In 2004, William Lind, working in a loose affiliation with the United States Marine Corps, set out to analyze what the future of warfare held for well-heeled Western nations. You can read his brief/update (post-Iraq) on that work here:
It’s a bit of a read, but the section I want to underscore reads thus:
“Fourth Generation war is also marked by a return to a world of cultures, not merely states, in conflict. We now find ourselves facing the Christian West’s oldest and most steadfast opponent, Islam. After about three centuries on the strategic defensive, following the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683, Islam has resumed the strategic offensive, expanding outward in every direction.
“In Third Generation war, invasion by immigration can be at least as dangerous as invasion by a state army.”
Remember, he wrote this in 2004.
Fast-forward 11 years to the present.
Before I whip out my eggbeater for the rudimentary analysis I have time for, I’ll say this: Islam and the West have a long history of detente. There is nothing inherent in either Western culture or Islam that makes them necessarily incompatible. In fact, there was a lively theological give-and-take between European Christianity and Islam in the 16th century that is well-documented; some of the debates should be required reading for Christians. Islam is not necessarily a religion of blind, unthinking hate. That faction is now the squeakiest wheel in Islam, but it wasn’t always so. Honest.
The modern problem of Islam can be traced to several factors:
1. The cultural vacuum left in the West as Christianity dies. There exists no intellectual rigor in Western Christianity, especially in Europe. Modern Europeans reject religion, generally, and have no religious vocabulary with which to engage Muslims or, really, counter Islam’s theological claims. All Europe really has at present is a sort of petulant, general “religion is all bullshit” rejoinder that Islamic fanatics simply sidestep as the juvenile contrarianism that it is.
The Imams of Islam are opportunistic, conversion-minded people and religious Muslims take it as a sign from God that Europeans are rejecting Christ en masse just as the European attitude towards immigration are at their most limp-wristed in history.
Until the late 1960s, enough of Europe was still churched enough (barely) that Islamic thinkers would not have intuited that they would be able to grab for ascendance they way they do now. Now Europeans are empty vessels, faith-wise, and Islam knows it.
2. The Middle East is a social and economic toilet. Rich families have all of the power, the economies of the region are hampered by the dominance of oil (which is controlled by those families), and free primary education–especially in Saudi Arabia–is unfailingly heavy on Jihad. This has become such a problem that the Saudi Ministry of Education has tried to clamp down, with limited success so far.
3. Europe is militarily weak and the United States is militarily tired. Opposing religious terrorism is a long-term affair, and there is never a treaty signed to signal such a conflict’s end. Too, an enemy like ISIS doesn’t respond in the normal way to even major military defeats. ISIS merely uses them to recruit more fighters. No nation in the West–except maybe Russia (if you consider them Western)–has the will of leadership to kill as many ISIS fighters as it would take to really end the threat…and they probably don’t have the money.
All of this brings me to the point I want to make:
ISIS knows that mass migration is a viable military strategy, just as William Lind predicted in 2004.
ISIS–the leadership of which has a clear, workable understanding of Western politics and psychology–knows that rushing millions of people into an area the size of Europe allows them to bury a few trained soldiers in the mix. Even if the dangerous fanatics are only 3% of the influx, that could mean Germany alone has more than 20,000 Jihadists on its soil right now.
Any politician who denies this or pretends it isn’t possible is a danger to the people he or she serves.
It’s probably possible for the U.S. to accept some Syrian refugees, but we have to be realistic and proactive about it. The strategy needed would mean PHOTO REGISTRATION or EVERY refugee with Homeland Security (not NGOs or charities), a sharing of that registration list with EVERY state government, and a quarantine of the refugees in demarcated areas–call them concentration camps if you must–until EVERY refugee is vetted.
The only other approach that is acceptable is outright refusal of entry.
Let me make clear. I don’t care about what gays do. I don’t even care if they marry.
But I care about local rule and the right of the States to decide their own laws.
Today, the Supreme Court finished the notion of State Sovereignty with a perverted hors de combat.
You–and I–are now fully under the rule of the Feds. Your State–my State–is just a funny shape on the map.
They’re getting it started.
Are you ready?
By now, you’ve heard about the Church shooting in Charleston. Depending on what channel you watch, you probably have an idea about what happened and why. I’m not going to comment on the moral horror involved; it’s obvious. Anyone who would delight in some angry subhuman finding a gathering of decent black folks and killing them is, in my mind, a subhuman himself. I fear such subhumans hooting and jeering having as much of an impact on the political future of White People as the shooter ever could. So, even if some dreadfully evil part of yourself feels that Mr. Roof has done something towards evening some racial violence score, I’d hope you’d try to tamp that part of yourself down with prayer and reflection.
I’ll be honest. If Mr. Roof had armored up his car and gone out in a blaze of glory gunning down drug dealers and pimps in some dangerous ghetto, I’d probably celebrate him on this blog as a long-overdue comeuppance for the black criminal underclass. But, alas, he seemed as adept at picking targets as he did at picking haircuts. And the way he went about his “mission” may speak to a deeply diseased individual.
And on that note, I move to the point I keep making about criminality.
Before I make a few brief points, I invite you to take a long, hard look at Mr. Roof.
Now, maybe I am simply ignorant of physiognomy, but Mr. Roof appears for all the world to look not only menacing, but dull. Look at the fat-lipped, slack-faced expression. Does he look NORMAL to you? I venture that there’s even a vaguely Mongoloid look to his face.
His parents–if the source can be trusted–don’t appear to be perfectly stable sorts, either.
Right about now, you’re wondering, maybe, if I’m making excuses for Mr. Roof using the “broken home” or “tough childhood” defense.
I am thinking deeper.
I am thinking that South Carolina PERHAPS could have avoided this sad affair if American society still had a eugenics program. I think it’s most appropriate, even, as South Carolina was one of the last states to adopt eugenics as public health policy and one of the last to give it up.
Mr. Roof displayed many of the sorts of behaviors at a young age that, had they been displayed by either of his parents, might have ended them up under the sterilization scalpel on the orders of a judge looking out for the moral and mental hygiene of his state. That’s impossible to say for sure, of course, but worth considering, just as it was after Sandy Hook.
Of course, the “disparate impact” arguments will eternally make genetic hygiene impossible, as most people who display sterilization-worthy behaviors are NOT White, so the point is moot, all in all.
Perhaps the world would be better, truly, if some folks were just never born.
Consider the following words and phrases:
- Privilege (White privilege, thin privilege, male privilege)
- Marriage equality
- Triggering or triggered
- Larger person
- Women’s clinic
Seven simple words or combinations of simple words that have each been meticulously engineered to “trigger” a cascade of ideas and emotions meant to rewrite and reinforce new moral definitions every time they are used. If you are honest and aware of what the engineers of these word-concepts are trying to do, you have to admit that they have been very successful.
A quick Google Trends search for the search term “fat shaming” shows that, before the end of 2012, that particular combination of those two words was practically unheard of in popular culture. But now, just two or three years later, those two words beside each other have a very precise political meaning that tells the listener or reader volumes about the user’s values, background, politics and viewpoint. And most of the Western world is familiar with the concept. Impressive.
If someone uses the term “fat-shaming” (or any of the terms bullet-listed above) un-ironically, you can immediately deduce with a pretty decent degree of certainty that the person is:
- upper middle-class
- on the leftward end of the political spectrum
- overweight to a greater or lesser degree
- studying (or studied) the humanities or social sciences
(The sorts of people who invent and use a term like “fat-shaming” bristle at how easily astute listeners or readers can peg their social status and political/intellectual position on just about any issue after just after a brief conversation. I know this from experience. )
But the phenomenon isn’t a new one. It’s a cliche’ by now, but whenever totalitarian political movements appear, a struggle for the language of whatever nation being taken over always follows. George Orwell made his career on this fact.
When the Communists took over Russia, they instituted a well thought-out and organized government censorship plan within ten days of coming to power. They did so for a reason:
“Soviet censors regard[ed] the world as a semantic system in which the information that is let through is the only reality….In terms of truth or falsehood, the objective sense of the world no longer exists. Instead of dealing with real things, the censor hopes that his world view will be accepted. Only what the censor approves is said to exist; what he disapproves has no independent existence.”
—From I Must Speak Out: The Best of the Voluntaryist 1982-1999, edited by Carl Watner
In other words, totalitarians believe that reality is a consensus and that if enough people can be convinced that a concept is real (or unreal), it will either magically exist or cease to exist. Americans have seen this theory in action since the 1960s, as concepts of what people have traditionally considered natural or unnatural are continually under semantic assault. Consider ideas of gender, sexuality, body image, race, nationhood, etc. “Normal”and “decent”–two words which once had understood meanings–have been deliberately destroyed. Or, at least, damaged.
But more than a tool of social re-engineering, progressive Newspeak serves as a conversational identifier to differentiate the in-crowd from the politically unacceptable. The use of the words is a status symbol, announcing to the world that the user is superior to the non-user and that the convinced are superior to the unconvinced and that the New Soviet Man is superior to the parasite.
Consider which you are the next time you consider using a word like “transgendered.”
“Rolling Stone has completely retracted its Nov. 19 article, “A Rape on Campus,” and apologized to the falsely accused fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi, in a joint report released Sunday night.
“The new article, reported by three members of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, is nothing short of a scathing indictment on the storied progressive magazine, its reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and Jackie, the student who falsely claimed that she was gang-raped in 2012 by seven members of Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.”
Young men of America, hear me:
Your Christian forbears–especially Southern Christians–would not have approved of inter-gender socializing. They would have been outraged unto apoplexy at the notion of inter-gender drinking gatherings. As believers in the idea that the women that they knew were decent and unsullied, they erred on the side of worrying about the side of men’s lesser natures getting ahold of them and making victims of women. Honestly, it isn’t a completely unfounded fear. Drunk men often act like idiots.
But there is a new snake in the fishpond: the hysterical rape accuser. She is a paranoid, mixed-up sort who, on the one hand, wants to be sexually liberated and in control of her own body but, on the other hand, sees men as evil apes. Her loins compel her to seek It and say yes to It and her ideology compels her to regret It. Even more dangerous for bumbling, sex-obsessed men, she doesn’t have any identifying characteristics.
Now, Rolling Stone is admitting that the infamous “Jackie” case was all a bunch of lies as many men knew it was from the first few seconds. In this case, there were no falsely-accused men ruined. No names. No pictures. No Duke Lacrosse team. The male sex on UVA campus was dragged through the mud in general, but no specific men were harmed in the making of this hysterical lie.
But, somewhere, on some campus somewhere, completely oblivious to the artillery shell of false accusation whistling his way, there is a man walking around unaware. It could be you. If you want to dodge it, you might want to consider following some good, old-fashioned advice. Call it prudish if you want, but I can almost guarantee that you will never find yourself in the pages of a magazine or in the local jail if you follow the following tips:
1. Never be the drunkest guy at the party–The drunkest guy is the one who will make the biggest mistakes. He’ll have the worst hangover. Frankly, he’s probably not super bright or super sane and he might just be trashy. Don’t be him.
2. Never touch or be within arm’s length of the drunkest girl at the party–She’s not right in the head. Stay away from her. She has more potential to ruin your life than just about anyone you’ll ever meet. If she wakes up in your dorm room with a blank memory and a sore spot between her legs, you could spend the next ten years with a sore spot between yours.
3. Not on the first date–You just met her and it’s thrilling if she’s sending you signals, but think about it. She’s sending you signals on the first date. How many other first dates has she been on? In the words of a wise man: “A rutted road ruins the suspension.” A woman willing on the first date isn’t worth your time, brother. There’s a word for that kind of girl. And a word for the kind of guy who doesn’t care.
4. Have some history–Maybe you aren’t religious. Maybe you’re “too smart” to be a Christian and you’ll be sexual if you damn well please. Fine. But if you’re going to have sex with a woman you aren’t married to, you might want to consider dating her a while first. Because you’re a romantic? Not necessarily. Do it because that will give you the chance to exchange texts, gifts, emails, phone calls and be seen together. In other words, EVIDENCE. You “hook up” with some girl you don’t know well and, in today’s world, you’re at her legal mercy. The feminists have made it so that SHE’S ALWAYS TELLING THE TRUTH, even when she’s lying, like “Jackie.” Make sure that if she’s lying, you have sufficient reasonable doubt at your disposal.
5. Don’t Insist or Be a “Cad”–Feminists say “no means no.” Take them up on it. If she’s a tease and you’re frustrated, dump her. Don’t risk “overwhelming” her like women fantasize about in their romance novels. The second she says no, stop, get up, leave. If she means it, you avoid trouble. If she doesn’t, she’ll let you know.
6. Try Making the Safest Bets–There are decent, Christian girls out there. The kind that don’t do “shots.” The kind that don’t swear or discuss their periods. The kind that don’t post pictures of themselves kissing other women. The kind that bathe every day. The kind that will wait until marriage. Make the effort. Find her. Be good to her. Marry her. Avoid the kinds of women who have been raised wrong; they’ll destroy you one way or the other.
So learn from the UVA rape case: don’t risk being the victim of the next “Jackie” or her Jewfeminist “journalist” lackies.
Lesbian Kook: “I Want My Child to be Gay, Too.”
“Time will tell, but so far, it doesn’t look like my 6-year-old daughter is gay. In fact, she’s boy crazy. It seems early to me, but I’m trying to be supportive. Recently, she had a crush on an older boy on her school bus. She was acting as any precocious, socially awkward child would, which is to say not very subtle. I confided in a friend who has an older daughter.
“She wants to give this kid a card and presents,” I e-mailed. “The other kid is so embarrassed. It’s painful to watch. What do I do?”