:  The Somewheres versus the Anywheres and the Muslims



The above videio is from earlier this month.  I have posted David Betz videos twice before in the last year:  Here with Louise Perry (audio only), and here with the Triggernometry guys.  Further, I have collected notable Betz videos on this topic here.

For residents of Britain, I see four possibilities.  One, you can stay and fight.  Two, leave now, before the violence begins.  Three, stay and work towards peaceful subjugation.  Not because you want subjugation, but because you believe in coexistence.  Of course you do.  Four, denial.  This is the Keir Starmer approach.  And millions of Anywheres share it.  They will bear the brunt of the violence, and as the cause of this problem, they surely deserve it.

In the end, options three and four will be one and the same.  Ultimately the deniers will die in the coming violence or submit to Islam, which arguably, they already have.  When you are willingly giving over your daughters for rape, you have already submitted.

But wait, one might argue that Keir Starmer and his ilk are not giving over their own daughters for rape.  Right?  But that is the whole point:  They are giving over the daughters of the Somewheres.  And before they fed the Somewhere daughters to the immigrant rapists, they let uncountable numbers of these consanguineous monsters into the country.  And rape is but one part of the cultural conflict.

This is the reason I say they, the Anywheres, deserve it.  What did they think would happen?  No, they did not think at all.  But they love to tell people how clever they are; just ask them.  After all, they are citizens of the world.

So for we of lesser intellect, but with perhaps a modicum of common sense, only the first two possibilities are viable.  Stay and fight, or flee.  But make up your mind quickly; both options require planning.

If you choose to stay and fight, one does wonder if, in fact, there is going to be a fight?  If recent history is anything to go by, submission will be more palatable for most.  So if you stay and fight, I do not think you will be joining the fight.

No, if you stay, you will have to start the fight.

𓐵

The Tipping Point is Near

Boghossian:  Enablers, you are going to get what you deserve



It is long past time to admit that there are vanishingly few moderate and/or good Muslims.  The absolute best they, as a group, will ever do is remain silent in the face of Islamic misconduct.  And more generally, the misconduct of people who also happen to be Muslim.  Before you berate me for this observation, watch the above video with Lubna Zaidi.

Just as with our political class, where it is not the politicians that are the problem; rather, it is the voters.  It is not the Muslims that are the problem.  Rather, it is what Boghossian and Zaidi label, their enablers.  Typically, but not exclusively, from the left.  They tolerate or even allow the misconduct, and then turn a blind eye to it.

Stop pretending.  Stop the wishful thinking.  Stop the suicidal empathy.  It is time to be serious.

* Apologies to Malcolm Gladwell and Ray Kurzweil.
𓐵

Dave Rubin and Andrew Gold

Gold:  I have to censor myself partly because I might get killed by people who live around here

The British are doing this to themselves:

BREAKING: UK police stopped a woman from walking her dog, saying it could offend the local Muslim population — and ordered her off her own street. pic.twitter.com/aguR9J24zq

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) October 19, 2025

Honestly, if you live in Britain, it is time to leave.

𓐵

The Collapse of Europe

It will end in fire

Benedict Beckeld on Europe:  Either these countries become Islamic, or there will be large scale violence.  There is no third way forward.

I mean, you do not have to be a philosopher, like Boghossian and Beckeld, or an oracle to see that this is true.  The only aspect of this difficult to predict is the timeline.  But even with the current numbers, if European countries were to close their borders to Islamic immigration, or God-forbid, start mass deportations, the current resident Muslims would burn these countries to the ground.

But it will not come to that.  The docile Europeans?  No chance.  There will be no fight; there will be no violence.  The Europeans will willingly submit to the muscular and aggressive ideology sweeping the continent.  It is already happening, has been happening for a couple of decades now.  It is simply more obvious today.

If you doubt this, just look at the United Kingdom.  Muslim men have been raping native girls on an industrial scale for years now.  And the native, so-called men, they're just sitting around, watching it happen.  Can you just imagine what the Swedish geldings are doing?  Or rather not doing?  It's a joke really.  The Muslims are laughing at them.  Of course they are.  Of course.

And since there is no recognition of the problem by the elites in government and media, much less any will to solve it, the massive influx will continue, exacerbating and accelerating the problem.  I would say that we are long past the point of no return.

I agree with Boghossian, these countries and the native Europeans, have no one to blame except themselves.  If you live in one of these countries, it is time to leave.  If you believe that you still have time, and I do not know, maybe you do, at least develop an exit plan for yourself and your family.

Europe is lost.

𓐵

Carlson and Knowles

Hateful menopausal ladies and their gay sidekicks



Like Richard Dawkins, I am an atheist and a cultural Christian.  Really, is there any other legitimate choice?  I mean, you can be a Christian or a Jew, but if not, what are your choices?  No matter what you may think of other religions, they are all objectively inferior to Christianity and Judaism.  All of them.  Certainly the modern religion of puritanical leftist ideology is detrimental to human understanding and progress, and individual mental health.

I say this as someone who stands back from the Christian church and looks at it and also looks at the alternatives.  As an objective observer, it is impossible to believe that Islam offers a preferable life path.  Let's murder all the gay people?  And anyone who might leave the faith?  Please.  I mean, they reason like angry toddlers.  And even if I, as a Muslim, would not do this myself (note, because of something beyond my own religious convictions), I support, directly or indirectly, those who do.

Let us be serious and stop pretending that there are redeeming qualities in the Islamic faith system.  Say it with me:  My apostate friends and family, and my gay friends and family, and any and all apostates, from any religion, and any and all homosexuals, should not be put to death.  If you cannot say this publicly, your convictions are inferior.  Period.

And I say this as someone who is, at best, ambivalent about gay demeanor and behavior, and honestly about gay people themselves.  Ambivalent at best, and sometimes quite a bit less generous than that.  However, I do not think that they should be killed.  No genuinely moral person does.  And no genuinely moral religion calls for such.

But here, I only use Islam because it is the largest alternative to Christianity.  This logic applies to all non-Christian, non-Jewish religions.  Asian religions may not murder apostates, but they tend to be morally ambiguous.

Certainly there are questionable elements in the Christian and Jewish faiths as well.  But I submit to you, dear reader, that they are the best of the many alternatives.  Certainly as Jews and Christians practice their respective faiths today.  And whether you are a believer in the Divine, or not, Christianity and Judaism do allow each of us to pick and choose what to practice and believe without fear of, well, death.

So as a moral person, your choices are:  Be a Christian, be a Jew, or be an atheist and a cultural Judeo-Christian.  That's it.  And yes, if you were born in India or China or Saudi-Arabia, this admonition still applies to you.  I mean, what are the alternatives?  Be an atheist and a cultural Muslim?  What does that even mean?  Again, okay, you, yourself, do not murder the apostates.  Perhaps it is more plausible to be a cultural Hindu.  But I submit if you are an atheist and a cultural Hindu and a moral person, you have been greatly influenced by Judeo-Christian ideas.

Anyway, all of this to merely explain that even as an atheist, I can appreciate a discussion of the role of the Church in our culture.  And how I would rather live in a culture dominated by Christianity than any other religion.  Most especially the religion of puritanical leftist ideology.  Just look at the United Kingdom to see a society where the role of the Church is now, basically, nonexistent, replaced by leftist ideology and Islam.

I have said this before, and I will say it again, almost all people, including most atheists, need faith in something.  And if it is not going to be Christianity, it is most likely going to be something significantly worse.

𓐵

Civil War Comes to Great Britain

David Betz:  

What I think I’m here to do is to explain to you why you’re in actually quite immediate peril from this thing called civil war.



I have mentioned David Betz's theory before.  What strikes me about this discussion, although he does not put it this way directly, is how there is a large and growing subpopulation in Britain that has no loyalty or commitment to the nation itself.  And they have very different ideas about how society should work.

They are aided by an also large subpopulation of native Britons, establishment types, with a misguided and harmful idea of the future of the country.  And without doubt, the establishment has no interest in forcing the the first group to acclimate to British norms, much less interest in deporting them in mass.  The establish is so wedded to this idea that they allow the first group to rape the daughters of non-establishment native Britons with impunity.

The civil war will be these two groups versus non-establishment types who still hold loyalty and commitment to the history and traditions of the nation, but have lost faith in government and institutions.  This tends to happen when you have a large non-native population collectively raping your daughters.  What other possible outcome is there?

I have no doubt that Betz is correct.  This war has already started.

Also, a prediction:  The British government will attempt to silence Betz, sooner rather than later.  His arrest, for something, anything, would not surprise me.  If necessary, they'll find child porn on his computer.
𓐵

Great Britain: The Natives Are Getting Restless

Louise Perry talks with David Betz on the coming British civil war

I think this analysis applies to a large swath of western Europe, and to both Canada and the United States.  Several western nations, certainly Britain and France, have reached a point where there is an elite decision making class largely unaccountable to the public and largely immune to the repercussions of the decisions they themselves make.  Betz says that civil war is now unavoidable.

They mention Tommy Robinson, jailed for telling the truth when a British court and the entire British establishment so clearly lied.  Robinson's film, Silenced, received over 166 million views before he took it down to avoid further contempt of court charges.

They say everything lives forever on the internet, but I bet this film will disappear completely.  This lie is just too important.  In any case, the film has been reposted to BitChute, for now.  We'll see how long that lasts.  Here is a copy on Youtube.  Here it is on another Twitter account.  It is worth noting that the film has already been pulled off of the Internet Archive site.

For this and the grooming scandal, which in this podcast they refer to, more accurately, as industrial rape, and a host of other issues, Britain is now a powder keg.

In the United States, the elites, that is the people who run our institutions, education establishment, and media, are largely supported by the broad Democrat party and its voters.  So we are talking roughly half the country.  I do not know what the numbers are in Britain, France, and Canada.  But my guess is their respective elites also have sizable support.  That is to say, yes, there are large numbers of citizens in Britain, who obviously do not support raping children, but who are willing to turn a blind eye to it.  Just as there are large numbers of Americans who turn a blind eye to the growing cult of gender identity and its consequences.

So if there is to be a civil war, it will not only be a war against the elites and unassimilated immigrants, but also against their legions of support.  As Betz points out, this will largely be an urban/rural divide.

I must note the use of the phrase, the natives are getting restless, in the title of this post.  It is supreme irony that, today, we can use this supposedly derogatory phrase to describe former colonial hegemon, Great Britain.  But in fact, Britain is being invaded and yes, the natives are getting restless.

The British elites who orchestrated this invasion seem to believe that the lower and middle classes will bend over and take it, child rape and all.  Personally, I do not believe that is going to end well...for the elites.  If Betz is correct, they will richly deserve the Jacobin response coming their way.

Update, 3 July 2025

David Betz with Mary Harrington (Youtube video)

I am not the biggest fan of Mary Harrington, and I think Louise Perry did a much better job above.  But this is a more recent talk so I thought worth including.

Update, 21 July 2025

David Betz on Triggernometry

𓐵

Peterson's Message to Musk (and the rest of us)

On Tommy Robinson and Schools of Education

Peterson first discusses the abysmal treatment of Robinson by the government of Great Britain.  Britain has become a theocracy with dhimmi-servants running the government, the judiciary, and the police (my description not his).  Then Peterson moves on to our own nightmare, the university schools of education, which supposedly train teachers.  I have written about this existential threat before.

𓐵

The Pretty Face of Anti-Semitism Today

On Candace Owens and Contemporary Anti-Semitism

I am not sure what happened to Candace.  But since October 7th, she has been slowly losing her mind.  She likes to talk about her Christianity.  But for the life of me, I do not understand how you can be a true Christian and not fully support Israel.  What does she think will happen to Israel, and yes, to the holy land it occupies, without Christian support?  She's smart; she knows.  Watching her today, and I do, is like watching Howard Beale.

First, why watch Candace Owens at all?  To my knowledge, she is the only person on the planet investigating Kamala Harris' background.  That is, Kamala's family history and genealogy.  Owens' contention is that while the Harris family comes from Jamaica, there is not one drop of African blood in her.  So why the pretense?  Why does Kamala Harris sell herself as the first African American vice president?  Going so far as to insert fake black ancestors into her family tree.  Since she is clearly a person of color, why is this necessary?  What is she hiding?  Owens suggests that instead of being African American, Harris comes from a family of high-caste Indian slave traders.

Yeah, one might want to hide that.

Now, as for Owens (and many others) holding Israel responsible for the deaths of innocent, non-combatants in Gaza:  Given the cowardly manner that Hamas and Hezbollah engage in fighting, using women, children, hospitals, schools, mosques, etc. as shields, of course you will see a high rate of collateral death.  But if you then turn around and hold Israel responsible for that death, as Owens does, there can only be one reason for your logic.  You are a raging anti-semite.

To argue that Israel can simply stop the war is to allow an untold number of combatants, proven killers, to live to kill Israelis another day.  And not just Israelis, but additional Palestinian women and children.  I mean does anyone really believe that the combatants will change their tactics, put on uniforms, and fight honorably?  Everyone who argues this position certainly knows the future result.  They just don't care.  What they want is for the Israelis to simply not fight back.  Or if possible, to be prevented from fighting back.  No, Palestinian fighters need to be exterminated like the burrowing cockroaches they are.

Finally, the argument that Israel is simply creating the next generation of young Palestinians who will hate them all the more.  Well it is those same innocent non-combatants who teach their children to hate Jews.  These people are manufacturing the gleeful killers that we saw on October 7th.  And it should be added, they elected Hamas and then helped them hide the Israeli hostages.  They may be innocent of murder, but that does not make them innocent.

You cannot and should not kill innocents.  Short of stopping the war, Israel does everything it can to limit the deaths of non-combatants.  But long term, they will have to find a way to contain the hate.  If for no other reason, so that Candace Owens can safely pilgrimage to her own Christian holy land.

𓐵

Jordan Peterson Interviews Tommy Robinson

Youtube really does not want you to see this interview (recorded 30 June 2024).  So they took it down.  Peterson re-posted it on 4 October 2025:

Now here is a followup interview from 16 August 2024 (posted just hours ago on Youtube).  Still shareable at this hour, but just to be safe, I'll embed the X/Twitter post below.

Crime and Punishment | Tommy Robinson pic.twitter.com/IFNZ1ZhpRC

— The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast (@JBPpod) August 29, 2024

Watch these videos on Youtube while you can because I believe, sooner or later, they will take them down completely.  Moving forward, I will embed the X/Twitter videos whenever I have a choice.  Youtube has proven time and again that they are not to be trusted.

Finally, you can see Robinson's documentary, Silenced, which they refer to in both of these videos, here.

Watching these videos and Silenced it is clear that Britain has become a theocracy with dhimmi-servants running the government, the police, and the judiciary.  And frankly, short of widespread violence, it is going to stay that way.  The government seems completely immune to public outcry.  I am pessimistic that the British people will be able to muster the necessary will and strength to dislodge the theocratic government.

I am sorry, but if you jail citizens for making comments on Facebook, do not be surprised if you get protests, riots, and violence.  At this point the British government seems to believe that they can jail enough citizen dissidents to bring Facebook commentators to heel, and to quell the riots.  And I fear they may be correct.

But at some point we have to fight for our countries.  Yes, actually fight.  And if we do not, we will lose them.  That is where Britain is now.  That is the choice that the British people now face.

𓐵

Three Questions

Three questions we should all ask ourselves about Israel

Truth versus Hope

How to counter Islam:  Truth or Christianity

Richard Dawkins is skeptical of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's conversion to Christianity.  I was also skeptical when I wrote about her conversion last year.  But today (this was recorded a month ago), she does seem to accept, and claims to believe, at least some of the tenets of the Christian faith.

But listening to her, I am still led to believe that her newly professed faith is mostly a political, anti-Islam mission.  Her position seems to be that enlightenment values do not offer an adequate alternative to Islam, so she's going to try Christianity.  Her newfound faith seems to be based on the hope that Christianity offers a viable alternative.

As I see it, the problem with Hirsi Ali's argument is that she is setting aside truth for the sake of winning the hearts and minds of the masses as a counter to Islam.  She believes that Christianity is necessary to halt the expansion of Islamic tyranny.  Dawkin's position is that we should counter Islam the same way we counter all religions, with truth and rationality.  But here Hirsi Ali's point reigns supreme:  We must offer something rather than nothing.

I'm still not sure that she is a sincere Christian.  But she is so invested in offering an alternative to Islam, that she will call herself a Christian if that's what it takes.

I think the real difference between the two is that Dawkins believes the masses must respond to rationality.  Ultimately there is no other choice.  And Hirsi Ali believes that it is going to take more than that to appeal to the masses.  She believes that the masses need a better story than Islam.  Who cares if it's true or not.  It is a cynical and patronizing position.  Surely people will see that.

Besides, can we really rely on the beliefs of the masses in our existential fight with Islam?  The masses will always believe some nonsense.  That is a huge part of what makes them masses.  Just look how the masses accepted government propaganda on Covid.  Look at their social media addictions.  Look at how they vote in the United States and Great Britain and Western Europe.  Even if we continue to believe in democracy, I think we should be extremely cautious of the masses.

And regarding western masses' perspective on Islam, most people seem to believe that it is just another religion, and therefore, while they may have little knowledge of its teachings, they view it as a positive:  It is a religion, therefore it must instruct its adherents to behave righteously.

So while I agree that something must be done to counter Islam, it will not be a mass Christian movement that stops it.  It will not be the malleable hearts and minds of the western masses.  They are too soft and too unthinking.  And eventually the Muslims will kill them.  It is convert, submit, or die.

No, it will take sterner stuff.  Which will start with...truth.

We might start with the truth of what exactly do Muslims believe?  Forget a new story, or a better story.  Just tell the awful truth about their story.  Let's tell Queers for Palestine what happens to them when they get to, you know, Palestine.  Let's tell women the truth about life in Iran.  Let's be honest about Muslim apostasy and blasphemy and honor killings and anti-semitism and sharia.  And tolerance; let's talk about Muslim tolerance.  Not in the West, but in Saudi Arabia.  Let's tell the story of the history of Islam and its maniacal, murderous prophet.

Let us explain the difference between Muslim behavior when they are less than five percent of a population and when they are more than twenty percent.  This is very difficult for most western people to understand.  And it will quite literally be the death of them.  Here the United States has an advantage.  They can simply watch what happens in Europe.  But will they learn?

Let us be so busy telling the truth about Islam that we don't have time or need to preach an alternative.

𓐵

The Attack, by Kurt Schlichter

An Hamas-style attack on America

Yesterday, this site featured a new film that everyone should see.  Today, we bring you a new book that everyone should read.

The Attack, by Kurt Schlichter ★★★★★ Kurt Schlichter (Self published) 7 January 2024 336 pages Fiction $ 24.24 (Hardcover) $ 16.27 (Paperback) $  6.99 (Kindle) * Prices accurate on date of this post.

Schlichter sets the book in late August 2024.  But the truth is, this could happen any day now.  And while this book is fiction, the events it describes will absolutely happen unless the United States returns to a secure border policy, and a common sense immigration policy.  And what are the chances of that?

It's a great book and certainly worth reading.  But I disagree with one of the central themes of the book.  Schlichter believes that if the US is attacked in such a manner, the average citizen will fight back.  Or at least, enough of them will fight back.  But after the incredibly meek response by these same citizens during the Covid lockdowns and mandates, I just cannot agree with him.  Sadly, as we have seen, Americans have become sheep.  And they will be led to the slaughter.

Even more recently, look how people, especially younger left-of-center types (and even the police), have reacted to the Hamas supporters across the West.  Again, meekly.  In the US, they have a First Amendment right to say what they want.  But student visas and such could be revoked.  The FBI could monitor Dearborn radicals like it monitors conservative Catholics.  But in fact, the current administration panders to Muslims.

And as I have written before, if the federal government initiates gun registrations or confiscation, how will most people react?  Let's say for example, in a Kamala Harris or Michelle Obama administration.  My guess:  Compliantly.  In any case, this is one reason I think Schlichter set the book so soon in the future – to ensure that a lot of citizens still had firearms.  And his theory that people would be willing to use them makes for a great story.  I enjoyed it anyway.  But it is fiction.

I think Schlichter would argue the point with me.  And I hope I am wrong.  Though I will add this, if we altered his story just a bit, and the terrorists only attacked blue states (rather than all states as set out in the book), would the outcome not be vastly different?  The terrorists could still do tremendous damage and without being immediately gunned down.

I would like to share two passages from the book.  The first describes woke progressive students and academics, and their attitude towards the Palestinian/Hamas attack on Israel:

It meant that rape and torture and murder were allowed if the right oppressed people did it to the right oppressors.

Schlichter adds:  And they made it clear that this moral construct applied to America as well.  I had not thought about it in such stark and extreme terms, but clearly this is correct.  Remember, the progressives revere Marx and Che Guevara, not Gandhi or even Martin Luther King, Jr.

Second, describing Islamist terrorists:

Some people try to call it madness.  It is not.  Do not think of them as insane.  That gives them a moral pass for choosing a barbaric moral framework.  They are not mad.  They are evil.  And they are usually fully prepared to die in perpetuating their evil, either from pride or what we see as ridiculous promises of paradise with their virgins and so forth.

The only thing I could possibly add is that a good number of ordinary Muslims share that barbaric moral framework even if they do not act on it.  Their religion is not like other religions, and until we accept this reality, we will not be able to counter it.  They do not have a Live and let live mentality.  They certainly do not have a Golden Rule mentality.  Rather their's is the mentality of ancient Arabian raiders:  Convert, submit, or die.  And this novel is a manifestation of that injunction.

Finally, let me say this about Schlichter's ending where the United States bombs Iran, expels all illegal immigrants, kills the Mexican cartels, and builds a serious border wall with a serious border protection force.  What would it take for that to happen?  Under any administration?  In his novel, the terrorists kill 162,172 Americans.  I think that number is correct.  It would take near-about that many dead Americans for our government to do its job, and take proper and responsible actions to protect the country.

How sad is that?

𓐵

Questions for Muslims

Collective Punishment?  What about Collective Beliefs?

When it comes to Gaza and the Palestinians, there's a lot of talk about the evils of collective punishment.  And maybe that is correct.  Israel and the IDF are certainly trying to avoid it.  But I think it's long past time to have a serious discussion about what Palestinians and Muslims collectively believe.

Let's start with some questions:

What percentage of Palestinians support Hamas?

What percentage believe that Israel should not exist?

What percentage believe that homosexuals should be killed?

What percentage believe that apostates should be killed?

What percentage believe all Jews should be killed? 

Here's a few more to ask them:  What should be done with a woman who commits adultery?  What should happen to a woman who is raped?  What should be done with a Palestinian daughter who wants to marry a Jewish man?

How much moral ambiguity do these questions allow?

And then, just for fun, ask these same questions in other Muslim countries.  Start with sunni Saudi Arabia and shia Iran.  Even with their supposedly vast theological divide, you'll get a lot of agreement on these questions.  You know, questions that matter today.

I would love to add that we should ask these same questions to Muslims residing in the West.  But I don't think you could get honest answers.  Muslims behave so much better when they are less than five percent of a society than when they are, say, twenty percent.  Although we have learned that if they cover their faces and go protest in the street with their coreligionists, they're more likely to tell you the truth.

Here's another question to ask Muslims:  What should happen to the infidels?  And especially as the percentage of Muslims in a society rises?  You know, all those people who do not see, in fact refuse to see, that a murderous, pedophile, rapist, polygamist, warlord was the perfect man for all time.  Can these non-believers breathe the same rarified air as Muslims?  Here again, not when Muslims are a well-behaved five percent of a population, but when they are approaching twenty percent, or more.  What then Muhammad?

In fact, why is it that the only peaceful Muslim societies have either less than five percent or more than ninety-five percent Muslims?  And between these extremes, we find bloody conflicts and generational wars of attrition.

Should we not look to history for the answer to these questions?  Sweden, are you not interested in these questions?  Maybe the Humanitarian Superpower should consider all of these questions before it becomes another Bosnia.  Of course, the bombings have already started.

And while we are looking to history, here are some additional questions.  Whether you believe in the divinity of Jesus, or not, he was a Jew living where?  In fact, how many Jews were then living in the area we call Israel today?  And finally, how many Muslims?  I ask these questions not for myself, because I do not think they are terribly important, but rather for Muslims and their decolonization allies.

Now, just for fun, let's answer these last few.  Jesus was a Jew living in what we today call Israel.  How many Jews lived there at the time?  ALL of them.  Yes, at the time, every Jew in the world lived there.  And how many Muslims?  Exactly zero.  Let that sink in.

To be fair:  Were there also pre-Islamic Arabs?  Undoubtedly.  Nomadic, tribal, and warring to be sure.  But the religious injunction to hate and murder Jews came only with the birth of Muhammad and his creation of the Islamic faith – 600 years later.  Six hundred years.

I remember when the particularly nasty Helen Thomas said that Jews are occupiers, and that they should go home...to Poland and Germany.  So many Muslims and decolonization types think this way.  At the time, I remember thinking, why does no one ask her Where the Jews came from?  That is, Where were they before they fled to Poland, and why did they flee?

No, the question of Who was there first? does not help the Muslim argument.  And while I don't find the question very important or relevant today, I am not the one asking it.  If Muslims and decolonizers want to argue We were here first, I think they have a historical problem.

The Nakba of 1948 followed the Nakba of 570 with the birth of the murderous maniac Muhammad.  Both continue to this day.

Now, as the argument goes, one is ancient history and the other is within living memory, and therefore, somehow actionable.  Whatever that might entail and however bloody that might need be.

But in the 1,400 years since Muhammad’s reign of terror, Islam has conquered its way from the Atlantic coast of north Africa to Indonesia just off the Pacific.  That's from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the long way.  Now it’s working its way north and south over this same multi-continental span.  We cannot and will not dismiss over a millennia of Muslim aggression and conquest because it had a minor setback in 1948.  So yes, we can carve out a little space for a Jewish homeland, and yes, we can defend it.

But in fact, they only ask the question as an excuse – A justification to eliminate the state of Israel and to murder Jews.  That's it.  Helen Thomas knew this.  Palestinians know this.  Iran knows this.  Muslims know this.

The decolonization types don't know anything other than the doctrine of virtue signaling.  They only know that they are on the side of the oppressed.  More accurately, they are on the side of those they have been told are oppressed.  As if Muslims do not have fifty-seven nations of their own...including the richest nations in the history of the planet.  And as if the Jews are not the most oppressed people in the history of the world...with one tiny little sliver of an enclave, about the size of New Jersey.  You raging ignorant lunatics.

So our Muslim Question is:  What should we make of all this and what should we do about it?  At a minimum I think all of us who believe in western civilization need to understand who we are dealing with and what they believe.  Until then, we will never be able to address the civilizational problem before us.

And for those of you in the West who do not believe in western civilization, well I have never seen one of you, of any background, who did not reap the benefits it offers.  Not one.

One final question for Muslims:  What do you think should happen to someone who asks these questions and shares this opinion?  Try to be honest.  Let everyone see who you are.

But show us your hands.

𓐵

Articulated Rage

Douglas Murray has long been one of my favorite commentators.  He has always been a rather levelheaded conservative.  But in this new video one senses an undercurrent of rage.  Which I completely share.

But I do not share his confidence that the people of Britain will stand up to the intolerance in their mist.  Or that the people in the United States will.  It is nice to think so.  But to believe that this will happen, in either of these countries, one has to believe that we have, still, a moral and principled public.  I no longer believe this is true.

Near the end, Murray says:  It is not Jews who should be fearful in the UK, it is the people who would make Jews fearful.  Dear reader, just ask yourself, is this true?  Or just wishful thinking?  Righteously enraged wishful thinking, sure.  But wishful thinking nonetheless.

And the UK and the US sit at one end of the spectrum.  Ask yourself also, what are the French going to do?  That is, their entirely useless government or their public which can be summed up as one big Gallic shrug?  And Germany, Belgium, Sweden?  The idea that these nations will do anything, at either the government or public level, is absurd.  These nations have not had anything resembling a moral, principled public in well over a hundred years.  The idea that they'll develop one to deal with the genocidal manics currently in their mist is ridiculous.

It is interesting to note that there are at least two types of genocidal manics running around the streets of London and New York.  Those we have allowed in through irresponsible (and anti-western) government policy.  And those we have created ourselves with an incompetent education system, capped with a college indoctrination program.  Our very own homegrown Hitler Youth.  If you listen to these sociopaths, they share all the self-righteous zeal of their progenitors.  All that's left is for them to re-enact their destiny.  And they will.

And if there was any doubt that the woke fanatics were transforming into our Hitler Youth...I think their performance since Saturday, October 7th finally puts that question to bed.

Oh sure, eventually, the Muslims will kill them.  I mean good Muslims can only suffer Queers for Palestine for so long.  Not to mention, the trans activists, other alphabet people, atheistic types, and those on the intersectional hierarchical spectrum.  But for now, can you just imagine the surprised glee of the Islamists?  For the unexpected help.  These useful idiots offer invaluable service, and faux intellectual cover, for the immediate program:  Killing the Jews.

Now, as a First Amendment absolutist, should these idiots, of both varieties, be allowed to spew their venom?  Absolutely, er...well maybe.  We need to clearly understand that they are calling for a second Holocaust.  Certainly the Islamists mean it.  Our Hitler Youth are too stupid to mean anything they say.  They should be held accountable nonetheless.

Let's come back to accountability.  Here, let's stop and ask:  Should incitement to Holocaust be allowed under our current conception of free speech?  And no matter where you come down on this question, it is a question worth asking.  As Bruce Bawer famously pointed out years ago now, tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance at all; it is suicide.  So how much tolerance are we going to allow before we say enough?  Personally I am not feeling very tolerant of this river to the sea crowd that we are currently witnessing globally.  Again, this is not some innocent slogan; they mean it.

And although they could not find the Jordan River on a map, our Hitler Youth are clear accessories.  Accessories to Holocaust.  Their parents must be so proud.

Back to accountability:  Who is going to hold them accountable?  Joe Biden?  His string-puller, Barack Obama?  New York governor Kathy Hochul?  Or New York City mayor, Eric Adams?  How about British prime minister, Rishi Sunak?  Or my personal favorite, London mayor, Sadiq Khan?  So that leaves our amoral and unprincipled public.  A public which tolerates immigrant rape gangs in the UK and castrating children in the US?  A public completely bullied, and frankly cowed, by nonsensical woke fanatics?  You know, the very same Hitler Youth.  That public?

Public support for our Hitler Youth is the problem.  But, but, we read, most people do not support the woke agenda.  Even those on the left do not support the woke fringe, we're told.  And sure, if asked, they may not agree with castrating children, immigrant rape gangs, vandalizing artwork, cancel culture, censorship, pronoun insanity, DEI nonsense, academic intolerance, open borders, and most importantly, the Oppressor/Oppressed narrative.  But they nonetheless vote for people who will not stop it.  Time and time again.

I have made this point many times before:  At least half the public either believe in the woke cause, fully support the cause, or tacitly support the cause.  And it is actually much more than half of the public because so many of these supporters do not vote or cannot vote.  But it is the tacit supporters who are the most pernicious.  If you are a moderately left-of-center voter, who excitedly voted for Barack Obama (twice), and then unexcitedly voted for Joe Biden, who goes on to support gender-affirming care for minors and all the rest of the woke agenda, well moderate though you may be, you are the problem.  Stop and read this paragraph again if you must.  You are the problem.

And if you are a left-voting Jewish American, who now finds the Biden administration rather weak on anti-semitism, you are also the problem.

These voters are the public.  The point is, it is the public that is the problem.  They will not save us.

So no, there will be no consequences whatsoever.  Much as I value and appreciate Douglas Murray, he's just understandably and wistfully wrong about this.  The moral and principled public on which he relies, well they no longer exist.  And without it, we will see our societies fall first into anarchy and then later into authoritarianism.

We have the unique distinction of witnessing the death of the West.  I did not think it would come in my lifetime.  Yet here we are.

𓐵

France in Twilight

Watching France descend into darkness

An interesting update on Islam in France and how French leaders are dealing with the situation.  Or rather, not dealing with it.  The writer, Bruce Bawer, is an American who has long lived in Norway.  His article includes this extraordinary passage which includes a rather basic question from a retired French general, Roland Dubois:

The minds and hearts of these people are consecrated to a set of beliefs and practices that represent an existential menace to Western Civilization.  To pretend that these believers can be reined in by any lame law or charter or pact is sheer folly.  As one General Roland Dubois asked rhetorically in a recent commentary:  When faced with a choice between a sacred text, dictated by Allah himself, and therefore untouchable to the end of time and some newly concocted document, more or less imposed by the unbelievers, which text can you expect to win out?  Muslims have felt a sense of indomitability in France for some time now; can anyone honestly expect them to turn meek?  The bottom line, then, is this:  If Islam were harmless in the first place, there would be no need for any laws or charters to control its adherents; but since Islam is not harmless, such documents are useless – except perhaps as part of an effort by Macron to make it look to voters, in the run-up to the next election, as if he’s actually doing something about the issue.  [Emphasis added]

In an Open Letter to the President of France and Members of Parliament, General Dubois and nineteen of his fellow retired generals write:

As Cardinal Mercier, Primate of Belgium, once said:  When prudence is everywhere, courage is nowhere.  Ladies and Gentlemen, stop equivocating — the hour is late, the work ahead is immense.  Do not lose time, and know that we are ready to support political leaders who would undertake the rescue of the Nation.

However, if nothing is done, heedlessness will continue to spread its poison throughout society, inexorably.  In the end, there will be an explosion, and our comrades in active military service will be forced to step in and undertake the perilous mission of protecting our civilizational values and the lives of our fellow citizens.

It is easy to see that the time for hesitation is over.  Otherwise, tomorrow, civil war will put an end to this growing chaos, and there will be thousands of deaths, of which you will bear responsibility.

Editor's note:  Translation from The American Mind.  Read the full translated letter here:  Twilight in Paris (love the title).

Needless to say, the letter has not been received well by the French bien-pensants.  Left-wing politicians labeled it a thinly veiled call for insurrection, and called for legal action and prosecutions.  Here is an accounting of the episode from the Daily Mail.  The Mail updates the story here.  Here is the story in The Telegraph, also updated.

The Left offers no substantive alternatives.  They certainly dare not address Dubois' question above.  In this new millennium, the Left has only one playbook:  Label anyone who disagrees with their narrative a bigot, have them canceled or fired, and completely ignore the mayhem all around.

As Samuel Huntington wrote in The Clash of Civilizations, Islam has bloody borders.  And the European border is no longer the Mediterranean Sea.  Today, the border stretches through every major European city.  And the blood spilling has just begun.
𓐵