Election 2016: National Referendum

Election 2016: National Referendum 

It seems that every time the US Republic elects a president some pundits say that this is the most important election of our lives (or ever). They will add further that they realize that in the past pundits have said about prior elections that those elections were the most important, but this time its for real! Fully aware then of the history of making such pronouncements, I will now posit that this election of 2016 is the most important election in American history. This election is many things, but above all it is a referendum. 

What manner of referendum is it? It is not a referendum to decide if Trump's lewd comments or alleged assaults on women are worse than Bill Clinton raping someone and Hillary threatening the rape victim. It is not a referendum on whether the Russians are rigging the election by secretly controlling the release of Wikileaks emails that expose the gross impropriety of the Left or whether Obama and company are rigging the election by literally telling illegals to vote. It is not a referendum on whether the government should increase the money its seizes from its citizens so it could spend frivolously on stopping the climate from changing. It is not a referendum about trade or manufacturing or Hillary's piggy bank foundation or law and order or one of the candidate's being investigated by the FBI for violating the Espionage Act. 

It is a referendum on American sovereignty. It is a referendum on American Peoplehood. It is a referendum to decide if we are nation of laws or of illegal immigrants. It is a referendum to decide whether the US will remain a Western nation or become a unholy admixture of Afghanistan and Guatemala.    

Although, fundamentally, America is not Mexico 2.0 and must endeavour not to become so, this election is about an even more pressing matter. Western Civilization viz-a-viz the Muslim Middle East.

Western Civilization is in mortal danger. There are many reasons for this, and we won’t go  into this fascinatingly morbid subject. In many ways the West is busy throwing wood on to its own funeral pyre. But the crux of the matter is simple as it is unavoidable. Europe is turning into the Middle East. Muslims are pouring in and having many children who in turn have many children, all the way to the end. Fundamentally, the reason why Europe (a successful place where I would want to reside) is not the Middle East (an unsuccessful place where I would not want to reside) is because it is full of Europeans and not Middle Easterners. As Europe is increasingly becoming comprised of Middle Easterners, it is becoming the Middle East. This is tragic, and perhaps reversible. But honestly, it will not be reversed. It is basically inevitable. The US must make a concerted effort to prevent this from happening in the US. This monumentally important effort to save the US might take place under Trump and his fellow Republicans. Not so with Hillary and her Democrats. Democrats know that the Muslims they will import will reliably vote Democrat, not to mention the morale satisfaction it gives them to bring in precious, wonderfully innocent Muslims whom they consider to have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. (After all Hillary famously wrote in a tweet: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.") Democrats will continue to plant the seeds of US destruction. We cannot let that happen.

Vote for America in 2016!   

There is no Alt-Right

There is no Alt-Right

No, I really mean it. There is no Alt-Right. That’s not just a provocative title (the Alt-Right--which we just finished saying does not exist--believes in being provocative).

In writing this, I am reminded of something Chesterton wrote: "Thus when Mr. H. G. Wells says (as he did somewhere), 'All chairs are quite different', he utters not merely a misstatement, but a contradiction in terms. If all chairs were quite different, you could not call them 'all chairs'."  

But this philosophical quibbling has been discussed by the ancients, and will, without a doubt, be discussed for generations to come. I do not wish then to sophistic and say that there is no canon-based dogma that can be said to represent, without dispute, the movement. For the same can be said for any major substantive and substantial movement or ideology (capitalism, communism, conservatism, liberalism). Because once you put in the caveat “without dispute” you are per-force, creating a straw-man. What is free of dispute? Nothing that is interesting and important, and the Alt-Right is interesting and important.

Rather, it is hard, and I say further, impossible, to determine, what one must believe, at the very core, to be part of the Alt-Right. How does one gain membership (and how does one lose membership)? What are the fundamental points? Generally, in religion and politics, there is some sort of holy, or otherwise significant, book or set of books. The book may set down in stone (literally sometimes) the core beliefs, or it may be some vague guideline, but it is a place to start. The Alt-Right records most of its writing on the internet, and, generally, without such formal arrangements. Religion and politics then has leaders who interpret and apply the stuff in the book. The Catholic Church had councils to determine, regarding various matters, what was orthodoxy and what was heresy. Until today, certain pronouncements of the Pope are considered infallible, and are theologically binding on the whole flock. These mechanisms too do not exist in the Alt-Right. There are various meetings, but nothing formal that would establish, de-jure, the orthodoxy of the movement. Neither is there a pope-like individual to issue authoritative pronouncements.   

How then to proceed? By process of elimination, we are left with looking at the influential figures that are said to be Alt-Right. While there are no elected representatives or anything like that, one could point to various high-profile (high-profile in real life and/or Twitter) personalities that are part of the movement. It was at this point that it dawned upon me that there is no Alt-Right. Obviously, there is an Alt-Right, in the sense that: (A) a lot of people claim to be of the Alt-Right; (B) people talking about ideas that are not, or have never been, part of the Right, and in fact are at odds with the right-wingers, or at the very least, their spokesmen; (C) many of these ideas have metastasized into coherent philosophies about politics, in the narrower sense, or life, in the broader sense; (D) and, as a result, various personalities on the Alt-Right can and do point to coherent ideological frameworks that have been constructed to house the Alt-Right. But therein lies the rub: it would only be slight hyperbole to state that every major personality on the Alt-Right has developed, with intellectual vigor and fulsome thought, his own Alt-Right. And, while they are all alternatives to the current Right (the neo-conservatives or the social conservatives or the fiscal conservatives etc.) they are each a different alternative.

Therefore there is daylight on matters such as: White Nationalism versus Nationalism; the supremacy of Nationalism versus Western Civilization (when the two are in conflict--such as the Polish question); Israel versus Palestine (does Palestine constitute a nation, and if it does, must the Alt-Right then be in the unhappy position of being aligned with the Radical Left); the belief in conspiracy of the Global Jewish Hegemony versus disbelief; criticizing versus praising our (so described) genocidal, militaristic, racist Founding Fathers (and other erstwhile American heroes); support of the Confederates or simply being Neo-Confederates. Etc.

Part of it seems to be the question how closely entangled the Alt-Right ought to be with Fascism. Or at least with a cleaner, less odious Fascism whose brand-name is not so badly tarnished.     

The more daylight that exist on the key issues, the vaguer and less substantial become the core-beliefs (such as the appellation itself: being Alternative to the Right--big tent that makes, huh?). Could you, with some difficulty, write a platform that would unite the fundamentals points of Spenser, Vox Day, VDare, Jared Taylor, and John Derbyshire? (To name but a few. This list is missing Milo and Cernovich. They have both claimed not to be members .Their precise role in all this is subject to debate.) Yes, yes you can. But will be it unspecific and fluffy of the sort that regular politicians love to employ, and the the masses of the Alt-Right would hate. I would posit that such would be the case.

But, in the event that a council was established that would write a constitution and planks for the Alt-Right, that would be said to represent the Alt-Right, whatever the prior, or even current, disagreements that would exist. There would be, undoubtedly, dissension at, and surrounding, the council, and various elements would have to be purged. The solidified results would be increasingly accepted by the rank and file. A pope-like figure with ideological authority can be appointed. This is, more or less, how the Catholic Church did it, and the Alt-Right can do the same. Hopefully this consolidation will be less bloody than the Church's. Plus, it might happen with greater speed. But until then, there is no agreement on what constitutes the Alt-Right. Except that the left has chosen it as their latest Boogeyman. But that is the subject of a different article.

Terror in Europe: Rivers of Blood

Terror in Europe: Rivers of Blood

Another day, another terror attack. An elderly priest was beheaded in Normandy, while he was celebrating mass in church. In addition to that, in the past few days Muslims in Europe have attacked using a machete (killing a pregnant woman), a gun (Munich) and a suicide bomber (a first for Germany).  It is hard to tally the blows that our enemy strikes against us. Ben Shapiro, the Conservative with quasi-libertarian leanings who is staunchly anti-Trump, a stance that has drawn the ire (and villainy) of the Alt-Right, once said about Obama (not an exact quote): “The universe exists to prove him wrong”. A corollary can be added, “The universe exists to prove Donald Trump right.”

In his acceptance speech, Trump went on describing, for considerable lengths, the state of affairs in the world. He said: “... the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life.” He said further: “Lastly, we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.” He said other things, but you get the picture. The  Washington Post, CBS, NBC, etc etc all used the word “dark” in reference to the speech. But Trump is not wrong. Engulfed as we are in this Medieval barbarism, Trump’s darkness is justified. In fact, he was probably not dark enough.

Which brings me to Bret Stephens and his opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal (July 26, 2016). Stephens is a cosmopolitan, Jewish guy and is a typical Wall Street Journal type. At the risk of oversimplifying, the Wall Street Journal type is: loyal to the West, American Exceptionalism and a muscular foreign policy, strong believer in capitalism, moderate and nuanced on social issues, and weak-kneed on immigration. Stephens is viewed as a Neo-Con, and hated by Mark Levin from one side and the Nationalists/Alt-Right/Trumpkins on the other side. I am not sure what the Evangelicals say about him, though I am sure they love his pro-Israel stance even if he was in favor of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and is currently in favor of the two-state solution, at least theoretically.

In today’s paper, Stephen entitles his article “Is Europe Helpless?”. His answer is if they get their act together,and stop adhering to nonsensical doctrine then it is not. In other words, given where we currently stand, and are heading, Europe is doomed. The article as a whole is interesting, and hard-hitting (not nearly hard-hitting enough) but one line stood out. He writes that “the storm of terror that is descending on Europe… will end in rivers of blood.” End quote. Rivers of blood? Rivers of Blood! Is our urbane and sophisticated columnist referring to Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” remark, where that patriotic Englishman warned of the doom that would befall Britain should it continue to import foreigners from the Third World. Surely not. Surely Mr. Stephens is too correct to do such a thing. Why, it was not very long ago when our Mr. Stephens reprimanded Trump on his proposed Muslim ban.

***

Incidental to the main point, it might be worthwhile quoting Stephens on Israel. Writes Stephens in the same paper: “For now, it’s the one country in the West that refuses to risk the safety of its citizens on someone else’s notion of human rights or altar of peace.” This is untrue. What is true is that Israel might at times  act more militaristic than what is expected of her, and that every time she takes any minor aggressive measure, she is criticized. But Israel does not, in fact, categorically refuse to risk the safety of its citizens. This could be seen from a thousand different things, but most illustrative is, perhaps, the 2014 Israel-Gaza War. The terrorist organization Hamas fired rockets from Gaza into Israel, and the Israelis responded on an almost tit-for-tat basis. The war dragged on and off for seven weeks. At the time some were calling for Israel to unleash the full might of its artillery and air-force, which would ended the matter quickly and decisively. Israel did not act in such a manner. As a result 72 Israelis perished and hundreds were injured. Israel did indeed “risk the safety of its citizens on someone else’s notion of human rights” be it: the UN, the EU, the US, the Geneva Convention, or the media. In fact, it seems to me, that Israel’s whole Modus Operandi involves inflicting as much damage to the enemy as possible, while maintaining some level of adherence to some outside liberal standard.

But perhaps Stephens, for all his tough-talk, would also feel uncomfortable should a civilized country open fire with artillery and aircraft, devastating the enemy with a “rubble doesn’t cause trouble” attitude. Should Israel risk the safety of its citizens on on his notion of human rights?  

   

Terror Attack in Nice, France and What it Means

Terror attack in Nice, France and what it means

There was a Muslim terror attack in Nice, France. Eighty four people are dead, and close to twice that number wounded. The attacker used a truck to mow people down, something that was seized upon by all the headlines: the emphasis was on the deadly truck, as opposed to the Muslim killer driving the truck. The media, as always, is silly and worthless, but it is a very dangerous silliness and worthlessness that they are exhibiting. Would today’s media write World War Two began when some planes attacked Pearl Harbour? Would the liberals claim in the headlines that the American Civil War began when some cannons fired at Fort Sumter? This is just frustrating junk.

Of the various important comments made about the terror attack and the reaction to it, perhaps the most important is to be made regarding a statement made by the Prime Minister of France. Robert Spencer, over at the JihadWatch website, brought my attention to it.

Says Prime Minister Valls: “France is going to have to live with terrorism.” Remarkable. Astonishing, even. What he is saying is that this is the new normal. Every society has to “live” with bad things. Death, disease, poverty, unemployment, etc. It is commonly accepted that a certain amount of people a year will die from: shark attacks, snake bites, spider venom, heart disease, cancer, burglaries gone bad, gang violence, suffocating on small toys, furniture accidents, natural disasters, etc etc. While there are various ways to decrease the pain and death caused by these various problems, people in society accept that they are just “going to have to live” with it. Generally, they go on with their lives.

The Prime Minister of France had just admitted, quite bluntly, and with very little fuss in the international scene, that terrorism is something that “France is going to have to live with.” That Muslims killing people in terror attacks is the new snake bite, or tornado, or disease. End of sentence.

Or so I thought. I thought that this obvious, yet mind-boggling truism that the leader of one of the great nations in the world (5th strongest power in the world by some estimates) uttered, was the extent of it. But in reality, what Valls says right before that is even more important. Here is the quote with the added few words: “Times have changed, and France is going to have to live with terrorism.” What! What? Times have changed. Is there is something in the water? Did someone genetically alter the French people to become terror-inclined? Did some French philosopher rediscover some ideology from the French Revolution? Is chronic unemployment or homelessness or insanity or some other social ill compelling Frenchmen to go about butchering people at concerts, cafes, magazines publishing centers, grocery stores, city streets, ect?

No! No. Precisely one thing has “changed”.  France had foolishly...lamentably...tragically imported millions of foreigners, specifically Muslims, from the Third World. The result has been decidedly unpleasant. An unpleasantness that Valls says that France will have to live with.

I want to sign off with a word of discouragement. It seems that, should things continue on their seemingly predestined course, France will to learn “to live” with a host of unpleasant things. Things worse than the attacks so far may come to pass. Long ago Powell quoted Virgil. Virgil wrote: “I see wars, horrible wars, and the Tiber foaming with much blood.”

Geert Wilders=Jeremiah

New International Version (NIV)

Psalm 137
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.
2 There on the poplars we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
  they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
4 How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill.
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.
7 Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”
8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you
  according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

Geert Wilders, politician in the Netherlands, is begging the world to recognize the Islamic menace for what it is. He sees the invasion of Europe for what it is: an invasion. If history books are written in a thousand years time, and if they are written by a man with a love of the Western tradition, Wilders will be remembered as a hero. Probably a tragic hero. I imagine he will be compared to the Prophet Jeremiah, a Jewish seer who lived in the era of the First Temple, and who experienced its destruction. Jeremiah is one of those historical personalities that is larger than life, larger even than the period in which he lived, dominating history like a colossus.

Jeremiah promised doom. Jeremiah went around telling people about their sins, and the impending destruction that would come to pass as a result. His message was not a popular one. He was scorned, mocked, and, significantly, ignored. He was opposed by a false prophet: Hananiah son of Azur. Where Jeremiah, the actual prophet, foretold misery and destruction, Hananiah assured a receptive audience that all was well. Hananiah falsely claimed, on the Temple grounds, that he received a message from God saying that within two years King-in-exile Jeconiah, his fellow (noble) captives, and the Temple vessels would be brought back to Jerusalem (they were all in exile in Babylonian territory). The people gravitated towards Hananiah’s false but joyous future rather than Jeremiah’s true but miserable future.

God had instructed Jeremiah to wear a wooden yoke, which symbolized slavery and oppression. Hananiah took it upon himself to remove the yoke from the neck of Jeremiah, breaking it. As a result, God told Jeremiah to explain to Hananiah that the wooden yoke he had broken would be replaced with one of iron. The foretold destruction and enslavement would be even worse.

Jeremiah did not relent in speaking the truth. But he was fundamentally ignored. He suffered for his obstinace. Everyone, from his family to the government, opposed him. His enemies imprisoned him and tried killing him, but failed. Jeremiah was actually sitting in prison when Nebuchadnezzar II, in 586, breached the walls of Jerusalem and vanquished the place. Jeremiah was freed by his Babylonian conquerors, and he went into exile. In exile, he wrote the book of Lamentations, speaking poetically about the destruction. He bore witness to that which he both predicted and experienced. It could be confidently said that Jeremiah felt no satisfaction at being vindicated with the fulfillment of his prophecy. The irony, that he was correct in speaking of destruction, and that his opponents--whose very actions helped bring about that destruction--were proven wrong in ignoring his message, must have been a profoundly bitter one. That being said, Jeremiah did speak of hope, and how a better day would dawn for them. In this too he was correct. The Babylonians were replaced by the Persians; they were benevolent overlords, who allowed the Jews to return to Israel and rebuild the Temple. The era of the Second Commonwealth was ushered in.

This is the time we live in. People who speak honestly about the invasion of the West, let alone people who attempt to fight the invasion, suffer, in many cases. These courageous souls are mocked, derided, and insulted. Their words are censored, their social lives imperiled, and their livelihood put in jeopardy. They are charged with criminal activity. They are assassinated. Worst of all, they are ignored. Their words are ignored. Their dire predictions are ignored. Their prophecy is ignored.   

The doomsayers will be proven right, but they will experience no joy as a result. Should they live to see the culmination of the invasion, they will be profoundly bitter. They will watch as what they foretold comes to pass and how their Leftist enemies, by silencing the truth-tellers, contributed to the eventual destruction. And they will weep. We will all weep, then. We will write books of lamentations, but we shall write them from exile.

Our exile shall be like the Babylonian exile in some respects. We will feel just as those ancient men, recorded by the psalmist in chapter 137, who sat and wept by the rivers of Babylon. Our tormentors will ask us for a song: to relive the glory of Western Civilization and sing of it. But how can we sing in a foreign land?! We will recall how enemies cried out about our civilization and culture, “Tear it down! Tear it down to its foundation!”. Then we shall lose the last vestiges of human decency, and speak of smashing our enemies’ babies against the rocks. And even if we recall that our civilization was our highest joy, we know that we will never reclaim it. There will be no one to return us to our homeland in the way the benevolent Persians did once to Jeremiah’s people. All that will be left to do is weep, and remember.