Feeding Your Inner Caligula

February 17, 2017

Feeding Your Inner Caligula

Self-love used to be a vice, but nowadays it is the nearest thing to a virtue, as a supposed precondition of our own mental health (whatever that might be).

An Irish friend kindly forwarded me an article from The Irish Times reporting on a school in County Dublin that, on St. Valentine’s Day, encouraged children to write Valentine cards to themselves. They were supposed to inscribe in them what they loved about themselves, on the theory that self-love is a precondition to success, happiness, and resilience, and should therefore be taught early and probably incessantly.

My view is that the head teacher of the school ought to be given hemlock to drink for corrupting youth, but I accept that some people might think this punishment a little severe. Indeed, there are some people—the author of the article among them, a psychotherapist—who think the promotion of youthful self-satisfaction and conceit an excellent idea, the key to the little ones’ future happiness.

I looked up the school’s mission statement on the internet. Suffice it to say that it contained few surprises, other than the fact that it existed at all. It was the expected dreary catalog of modern pieties, among them the celebration of the uniqueness of the child and respect for diversity of traditions, values, and beliefs, irrespective of the particular nature or content of those traditions, values. and beliefs. As for “celebrating” uniqueness: How is it to be done? By getting the little geniuses to chant “I am unique, you are unique, we are all unique, everyone is unique!” while holding hands and dancing round a tree as the teacher beats the rhythm on a tambourine?

“Self-love used to be a vice, but nowadays it is the nearest thing to a virtue.”

The tide of cliché has been rising for years, despite (or, as Schopenhauer would no doubt have said, because of) the ever-greater proportion of educated persons in the population. It requires a certain level of education, after all, to be able to write the following, taken at random from the article in The Irish Times:

Self-esteem matters, and as children are still forming core beliefs about themselves, adults can engage with them to really tune in to that fact.

No person who had left school at the age of 12 could have written such a sentence, which of course is a very powerful argument for reducing, as a preventive measure, the age at which children leave school. No mere ignoramus, no child sent down the mines at the age of 6, could ever have uttered these words, which somehow manage to combine dogmatism with absence of clear meaning.

But let us examine some of the more easily comprehensible, though not necessarily worthwhile, sentiments expressed in the article:

A child who develops such beliefs as “I am kind, I am competent, I am lovable” will likely find themselves [sic] on a path to good self-esteem. A child who, on the other hand, develops more negative beliefs about himself, such as “I have no talent, I am not liked by others” will likely have lower self-esteem and this can affect their [sic] mental health.

What is most remarkable about this is that neither here nor elsewhere in the article does the author think it necessary for there to be some objective correlative of the belief. That is to say, it is perfectly in order for the child to have a belief about himself that is completely unrelated to any of his conduct. According to this view of the matter, a child can, and indeed ought to, remind himself that he is kind while he is pulling the legs and wings off a fly or throwing stones through an old lady’s front window. As angels to wanton boys are we to the psychologists.

Criminals, especially the vicious rather than the merely pathetic ones, have very high self-esteem. They are generally proud of how awful they have been and positively swagger with satisfaction at their own competence in the matter of causing misery to others. They too have “core beliefs” about themselves, all of them highly flattering. They even think they are lovable as well as admirable.

The author wasn’t just having an off day such as we all have whenever we try to think. Here is what she wrote in the same journal just before Christmas last year:

There has been a lot of talk lately, at a national, local and personal level, about the importance of putting mental health front and centre. Therefore, as the Christmas season approaches, during this time of gift-giving, we have an opportunity to focus on what we can gift to ourselves, in order to impact in a positive way on our mental health.

And what is the gift we can give ourselves? “Living life authentically, getting in tune with our true sense of how we wish to be in this world.” And what if what we really, truly, and authentically wish to be is Caligula? Well, “research” (before which we must all bow down and worship) shows that “when we are authentic…even if it sets up to be different from others, it still correlates with increased levels of joy and wellbeing.” Oh, happy, happy Caligula!

When reading this kind of saccharine psychological bilge, I feel rather (though not exactly) as I do after having eaten too many chocolate truffles at a sitting. Alternatively, one might call the thoughts of the author of the articles psychological kitsch. Kitsch is hard to define but easy to recognize: It is a kind of sentimental garishness approximating or imitating, but not attaining, art. These articles are conspicuously sentimental, written with something approximating or imitating, but not attaining, thought.

I asked a fishmonger what he thought of the idea of children sending themselves Valentine cards inscribed with what they loved about themselves.

“Valentine’s Day is bad enough,” he said, “without bringing children into it.”

Now, that’s what I call a genuine thought.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Globalization – the Effect on Culture

Globalization is composed of a swirl of causes and effects that have been profoundly world-changing. At the top of the Cause column are vastly improved communications — in particular, the Internet, which used to be called the World-Wide Web — and faster cheaper travel. The latter permits less expensive transport of goods as well as humans, so the global economy of transnational trade is foundational to the process and associated beliefs.

The Internet is a big player in spreading the idea that there are places on earth more desirable than someone’s third-world backwater. Belief in the importance of borders and national sovereignty has diminished with the growing view that relocation can be a smart choice for the global poor. Anyway, why bother working to reform and build a better life in the homeland when it’s easier to simply leave for greener pastures? And many have. Increased immigration has been a big part of expanding the globalist, one-worlder ideology. The United Nations reported that the number of persons living in a country other than their birthplace reached 244 million in 2015 worldwide, a 41 percent increase over 2000.

Homeland reformers are in short supply these days. In an earlier generation, people like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi took on the leadership chore of nation-building. You may not like their politics and the sort of nations they constructed, but they entered the arena and struggled with the heavy lifting of political reform.

Take Mexico — there’s a country that could use a reformer. It routinely ranks among the top 15 nations for its GDP, yet in 2014 the poverty rate was 46.2 percent according to the government agency Coneval. Mexico is very wealthy indeed for the rich elites who run the place, like the 15 Mexican billionaires that Fortune counted on its list for 2017. The magazine observed in March, “Despite a weak currency and a sluggish economy, the combined net worth of Mexico’s billionaires climbed 17 percent, from $99.6 billion in 2016 to $116.7 billion.”

Mexico is blessed with many physical advantages like scenic coasts and mineral resources, and its middle class has been expanding, although slowly. There is a sense that it could do a lot better if it had a serious leader who could knock back the economic sclerosis and improve living standards for those at the bottom of the economic pile.

Television, print media, and the Internet all spread the gospel of first-world-style consumption around the world. The Wall Street Journal carried a memorable story of how the attraction of a sparkly modern lifestyle draws impressionable youth from the third world in its revealing article, “Allure of Wealth Drives Deadly Trek” (June 12, 2015). The subject of the story, 27-year-old Ibrahima Ba, lived in moderately prosperous Senegal and had decent prospects in life, yet he joined fellow residents of his village of Kothiary to travel 3,000 miles to Europe. He apparently died crossing the Mediterranean.

Senegal is a stable West African democracy, and Kothiary has profited from the currents of globalization transforming rural Africa’s more prosperous areas. Flat screen TVs and, increasingly, cars—mostly purchased with money wired home by villagers working in Europe—have reshaped what was once a settlement of mud huts. The wealth has plugged this isolated landscape of peanut farms and baobab trees into the global economy and won respect for the men who sent it.

But it has also put European living standards on real-time display, and handed young farm hands the cash to buy a ticket out.

Senegal has been developed according to Western ideas of how to grow out of poverty: it has held elections for decades, liberalized trade, and built infrastructure. Yet the country is no longer adequate in the eyes of young people when an idealized view of a wealthy Europe is broadcast daily. The idea of loyalty to home and country does not seem to even occur to the young men headed north. The fervour to leave seems almost like a gold rush — hurry and get some or it will all be gone.

In fact, many of the European jobs the Africans hope to find for making their fortune will be gone before long, as automation replaces human workers in tasks that are simple and repetitious.

Globalization across Planet Earth brings new information about different cultures as its practitioners arrive as immigrants and seek to make their mark, culturally as well as economically. Today’s newbies are not expected to embrace assimilation as in earlier generations: the left has condemned cultural integration as an outdated concept that doesn’t respect diversity. However, not all diversity is admirable, as we have learned by exposure to extreme versions. Because of immigration, Americans have in recent years become acquainted with the beliefs and practices of Islam, including poly-gamy, the honor killing of disobedient females, and war against anyone who does not accept the supremacy of Allah. Ignorance was bliss.

Globalism, the belief system, has its adherents of course. One-worlderism is a liberal faith, based on the naive idea that if people just got to know each other, then war would cease and peace would prevail. It’s a vague, unrealistic ideal, but it feels good to the believer. But the idea ignores the obvious fact that not all cultures are morally equal. American women and their friends are not vacationing in Saudi Arabia, and the reason is deep-seated cultural misogyny that shows up in practices like gender segregation in restaurants.

One version of the globalist faith has been blossoming in Canada, where its liberal prime minister, Justin Trudeau, has declared the country he runs to be postnational. The idea of a post-national nation doesn’t make much sense, but Trudeau is a true believer nevertheless. He enthusiastically bragged about the odd category in a New York Times Magazine interview, “Trudeau’s Canada, Again” (December 8, 2015):

Trudeau’s most radical argument is that Canada is becoming a new kind of state, defined not by its European history but by the multiplicity of its identities from all over the world. His embrace of a pan-cultural heritage makes him an avatar of his father’s vision. ‘‘There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,’’ he claimed. ‘‘There are shared values — openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state.’’

Trudeau pictures globalist values as written in the liberal playbook, but his fuzzy list of positive traits is not shared in the sizable Islamic slice of the world which numbered 1.6 billion persons as of 2010, according to Pew Research.

These imagined globalist principles are sometimes used as a club to beat back western progress in society and replace it with political correctness which refuses to recognize evil. Liberals try to bully Americans into respecting hostile Islamists in our midst, when we should instead reject the whole eighth century ideology. Islam is more accurately described as a totalitarian political system wrapped in a religious package. Therefore it should not be afforded the respect we as Americans normally afford to genuine religions.

As Dutch politician Geert Wilders remarked:

I have nothing against the people. I don’t hate Muslims. But Islam is a totalitarian ideology. It rules every aspect of life — economics, family law, whatever. It has religious symbols, it has a God, it has a book — but it’s not a religion. It can be compared with totalitarian ideologies like Communism or fascism. There is no country where Islam is dominant where you have a real democracy, a real separation between church and state.

So perhaps it’s wise to be suspicious of Islamic diversity and immigration.

Interestingly, globalist ideology has come under criticism in recent years, with more appreciation for the nation-state, particularly among average people. Former Czech President Václav Klaus praised that form of governance in 2003: “You cannot have democratic accountability in anything bigger than a nation state.” The passage in Britain of BREXIT to divorce from the European Union and the election of Donald Trump show the rejection of the open-borders diversity model of organization. In early 2017, patriot candidates Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Marine Le Pen of France failed in elections for national leadership, but both moved the debate to the issues of sovereignty and immigration. It’s disappointing that they lost, but at least immigration is being discussed with a degree of realism about the unfriendly culture of some newcomers.

Globalist diversity includes a mixture of good and bad symptoms. We appreciate French brie and enjoy Italian opera, but we prefer to live without polygamy and honor killing. Western culture and political rights have been hard won over centuries. Now more than ever, citizens must insist upon immigration assimilation because of the extreme diversity being admitted. Or better yet, the government should not admit immigrants from cultures that are historic enemies of western values. America must not drift into a hazy state of post-nationalism and belief in globalist standards.

(SOURCE)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

/Pol/ was right again

/Pol/ was right again. (Link in comments)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Test

Test test

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MY PRESIDENT

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Veterans Turn To Marijuana To Ditch ‘Cocktail Of Drugs’ From The VA Photo of Steve Birr STEVE BIRR

The bud of a marijuana plant.
Shutterstock/Steve Ikeguchi

Proposals to loosen federal restrictions on marijuana and open up access to cannabis products for veterans are gaining bipartisan traction despite uncertainty from the Trump administration.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a measure July 13 that would let doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs give patients approval to access medical marijuana in states where it is legal. A proposal from Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz seeks to reschedule marijuana, currently classified as a Schedule I substance alongside heroin, as a substance recognized by the federal government as having therapeutic value, reports the Los Angeles Times.

Building bipartisan momentum for marijuana issues concerning veterans comes on the heels of American Legion, a veterans group with more than 2 million members, formally launching a campaign in May advocating the government open access to the substance for returning service members. It is unclear if the Trump administration, which has been adversarial towards legal pot, will support these efforts.

“We were hearing these compelling stories from veterans about how cannabis has made their lives better,” Joseph Plenzler, a spokesman for American Legion, told the Los Angeles Times Friday. “That they were able to use it to get off a whole cocktail of drugs prescribed by VA doctors, that it is helping with night terrors, or giving them relief from chronic pain.”

The current federal classification of marijuana greatly restricts the ability of researchers to study the medical application of cannabis with federal funding. It also prevents doctors at the VA from recommending marijuana for treatment, even if it can cut down or replace a patients daily intake of opioid painkillers.

“It is a travesty,” Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a longtime advocate for greater marijuana access, told the Los Angeles Times. “They are given opiates instead of maybe something they can derive from marijuana. … And our veterans end up killing themselves because now they are addicted to an opiate.”

A growing chorus of veteran groups are petitioning the government to ease restrictions on federal marijuana policy. Many are unable to get relief from painkillers or traditional treatments allowed under current federal law, leaving them at the mercy of their particular state’s policy.

Texans For Responsible Marijuana Policy, a veterans group, recently launched an effort to legalize medical marijuana in their state to draw attention to the daily struggles facing so many veterans.

GOP Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill last year allowing medical marijuana for the treatment of PTSD in New Jersey, which officials are currently working to implement. Of the 28 states with legal medical marijuana programs, 14 currently offer pot for treating PTSD.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/21/veterans-turn-to-marijuana-to-ditch-cocktail-of-drugs-from-the-va/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Common Sense Solutions to the Illegal Alien Crisis

By Dave Gibson

We are so often told that illegal immigration is a “complicated” issue and that it would either be “unfair” or “too hard” to defend this nation from foreign nationals who have no legal right to be here.

Well, with citizens being raped and murdered by illegal aliens on a daily basis, and the fewest number of Americans working since 1977, it is time to try!

What follows is a short list of solutions, which could be easily undertaken, if only we had someone in the White House willing to carry them out.

First, place the military on the border

Rather than sending a few hundred National Guardsmen to the 2,000 mile-long border under orders to never stop anyone entering this country illegally, the way Presidents Bush and Obama did, if, say, 20,000 troops along with their tanks, helicopters, and U.S. Air Force overflights were utilized along the border (the same way we do for other countries), illegal entries would come to a screeching halt.

During a July 2010 news conference at the Pentagon, Gen. Craig McKinley, chief of the National Guard Bureau, told reporters that National Guard troops would begin a yearlong deployment on August 1, along the 2,000-mile-long U.S./Mexican border, The Dallas Morning News reported.

While the 1,200 troops were armed, they could only use their weapons for self-defense. The troops were distributed along the border as follows:

• Arizona…524

• Texas…250

• California…224

• New Mexico…72

With another 130 troops assigned to something called a “national liaison office.”

One item which Gen. Craig let slip during the press conference was the fact that the states of Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico combined, were currently contributing 54,000 National Guard troops to the U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, the federal government could only supply 1,200 troops back to that region, though that corner of our nation is being invaded by drug dealers and human smugglers.

The number of troops sent to the expansive and incredibly dangerous border amounted to 0.6 soldiers for every mile of the border. This, combined with the questionable rules of engagement under which they were deployed, made the mission nothing more than a pitiable, political gesture from the White House.

In 2005, the Bush administration began to use U.S. combat troops to patrol the borders which define Iraq. In fact, at the time, he announced that there would be a complete lock-down on Iraq’s borders during that nation’s elections. Obama has also used our troops in that same capacity, as well as in providing border security for Afghanistan. While protecting the borders of foreign lands has been a priority for both Presidents Bush and Obama, neither has ever shown a portion of that commitment to their own country.

The Mexican border could and should be made a permanent duty station for U.S. troops. This would allow the Border Patrol to fully staff the official entry points, which would dramatically reduce the amount of drugs as well as the number of criminals coming into this country through the official crossing checkpoints on a daily basis.

It would seem that the taxpayers of Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico are working for the security of foreign lands, rather than for that of their own states.

We could simply take the troops from Germany, where 38,000 U.S. troops are stationed, or any number of other locations around the world (28,500 are now stationed in Korea), and use our military to protect our own border.1

If, after 60 years, the Republic of Korea cannot defend itself from North Korea’s penniless, half-starved population, then they are no strategic ally of the U.S. and should be given six months’ notice that we are leaving to defend our own people.

Second, mandatory prison sentences for CEOs who hire illegal aliens

Whether it is a landscaping company run out of someone’s kitchen in Cicero, Illinois; a 30-unit independent hotel in Virginia Beach; or a corporate giant such as Tyson Foods Inc., once caught with illegal aliens in their employ, the head of that company should spend the next ten years of his/her life in prison.

Additionally, a percentage of that company’s profits commensurate with the percentage of their employees who are illegal aliens should be seized.

Third, cut off all federal funds to cities that have “sanctuary policies” for illegal aliens

If a city such as Chicago, which has such a policy in place, refuses to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by not allowing police officers either to inquire into or report the immigration status of those arrested, thus shielding criminal aliens from notification and eventual deportation, their funds will be immediately suspended. No more federal money for roads, schools, no special grants, no construction projects funded with federal money—nothing!

Only once all municipal agencies in that city are found to be in compliance, will federal funds be restored.

Fourth, require anyone registering a child in a public school to provide proof of U.S. citizenship

Illegal aliens have been getting a free education for their children on the backs of American taxpayers for far too long. The practice has led to overcrowded classrooms, “English as a second language” courses in all of the border states, and, as we saw in 2014, an epidemic of paralytic Enterovirus.

The amount of money spent per child in public school annually varies from state to state, as well as district to district. However, it averages several thousands of dollars per child. Why should American taxpayers be subsidizing the families of illegal aliens?

If parents were required to provide proof of citizenship to register the child, many illegal aliens would simply leave the country. You take away the things that draw them here and most will deport themselves.

The state of California is now bankrupt largely due to years of allowing Mexicans to illegally move their families to the state. Overwhelmed with children who speak only Spanish, they can no longer provide a decent education for American-born children.

Fifth, begin mass deportations

Again, if you take away the goodies (jobs, free education, in-state college tuition, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.), most will return to Mexico and Central America on their own. However, there will remain a number of illegal aliens who will refuse to leave, a great many of whom will be hardcore criminals (gang members, drug dealers, etc.). These human predators will only return home if forcibly removed.

We have heard so many times that it is “impossible to deport 12 million people.”

First, the number of illegal aliens in this country is closer to 40 million; second, nothing is impossible.

As was proven six decades ago (during Operation Wetback), most will leave after they are denied the services they now steal with ease. The rest would be deported upon arrest for other crimes.2

Additionally, the next president must be willing to take military action against the Mexican cartels, as well as the government forces which protect them.

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson ordered General John J. Pershing to lead an invasion into Mexico, against Pancho Villa’s forces. Villa’s bandits were making constant incursions into the U.S. and regularly robbing, raping, and killing Americans living in towns along the border. These criminals operated openly due to rampant corruption among Mexican political and military leaders.

Units of the Mexican military regularly cross the border into this country. The well-armed units escort drug and human smugglers and even fire upon U.S. Border Patrol agents. It is estimated that Latin American drug cartels spend more than $500 million annually paying off high-ranking Mexican military and police officials.

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said in a 2002 interview:

There’s no doubt Mexican military units along the border are being controlled by drug cartels, and not by Mexico City. The military units operate freely, with little or no direction, and several of them have made numerous incursions into the United States.

In January 2008, the Department of Homeland Security reported that since 1996, there had been 278 known incursions by the Mexican military into the United States. They are often seen providing armed escort to drug smugglers. Incredibly, the Mexican military now enters our nation at will, with no response from the U.S. government.

Illegal aliens account for 29 percent of our total prison population. Many more Mexican criminals still roam our streets. The 18th Street Gang and MS-13 have already taken over the streets of Los Angeles, and now they are staking out territory across the country. One million Mexican criminals are the equivalent of 50 divisions of enemy soldiers within this country.

A 2009 Department of Justice (DOJ) report identified 231 U.S. cities in which the cartels had fully functioning distribution operations, with the list stretching from Tucson to Buffalo. By 2013, the DOJ admitted in another report, cartels were operating in an astounding 1,286 American cities.3

In addition to the threat coming from the powerful cartels, thousands of American children are sexually assaulted every year by illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America, as these criminals bring their cultural attitudes towards women and children to this country.

For example, between November 1, 2013, and October 31, 2014, there were 4,317 charges of child sexual assault filed against illegal aliens in North Carolina, according to the citizen’s advocacy group known as NCFIRE.4

As responsible citizens, we should demand that central to any candidate’s presidential platform must be a comprehensive, aggressive plan to deal with the criminal threat posed to this nation by Mexico.

A few suggestions follow:

• A two-pronged campaign utilizing U.S. Special Forces and aerial bombing to decapitate the cartels’ leadership and destroy their production and distribution operations within Mexico.

• An invasion and occupation 20 miles deep into Mexico along the nearly 2,000-mile-long border, in order to create a buffer zone free from drug and human smugglers.

• Completion of the double-layered, Israeli-Gaza-style fence along the border, which was authorized by the 2006 Secure Fence Act (of which Obama illegally halted construction upon taking office).5

If these are not implemented and we allow yet another open-borders, Chamber of Commerce candidate to become president, we may as well start looking for another country, as this one will be lost.

We have had a succession of administrations which have failed to enforce our immigration laws, resulting in basically the erasure of our sovereign border with Mexico. Put simply, this country is slowly (or not so slowly) becoming a Third World nation, as both legal and illegal immigrants from the Third World now dominate new arrivals.

We have the infrastructure, the resources, and the right to deport as many illegal aliens from this nation as we want. The only thing we are now lacking is a federal government with the courage to do so.

The United States simply will not survive more of the same.

Endnotes

1. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.military.troops/

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

3. http://www.mexicogulfreporter.com/2013/01/mexican-drug-cartels-operate-in-1286-us.html

4. http://ufp.flywheelsites.com/north-carolina-4000-charges-child-sex-assault-filed-illegal-aliens-past-year/

5. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6061/text

 

(SOURCE)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The 2nd Amendment Comes To Europe: Czech Republic Expected To Enshrine Right To Bear Arms In Constitution

ar-15-soldier-militia

Most people inside and outside of the US believe that this country’s gun ownership rate is unique, but that’s not exactly true. Though America has the most privately owned guns per capita, there are other countries that aren’t too far behind us, such as Serbia, Yemen, Cyprus, and many Western nations like Finland and Switzerland. In most cases, these countries don’t have access to the same kind of firearms that we do, but nonetheless there are a ton of guns floating around in these places.

What really separates the US from every other country in the world, is that we have the right to bear arms preserved in our constitution. Technically, Honduras and Mexico have the same right in their constitutions, but in both cases it comes with a lot of restrictions. Their right to bear arms doesn’t have any teeth. The Swiss are known for letting many of their citizens own guns, but gun ownership for most Swiss citizens is more of a duty than a right.

America stands alone in this regard. We’re the only country with a constitution that gives civilians a clear and explicit right to own and carry firearms. In every other nation, civilians don’t own firearms unless their governments let them.

That however, is about to change. While most EU governments are eyeing more restrictive gun laws, the Czech Republic is about to add the right to bear arms to its constitution.

Czech Lawmakers have passed legislation in the lower parliament that would see the right to bear firearms enshrined in the country’s constitution in a move directed against tighter regulations from the European Union.

The legislation was passed with 139 deputies agreeing to the amendment to the constitution with only nine deputies voting against. The amendment will now be considered by the Czech Senate where it will require a supermajority of three-fifths of the members in order to pass into law, Die Presse reports.

Similar to the U.S. second amendment to the Constitution, which gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms, the Czech legislation reads: “Citizens of the Czech Republic have the right to acquire, retain and bear arms and ammunition.”

The amendment also notes that the right is there to ensure the safety of the country, similar to the provision of a “well-regulated militia” in the American amendment.

After the bill passes through the senate, it’s expected to be signed into law by President Milos Zeman, who changed his mind on privately owned guns last year. “Earlier I spoke often about limiting the ability to have large quantities of weapons. But after the terrorist attacks, I have changed the idea.”

Though the Czech Republic has always had loose gun laws compared to its neighbors, this law represents a major shift in the European public’s stance on firearm ownership. If anything, it could be just the tip of the iceberg. All across the continent, as migrants grow more violent and as terror attacks become more frequent, we’re seeing Europeans buy more firearms. In some cases, firearm sales have spiked by 350%.

If there’s any silver lining to the massive influx of migrants into Europe over the past few years, it’s that it has taught ordinary Europeans how important it is to let civilians own firearms.

Most people inside and outside of the US believe that this country’s gun ownership rate is unique, but that’s not exactly true. Though America has the most privately owned guns per capita, there are other countries that aren’t too far behind us, such as Serbia, Yemen, Cyprus, and many Western nations like Finland and Switzerland. In most cases, these countries don’t have access to the same kind of firearms that we do, but nonetheless there are a ton of guns floating around in these places. What really separates the US from every other country in the world, is that we have the right to bear arms preserved in our constitution. Technically, Honduras and Mexico have the same right in their constitutions, but in both cases it comes with a lot of restrictions. Their right to bear arms doesn’t have any teeth. The Swiss are known for letting many of their citizens own guns, but gun ownership for most Swiss citizens is more of a duty than a right. America stands alone in this regard. We’re the only country with a constitution that gives civilians a clear and explicit right to own and carry firearms. In every other nation, civilians don’t own firearms unless their governments let them. That however, is about to change. While most EU governments are eyeing more restrictive gun laws, the Czech Republic is about to add the right to bear arms to its constitution. Czech Lawmakers have passed legislation in the lower parliament that would see the right to bear firearms enshrined in the country’s constitution in a move directed against tighter regulations from the European Union. The legislation was passed with 139 deputies agreeing to the amendment to the constitution with only nine deputies voting against. The amendment will now be considered by the Czech Senate where it will require a supermajority of three-fifths of the members in order to pass into law, Die Presse reports. Similar to the U.S. second amendment to the Constitution, which gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms, the Czech legislation reads: “Citizens of the Czech Republic have the right to acquire, retain and bear arms and ammunition.” The amendment also notes that the right is there to ensure the safety of the country, similar to the provision of a “well-regulated militia” in the American amendment. After the bill passes through the senate, it’s expected to be signed into law by President Milos Zeman, who changed his mind on privately owned guns last year. “Earlier I spoke often about limiting the ability to have large quantities of weapons. But after the terrorist attacks, I have changed the idea.” Though the Czech Republic has always had loose gun laws compared to its neighbors, this law represents a major shift in the European public’s stance on firearm ownership. If anything, it could be just the tip of the iceberg. All across the continent, as migrants grow more violent and as terror attacks become more frequent, we’re seeing Europeans buy more firearms. In some cases, firearm sales have spiked by 350%. If there’s any silver lining to the massive influx of migrants into Europe over the past few years, it’s that it has taught ordinary Europeans how important it is to let civilians own firearms.

 

(Source)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hate Crime Hoaxes and Tribal Threats Expand in the Digital Age

By Brenda Walker 
Volume 27, Number 3 (Spring 2017)
Issue theme: “A new era for immigration enforcement”

It’s a sad commentary on modern society that victimhood is so highly valued. The inner child experiences a tiny bump and looks for a reassuring hug. In the media age, that emotionalism is amplified. In fact, social media is the giant magnifying glass over every minuscule of human experience — Facebook encourages us to share a photo of what we ate for lunch, and when that doesn’t get enough clicks, something more dramatic is necessary.

A revved up political climate adds to the intensity. College students, being hormonal drama queens anyway, often want to draw attention to themselves. A mean-spirited message, including a swastika nailed to the dorm door, can result in a campus-wide explosion of leftie outrage, with marches and enthusiastic denunciations of hate. In 2014, Capital University student Jalen Mitchell said he found a racist note on his apartment door, threatening “We will kill you, n—!” He later confessed to the fake hate, and admitted he had fabricated several earlier hoaxes. “It was a way to try to get attention, to say ‘Someone notice me, I’m dying on the inside,’” he told the student newspaper of the Columbus, Ohio school. But mostly he sowed fear among fellow students about non-existent racist threats on campus.

School diversity multiplies the possibilities every which way: Mexicans, Muslims, and blacks all have an opportunity to cash in with an attention-grabbing story. In 2013 a black kid running for his high school student council in New Jersey sent himself some racist emails to attract votes.

Usually, campus fakers get no punishment following discovery, but in a high-profile 2004 case, the fraudster was arrested, tried, and convicted: Claremont Mc-Kenna College Professor Kerri Dunn was sentenced to a year in state prison for concocting a fake hate crime in which she was the supposed victim. She was convicted of filing a false police report and attempted insurance fraud regarding her car. She had claimed her Honda was vandalized with racist graffiti, but witnesses saw her doing the damage herself, which harmed the victim narrative considerably. Until the unpleasant facts came out a few days after the incident, Dunn was a liberal hero, inspiring campus rallies against hate, which made the participants feel very virtuous.

Furthermore, the normal human desire to get love and attention runs off the rails when it is transmogrified in the political arena. Tribe-based organizations like La Raza collect reports of hate crimes of varying veracity to use in their psy-ops to wear down opposition among citizens to lawbreaking foreigners. Deporting illegal aliens is treated like a hate crime, for instance, and we see sob-story cases quite frequently on the front pages of major liberal newspapers.

Rumors of hate crimes and danger against Muslims have been a major tool of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas-affiliated organization that nevertheless is the go-to quote source for liberal media on Muslims matters.

Last June, FBI Director James Comey noted that his agency was investigating 1,000 ISIS terror cases in all 50 states, but to CAIR, the biggest problem today in America is “Islamophobia,” a fake construct created by jihadists to confuse the infidels because a phobia is an unreasonable fear. In the real world, Muslims are killing unbelievers every single day because the Koran says they should. Confusion is a powerful psychological weapon, often underestimated.

The CAIR message is that Americans are MEAN, they are RACIST, they are ISLAMOPHOBIC! We traditional citizens are supposed to respond to the nonstop propaganda by always giving diverse Muslims the benefit of the doubt.

That strategy clearly worked in San Bernardino, where neighbors were suspicious of nearby Muslims behaving strangely, but they did not report them to authorities because they didn’t want to be thought racist: as a result, Syed Farook and wife Tashfeek Malik were free to organize the December 2, 2015, attack that killed 14 and seriously wounded 22 fellow office workers where Farook was employed. The couple had a large arsenal of weapons in their home, including a dozen pipe bombs, which if police had seen, the jihad plot could have been broken up. So the Islamophobia propaganda won, and 14 Americans died as a result. Intimidation is an effective weapon, and hostile Muslims have been perfecting their world-conquest chops over 1,400 years.

CAIR encourages miffed Muslims who think they have been slighted by the infidels to phone the organization with a report. So imaginary affronts and outright lies are conflated by CAIR into a large scenario of a national lynch mob about to pounce upon poor innocent Muslims residing in the U.S. In January, the Powerline blog noted a kindergarten teacher supposedly hating on a tiny child: “CAIR promoted the fake hate crime in its patented style, alleging a two-month reign of terror against the boy.”

Perhaps some Muslims harbor an unconscious animus against Islam, since fake hate crimes against mosques by followers are not unknown. On Christmas morning (!) 2014, the Fresno Islamic Cultural Center was burgled, and alarm ensued: the police chief declared the incident an obvious hate crime and the FBI investigated. But the vandal, quickly identified from a surveillance photo, was Asif Mohammad Khan, a Muslim. The local Islo-community claimed the perp was suffering from mental illness (a common excuse), so the insanity defense was deemed acceptable and the city was relieved.

Another Christmas day mosque attack occurred in Houston in 2015 and was promoted by CAIR as a hate crime by Americans against Islam, citing what it called a “recent spike in hate incidents targeting mosques nationwide.” But the arsonist turned out to be a Muslim man who had attended that mosque for five years. Oh well!

In fact, Muslim hate hoaxes have become so common that Breitbart reported last December, “ABC News Worries Hate Hoaxes ‘Discredit’ Muslims,” and CAIR mouthpiece Ibrahim Cooper was dispatched to the mainstream media to repair the damage. “These false reports unfortunately give ammunition to the industry of Islamophobes who promote the demonization and dehumanization of Islamic Muslims,” he observed, blaming Islamophobia for making peaceful Muslims commit felonies — wait, doesn’t that indicate a general mental weakness among the Allah acolytes? Perhaps the normal social stresses of immigration are just too tough for them.

A hate hoax was used by Muslim teenager Yasmin Sewei last December when she claimed she had been attacked on a Manhattan subway by drunk Trump supporters: she wrote on Facebook, “And it was just so dehumanizing I can’t speak about it without getting emotional.” Later the 18-year-old admitted the whole thing was a lie. Apparently she feared the reaction from her strict immigrant father because she had been out late drinking with friends and was dating a Christian boy. She appeared at her arraignment with a shaved head and without the piled-on makeup of her usual appearance. Actually, Yasmin is lucky she wasn’t honor-killed and probably would have been if the family were back in Egypt.

Sometimes the hate scam is used to disguise a deadly crime. On March 21, 2012, Muslim mother and American citizen Shaima Alawadi was beaten to death in her San Diego County home. The murder was initially characterized as an anti-Muslim hate crime, and the diversity-obsessed left worked itself into a frenzy over what it construed as a crime by anti-immigrant Americans.

The New York Times ran a lengthy story placing the blame on unwelcoming citizens in El Cajon, where many Muslims have been settled, titled, “Iraqi Immigrants in California Town Fear a Hate Crime in a Woman’s Killing.” It included a dramatic photo of the mourning husband, Kassim Alhimidi, clutching his wife’s body at her funeral. Local Iraqis feared some anti-Muslim killer was stalking the streets.

The case was publicized at length by lefty media like Salon, which published at least five articles about the supposed atrocity caused by murderous Islamophobia — for shame, bad Americans!

Responsible Islam critics Robert Spencer (JihadWatch.org) and Pamela Geller (PamelaGeller.com) got a severe thrashing online for supposedly causing the murder because they quote Koran verses promoting violence and report Islamic crimes against non-Muslims. Discussing Islam created an atmosphere of Islamophobia and murder, said the defenders of Muslim diversity.

The hate crime narrative had problems from the beginning, however. A note found at the crime scene conveniently provided a blame-Americans motivation: “This is my country. Go back to yours, terrorist.” A neighbor noticed that the broken glass was scattered outdoors from the house, peculiar if someone had broken in from outside. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center talker Mark Potok observed, “It is quite unusual to invade someone’s home, especially a woman, and violently beat her to death in the dining room.”

Finally on November 8, months after the murder, police arrested husband Kassim Alhimidi. He was tried and found guilty of murdering his wife, receiving a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. Muslims residing in the United States had been driven into a state of near-hysteria because of the hate crime hoax, believing citizen lynch mobs were at hand. But the crime was of a Muslim husband killing his wife because she was planning a divorce. Robert Spencer wrote a blog summing up why the left media fail: “ Salon tries to save face: Shaima Alawadi murder not a hate crime, but hey, there’s a lot of Islamophobia anyway.”

It would be interesting to know how many crimes claimed to be based on tribal hate actually are fake. The prevalence of hate hoaxes puts the whole category into question. For example, are fake hate crimes included in the annual FBI statistics? Perhaps the new improved Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions could investigate. His Senate office produced excellent papers on the financial and social costs of illegal immigration, so an expansion of scholarship would be a reasonable expectation.

Various motivations propel fake hate behaviors, from the adolescent desire for attention to the political strategy of establishing a particular tribe as a victim class to gain more benefits from the system. When the Islamic organization CAIR wields hate hoaxes and fake Islamophobia like a weapon, it reveals itself as an enemy to America and western values generally. The Clausewitz observation that “War is politics by other means” suggests that the opposite is also true. So politicized hate hoaxes deserve our serious attention.

(SOURCE)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Conquest by Other Means

By Martin Witkerk 
Volume 27, Number 3 (Spring 2017)
Issue theme: “A new era for immigration enforcement”

Veteran newspaperman Leo Hohmann has for several years been covering immigration and Islam for World Net Daily. In Stealth Invasion, his first book, he explains that the biggest mistake Christians and Jews make in regard to Islam is to assume it is “just another religion seeking a place in society on equal footing with the other great faiths.” Unlike Christians and Jews, Muslims have a religious duty to impose their faith upon the entire world through a combination of force and fraud.

Muslim authorities stress that the concept of jihad (literally “struggle”) does not refer only to fighting; it covers many kinds of apparently peaceful behavior intended to prepare for the eventual forcible conquest which always remains Islam’s ultimate goal. One of the most important non-violent components of jihad is hijra, or migration by Muslims to infidel lands. Muhammad himself set the example by migrating from Mecca to Medina in order to spread his message. The Koran advises Muslims that “Whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah (4:100).” Dying as a warrior engaged in violent jihad may be number one in the merit it gains a believer after death, but hijra comes in a close second. If a Muslim migrates to help spread his religion and dies away from his hometown, even comfortably in his bed, he is considered a martyr and guaranteed of going to heaven.

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the prospective migrant also knows of the cradle to grave benefits in Europe and America. Such persons may see their income increase by a factor of ten—without even having to get a job.

Before America’s immigration floodgates were opened in 1965, there were about 150,000 Muslims in the entire country. Today, America has about 3.3 million Muslim citizens and permanent legal residents, with nearly a quarter of a million newcomers arriving every year. We cannot know for sure how many are coming for the easy life and how many to promote Islam, but many tell pollsters they would prefer to be back home. If they stay nevertheless, it could be because they are practicing hijra.

A second nonviolent component of jihad is da’wah, “summoning” or “inviting.” This can refer to Islamic proselytizing, but also includes the formation of alliances with non-Muslim groups that may prove useful for promoting Islam. As Hohmann explains, such overtures “are nothing but a clever ruse meant to weaken the resolve of the unbelievers.” But you do not have to take his word for it; documented proof has been found.

In 2004, FBI agents raided a safe house belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood in northern Virginia. Among the evidence they seized was a document entitled An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, written in 1991 by a Brotherhood operative named Mohamed Akram. This document described Muslim settlement of the United States as a “civilizational jihad process”:

The brothers must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands… so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Akram explains that “the heart and core of this strategy was contingent on these groups’ ability to develop a mastery of the art of coalitions.”

Such coalitions can even be formed with Christian churches. The Islamic Society of North America, one of 29 organizations unmasked by the Explanatory Memorandum as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, practices da’wah through its Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances. In January 2016, that organization’s national director, Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed, participated in a Catholic-Muslim interfaith conference at the University of San Diego. He spoke of:

…a new millennium of alliance-building for common values of mutual respect and recognition. All faiths are striving to promote those divine values enshrined in our sacred texts and scriptures, so that those who exploit them for reinforcing hate, extremism, violence and instability are identified as the enemies of all faiths.

Mr. Syeed clearly knows what an American audience wants to hear. Yet even as he dishes out this pabulum to naïve Americans, his own chief sponsor, the Muslim Brotherhood, is busy supporting Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other violent jihadi organizations around the world!

This might not matter so much if influential Americans were not listening to him. But there on the stage beside him sat San Diego’s Catholic Bishop Robert W. McElroy. Instead of challenging Dr. Syeed on his terrorist connections, the good bishop rose to denounce the “scourge of anti-Islamic prejudice.” “We are witnessing a new nativism,” he told his listeners, “which the American Catholic community must reject and label for the religious bigotry that it is.”

Bishop McElroy is a member of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, one of nine voluntary agencies, or VOLAGs, working as government contractors to resettle Muslim “refugees” in America. Although five of the VOLAGs are affiliated with Christian churches, they are not engaged in missionary work; the law forbids them from proselytizing the new arrivals. Nor is such resettlement charitable work: the government pays VOLAGs $2,025 for every person they sponsor. Nor do most of these refugees even fit the 1951 Geneva Convention definition of “refugee” as a person displaced by a well-founded fear of persecution due to their religious, political, or ethnic affiliation. That is a strict standard; even many persons fleeing war zones do not qualify. The original intent of America’s refugee program was to provide safe haven for people fleeing communism.

But today all this has been forgotten. Ninety-five percent of those coming to the U.S. as “refugees” are hand-picked by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and America simply accepts whoever they send. According to the State Department, more than one million Muslims have been legally transplanted into over three hundred American cities and towns through this program. As Hohmann explains:

Those who enter as refugees immediately qualify for a full slate of government goodies that aren’t offered to most other immigrants. Everything from subsidized housing to food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, cash stipends and Medicaid are part of the prize. Within five years they can apply for citizenship and full voting rights.

Hohmann stresses the irony that perhaps no class of people in the world today fits the Geneva definition of refugees better than the persecuted Christian minorities in today’s Middle East. But it is their Muslim persecutors who are given the green light to come to America. For example, despite making up 10 percent of Syria’s population before the war, only 0.5 percent of the Syrians allowed into the U.S. as refugees have been Christian.

The Obama administration has done everything in its power to prevent any Christians from entering the U.S. as refugees over and above the tiny number chosen by the UN High Commissioner. In the spring of 2015, a group of 27 Iraqi Christians set out to cross the border and were detained and held for six months; five of them were charged criminally with falsifying their asylum applications and the rest were promptly deported. One lawyer who specialized in helping Iraqi Christians find refuge in the United States was charged by the Obama administration with “falsifying and embellishing” applications, and is now facing thirty-five years in prison. It is hard to believe that an attorney representing Muslim migrants would have been subject to similar scrutiny from the Obama administration.

Besides the VOLAGs and naïve men of God like Bishop McElroy, the most important targets of da’wah, or outreach to non-Muslim allies, are the globalist left with their vision of a borderless world controlled by unelected technocrats. For decades, this elite faction has been promoting birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and female careerism—in a word, sterility—across the West; at length, they have succeeded in creating a shortage of young people entering the workforce and paying taxes into the system. As the shortage becomes acute, these same people are coming forward to promote massive outsourcing of good-paying jobs to the third world and massive immigration of third world labor to the West as a “solution” to the problems they themselves have created.

Common sense would suggest that intelligent, educated persons of mainly European descent would make the most desirable candidates for immigration to the United States. But importing such people would do nothing to further the globalists’ goal of forcible equalization of material conditions around the world. It is precisely third-world Muslims’ alienness, poverty and lack of skills which makes them attractive to the globalists.

It is obvious, however, that the vision being pursued by the globalist left has nothing in common with the plans of radical Islamists themselves, and many have been puzzled by their willingness to embrace such allies. Hohmann’s diagnosis is certainly correct: globalists feel certain that Christianity and the inherited institutions of the West are the greatest obstacles in the way of fulfilling their plans; Islam, on the other hand, they see as “the perfect tool, a battering ram, for [the] brutal task… of tear[ing] down what is left of the old world order.”

Never was any political alliance more cynical than this one between Islam and globalism. Each party feels certain it will succeed in using the other for its own purposes, and God alone knows which of them is right. The only thing they agree on is the need to destroy the West thoroughly before turning upon one another. Patriots are stuck with the job of fighting both enemies at once, for no wedge can be driven between them until we are gone.

The most important globalist force working to maximize Muslim immigration to the U.S. in recent years has been the administration of Pres. Barack Obama. In November, 2014, as he announced his (unconstitutional) plan to grant amnesty by executive order to over five million illegal immigrants, Obama also created a “White House Task Force on New Americans.” In subsequent weeks, the cochair of this task force, Cecilia Mu ñoz (former executive of the National Council of La Raza) hosted three conference calls between White House officials and representatives of various open borders groups.

Baltimore talk-show host Susan Payne managed to infiltrate these conference calls, and reported what she heard to radio host Mark Levin. Participants were planning for 13-15 million legalizations rather than the five million announced to the public. They compared the placement of these immigrants to “planting seedlings” into the “soil” of receiving communities, which “soil” was to be adapted to accommodate the needs of the “seedlings”—and not the other way around. The newly amnestied immigrants were expected to “navigate, not assimilate;” one task force member spoke explicitly of “developing a country within a country.” Like seedlings, these new immigrant communities were meant to grow and gain strength until they could come out of the shadows and overtake the receiving communities: in effect, pushing older Americans into the shadows from which they had emerged. A key part of this plan is to grant all 13 million or more newly legalized aliens all the benefits hitherto reserved for refugees—courtesy of the same American taxpayers whom the newcomers are meant to replace.

Most immigrants to the U.S. are not Muslims, of course, but the Muslim proportion continues to rise. John Guandolo, a former FBI counterterrorism specialist and the author of Raising a Jihadi Generation, estimates that the U.S. is ten to fifteen years behind Europe in terms of the advancement of Islam and the eventual subjugation of its non-Muslim population.

American public school children are already being taught a sugar-coated version of Islam that portrays Muhammad as a swashbuckling Robin Hood character. As one of Hohmann’s interviewees explains:

He’s this amazing guy whose message was spread around the world, and he wanted to take from the rich and give to the poor. Very few details are given of any of his conquests, the beheadings, the taking of female sex slaves, nothing.

The Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer remain strictly off-limits in America’s public schools, of course; separation of church and state applies only to Christianity.

A 2015 study commissioned by the Center for Security Policy found that 51 percent of American Muslims would prefer to live under sharia law rather than the U.S. Constitution; among Muslims under 30, the figure rises to 60 percent. Nearly a quarter of Muslims in America are willing to tell pollsters openly that they consider the use of violent jihad justified in order to establish sharia.

It is not even clear that Americans are allowed to disagree publicly with Islam any more. In the spring of 2016, the pastor of a small church in Oregon posted the following messages on his church’s marquee: “Wake up Christians; Allah is not our God; Muhammad not greater than Jesus; Only the Bible is God’s word… Koran is just another book.” The pastor estimates that on a good day, perhaps thirty cars would drive by and see this simple statement of Christian belief.

Within days, word had gotten out and liberal “Christian” groups descended on the church to protest. The largest newspaper in the state, the Portland The Oregonian, reported on the “controversy,” and even the Mayor of Portland intervened, describing the incident as “ugly” and “bigoted.” One night the church’s sign was vandalized, but the newspapers did not see fit to report this. As one observer pointed out, if Christians had defaced a mosque’s marquee it “would have been all over the news, and you probably would have had Obama out here with the Department of Justice filing hate-crime charges.”

Liberal “Christian” allies such as these reliably come to the aid of expanding Islam whenever called upon. And this is precisely the plan set forth by the Muslim Brotherhood in its “Explanatory Memorandum”: viz., “sabotaging [Western civilization’s] miserable house by their [own] hands.” As the author explains, “If you can find someone within your enemy’s own camp who is willing to be used and who will do your bidding, that’s always more effective than if you pleaded your own cause.”

(SOURCE)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment