Tag: Clash of Civilizations

The end of the beginning

The French have taken out all three of the Muslim killers:

French police on Friday killed the two brothers suspected of massacring
12 people at a Paris newspaper on Wednesday and freed a hostage they had
been holding unharmed, the authorities said. The police launched a
simultaneous raid on a kosher supermarket in Paris where an alleged
associate of the brothers was holding an unnamed number of hostages.
That hostage taker was also killed, according to a senior French police
official, and at least five hostages were freed.

Now that the urgent work is done, it’s time for the West to elect nationalist governments and start discussing the best way to encourage their co-religionists to repatriate back to the Dar al-Islam. Steve Sailer put it best:

Westerners and Muslims don’t agree on the basics of social order and don’t want to live under the same rules. That shouldn’t be a problem because that’s what separate countries are for. We should stop occupying their countries and stop letting them move to ours.

To paraphrase E.M. Forster:

“Only disconnect.”

Islam is not compatible with Christendom. It is not compatible with Western traditions and values. It is not compatible with the secular West either. Muslims themselves will tell you this, that’s why 40 percent of Muslims resident in Great Britain are seeking to establish Sharia rule over the British. Only disconnect.

It is no longer possible to pretend that multiculturalism is viable. It is no longer possible to pretend that moderate Islam can reform the more fundamentalist forms. It is no longer possible to pretend that we can all get along in one country. That’s what separate countries are for.

They should not interfere with us here, and we should stop interfering with how they choose to live over there. The disconnect will take place eventually, the only question that remains is if the process is relatively peaceful or if it is massively violent. Any sane and decent Westerner should actively support the former option.

Mailvox: Did Charlie Hebdo have it coming?

MB asks a pertinent question:

Although it may appear to be like pouring salt on a wound, it occurs to me (and also from your POV) that the people at Charlie Hebdo were quite a bit involved in their own demise (which I do not celebrate or condone).

Just as the nations of the West can’t help but reap what they have sown, so too, the satirists at CH never seemed to accept the consequences of their actions and weren’t prepared to defend themselves very well. They attacked religions in the most vulgar terms (from what I’ve read) and thought it rather a lark. Although their offices were firebombed, they promised to continue to poke jihadis in the eye. But it appears they blithely thought giving offense to seriously nasty people should be inconsequential given their own finely ordered sense of c’est la vie and “can’t you take a joke?”

Back in 1981, I once attended a show in a small comedy club in San Francisco near the Haight. A very small young comedian who I thought was quite funny did some sort of riff that an older man in the audience was offended by and made it known. The comic tried to play it for a joke, but in this tiny venue (30- 40 people at best), the offended gentleman stood up and made it known he was going to kick the punk comic’s ass. He was a large man who looked like he could do it. All of a sudden, things, the comic, didn’t seem so funny as he tried to find a way to defuse the situation humorously, and it didn’t work.

The comedian feigned mock fear, for example, but the angry man was not impressed or deflected and made to approach the small, low stage. The fear in the comedian’s eye’s was not simulated. Members of the audience prevailed upon the the angry man to relinquish his complaints and let it pass, but the damage had been done. The event was no longer any fun.

Like Bill Maher et al, Charlie Hebdo felt it could attack other people’s most cherished beliefs with impunity, and their targets should simply take it in the spirit of ‘damn you if what we say offends your pathetically stupid sensibility’. It is horrific what happened in Paris, but should we wonder about those who sow literary contempt and reap violent physical contempt?

Charlie Hebdo was a self-conscious standard-bearer for secular France. Unlike most secular standard-bearers, unlike today’s SJWs, the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo actually stood by their professed principles of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and disrespect for the sanctity of sacred cows. They were true Voltaireans; I don’t know enough about them to know if they were consistent or not (we know they attacked Christian symbols as well as Muslim symbols, but did they refrain from attacking Jewish and secular ones?) but they were certainly more consistent and catholic in their satires than the average Western secularist who heaps contempt on Christianity and Western tradition while remaining dead silent about Islam, Judaism, and the various shibboleths of political correctness.

Amused by him or not, the jester who enjoys immunity from the king has long been a feature of Western civilization. Charlie Hebdo was one such jester. I didn’t find their cartoons to be amusing, or of any artistic value, but then, I am not French. More importantly, they were acting under the long-respected Western principle of jester’s immunity, and by doing so in the expectation of continued immunity, they were upholding Western civilization in their own way.

Now, I had begun writing this post with the intention of saying that Charlie Hebdo should have taken more responsibility for its actions, and taken better defensive precautions, and therefore it was negligent in that regard, but in the course of thinking through that argument, I find that it is fundamentally flawed. The jester is neither knight nor king. It is not his job to defend himself, but rather, it is the responsibility of the warriors of the society whose hypocrisies and inconsistencies he criticizes to defend him.

So, my answer is no, Charlie Hebdo did not have it coming. It is the responsibility of the king and his knights to defend their jester, even though they are the primary target of his jests. (Of course, it also behooves the jester to listen to his king when he is warned that he has gone too far in offending the king; at the end of the day, he serves at the king’s pleasure. His immunity is not total.) And moreover, any party that insists it possesses a king’s veto over the king’s jester is a usurping party that presents a direct challenge to the king’s lawful authority and therefore must be expelled from the kingdom.

In fact, through their deaths, the men of Charlie Hebdo have fulfilled their traditional jester’s role of warning the king that his policies are false and harmful. Had they focused instead on defending themselves, they would not have been able to do so. Now it is time for the king and his knights to fulfill their traditional roles and address the active threat to the kingdom.

UPDATE: at least two people killed after shooting at kosher grocery in eastern Paris in which at least five were taken hostage

Three more counts

Three more counts of sexual assault against McRapey’s partner in psychological projection:

Canadian radio star Jian Ghomeshi was charged with three more counts of sexual assault in a court appearance on Thursday in a widening sex scandal that has prompted suspensions at the country’s national public broadcaster.

The three new charges, linked to three more women, bring the total number of charges facing Ghomeshi to eight and the number of complainants to six. A publication ban prevents naming any of the women.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corp fired Ghomeshi as host of Q, an internationally syndicated CBC Radio music and arts program, in October. The CBC said it had seen graphic evidence that he had injured a woman in what Ghomeshi said were consensual sex acts involving bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism.

Remember, John Scalzi has not only openly admitted to being a rapist and sexual batterer himself, he has also spent considerably more time attacking me than he has Mr. Ghomeshi. In fact, he barely ever refers to Mr. Ghomeshi at all. It tends to make one suspect that McRapey has some other agenda in mind than his professed purpose in defending women. And speaking of McRapey, here is the full extent of his Twitter commentary on the massacre in Paris.

As a non-Muslim, I’d like to apologize to Muslims for the non-Muslims
demanding that all Muslims should apologize for the attacks today.

Worked at a newspaper; made people angry with words. I was what those cartoonists were. I am still. #JeSuisCharlie 

Followed by extensive cat pictures to change the subject. Seriously, that’s John Scalzi’s reaction after Muslims murder more people… to apologize to Muslims. He’s exactly the sort of left-wing writer whom Sarah Hoyt decried as “asinine cowards, these craven and self-regarding poltroons… who routinely, three times a day, post some dig at Christianity, some mockery of Americans, some pseudo-witty comment about Republicans. But see, none of those people threaten to kill them. The brave social(ist) justice warriors are ever ready to speak truth to the power that will not hurt them. Towards Islam, otoh they adopt the crouching position and kiss the terrorists gangrenous blood-soaked pudenda.”

Scalzi isn’t what the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were. Whatever else they may have been, they were brave. He is the precise opposite; a contemptible moral and physical coward. What a craven, self-promoting fraud. As one noTrust aptly tweeted: “The bodies aren’t even cold, and here’s Scalzi & other libs publicly fondling their own Moral Supremacy.”

This is what diversity looks like

As usual, we’re seeing most of the usual suspects telling the usual taqiyya, claiming that murdering people is against Islam, that it’s just a few bad apples, that Christians do it too, that Charlie Hebdo had it coming, and so forth.

They are all lies. Islam is a religion of the sword and has been since its inception.

Christian popes are given names like Pius and Benedictus and Clemens. Islamic caliphs were proud to bear names such as al-Mansur “the victorious”, which the Caliph of Cordoba assumed after his victory at the Battle of Torrevicente in 981. Furthermore, if it is reasonable to hold Christians today responsible for the actions of other Christians during the Crusades nearly one thousand years ago, how is it unreasonable to hold Muslims today responsible for the action of other Muslims yesterday?

As I have repeatedly observed, we are about fifty years into the third great wave of Islamic expansion in the West. It was previously turned back at Tours, and again at Vienna. Given the delusions that still persist among the Western governments and the left side of the West’s electorates, it seems unlikely that the murderous assault on the Charlie Hebdo offices mark the high water mark of the third wave of Islamic aggression.

But the first shots in Reconquista 2.0 have already been fired; they were fired in Norway by Anders Breivik. And that is the terrible point to which multiculturalism and diversity and tolerance has brought the West: the choice between Breivik and Hebdo. Many have embraced the hashtag #JeSuiCharlie, but as Iowahawk wisely noted, never bring a candlelight vigil to a gunfight.

It will, of course, take time for people to understand that there is no third option, that reinforcing not only decades of failure, but irrational ideological dogma, is absolutely and utterly doomed to even more cataclysmic failure. It will take more attacks by the invaders, more innocent deaths, more dead Westerners, before the people throw out their traitorous governments and their ridiculous pleas for “unity” and true national leaderships arise to expel the invaders.

This pattern of Quislingesque behavior on the part of the Western elite is nothing new. A reader, JS, notes:

I’ve been reading Kissinger’s Diplomacy, and noted that in the lead-up
to WW2, many leaders in Europe and England were much more favorably
disposed towards a hostile and rearming Germany than they were to the Right
in their own countries. Like the Left today, their tactic in response to a
challenge was to attempt to cover themselves in ‘moar’ humiliation,
abase themselves even further. According to Kissinger,
they received grand accolades from other world leaders while betraying
their own peoples and increasing the death toll of WW2 by orders of
magnitude by disarming when they should have been attacking Hitler’s
Germany before Germany was prepared for offensive warfare.

Look at the picture above. Look at the terror and helplessness of the French policeman in his last moments. Look at what his surrender and willingness to appease his Muslim killer accomplished. That is what diversity looks like. That is what diversity means.

Then again, in the end, it may be that #JeSuiCharlie will turn out to be an appropriate slogan. After all, there was once another Frenchman named Charlie who was not afraid to confront the Islamic invader, Charlie Martel.

UPDATE: More blessings of diversity in Paris today:

Terrified workers in Paris’s business district were warned not to leave their office after a gunmen was seen outside – just hours after a female police officer was shot dead by a ‘North African wielding an assault rifle’. 

Continental warming

Temperatures continue to rise in Europe:

[T]he relentless stream of migrants to Europe — propelled by the war in
Syria and turmoil across the Middle East and the Horn of Africa — has
combined with economic troubles and rising fear of Islamic radicalism to
fuel a backlash against immigrants, directed most viciously at Muslims.

The
simmering resentments and suspicions have driven debates across Europe
about tighter controls on immigration. Worries about immigration have
helped buoy right-wing parties in Britain, Denmark, France and Hungary.
German officials recorded more than 70 attacks against mosques from 2012
to 2014, including an arson, and the police in Britain have recorded an
increase in hate crimes against Muslims. There are few places where the
turn against immigrants is more surprising than Sweden, where a solid
core of citizens still supports the 65-year-old open door policy toward
immigrants facing hardship that has long earned international respect
for the country….

Opposition
to the rising numbers is growing. The far-right, anti-immigrant Sweden
Democrats had their best showing ever — nearly 13 percent of votes — in
elections in September. The
entry of the Sweden Democrats to parliament in 2010 had already opened
the door for a previously unthinkable discussion about turning back the
country’s policy of taking in foreigners on humanitarian grounds and
granting them access to the country’s generous welfare system.

Adrian
Groglopo, a professor of social science at the University of
Gothenburg, has studied discrimination in Sweden over the past decade.
He said that Sweden has long been a racially segregated country where
many immigrants live in ghettos and struggle to find jobs, but that the
success of the Sweden Democrats has made racism more socially
acceptable.

By the time the current generation of young people take power, “racism” (or as it is more properly described, nationalism) will not only be socially acceptable, it will be legally mandated. Merkel and her merry band of multiculturalists are on their way out, and once the nationalists gain power everywhere from Greece to Germany, from Serbia to Sweden, the tides will reverse in a manner that will surprise nearly everyone who knows nothing of history and its cycles.

Note this growing movement in Germany, which has already surpassed the peak popularity of the Tea Party: One German in eight would join an anti-Muslim march if a rapidly-growing
protest movement organized one in their home towns, according to an
opinion poll published on Thursday.

Immigration in small numbers by those who fully integrate in every way, including language and religion, is beneficial to a nation. But that is very different than mass migration, which is not merely detrimental to a nation, it is materially worse than war. And multi-ethnic societies always collapse, usually in violence.

SJW England

Notice anything missing from this BBC Radio lineup?

Notice that they are celebrating the fact that there are no white people. None. That is the SJW vision for England and for the West, the complete elimination of the European race in addition to the complete elimination of Christianity. Even ISIS is more moderate.

There can be no compromise with the SJWs. To tolerate them is to tolerate the intentional destruction of you, your children, and your grandchildren. The fact that you don’t wish to play a zero-sum game doesn’t mean that they aren’t. The cultural war is real.

Anti-racism is intrinsically anti-white. It is intrinsically anti-European. And before you claim their objective is impossible, or that I am exaggerating, or even just engaging in rhetorical hyperbole, do recall that I am a Native American, a person of a certain color whose people have been driven to the brink of near extinction.

In 2014, more people began to wake up and choose their side. It’s not too late, not at all. Demographics are destiny, but demographic trends are far from immutable and contra the doomsayers, there are more Europeans on the planet than ever before in history. War and ethnic clashes are coming, to be sure, but the situation is considerably less desperate than it was in the days of Tvrđava Klis, Salamis, Tours, and Vienna.

In 2015, choose your side and stand up for it. Because, as this writer has discovered, whether you are Christian or atheist or agnostic, whether you are white or red or brown or yellow or black, you are not going to be permitted to sit safely on the fence, pretending to be above it all, because the totalitarian Left is not going to allow it.

For most of my career as a writer, I have been reluctant to join in the “culture wars,” mostly because I don’t fit into either of the two opposing camps. As an atheist, I’m not longing for a return to traditional religious morality, but as an individualist, I’ve never supported the weird victim-group crusades of the left.

I have mostly dedicated myself to making the case for smaller government, pointing out the failure of the welfare state, and keeping the environmentalists from shutting down industrial civilization—little things like that. Oh, and also war—not the “culture war,” but war war, the kind where people are actually trying to kill us.

So for the most part, my position on an issue like gay marriage could be summed up as: “Can we please talk about something else now?”

Partly, this comes from my small-government outlook, which holds that some things—indeed, most things, and virtually all of the really important things—should be outside the realm of politics. That definitely includes other people’s sex lives, about which I would like to know a good deal less than is fashionable at the moment.

But this year, I discovered that while I might not be interested in the culture war, the culture war is interested in me. It’s interested in all of us. This is the year when we were served noticed that we won’t be allowed to stand on the sidelines, because we will not be allowed to think differently from the left.

Being moderate and tolerant and neutral and uninterested didn’t save the Jews in Germany. It didn’t save the peasants in China or the farmers in the Soviet Union. And it won’t save you in the 21st century West. When the SJWs say there is “no place” for various forms of thought, belief, and expression, they mean there is no place for you.

A step forward

This attempt by the Dutch anti-nationalists to crack down on Geert Wilders is actually an encouraging step on the European front. It means the multicultis have lost their popular support, the deception game is over, and they are now being forced to resort to naked force and open speech policing in an attempt to silence the opposition’s leadership:

‘The public prosecutor in The Hague is to prosecute Geert Wilders on charges of insulting a group of people based on race and incitement to discrimination and hatred,’ prosecutors said in a statement.

‘Politicians may go far in their statements, that’s part of freedom of expression, but this freedom is limited by the prohibition of discrimination,’ it said, adding that no date had yet been set for the trial.

In a written statement, Wilders says he ‘said what millions of people think and believe.’

Wilders says authorities ‘should concentrate on prosecuting jihadis instead of me.’

‘I do not retract anything I have said,’ Wilders, whose Party for Freedom (PVV) is leading opinion polls.

‘In my fight for freedom and against the Islamisation of the Netherlands, I will never let anyone silence me. No matter the cost, no matter by whom, whatever the consequences may be,’ he said.

Once they resort to the use of force, so can their opponents. If Wilders is jailed for nothing more than defending the Dutch nation against their invaders, many of his jailers will not likely survive for long. After all, if a Dutchman is going to be imprisoned for his thoughts, he may as well be imprisoned for his actions.

Deutschland gegen Islam

The German and international media is going to have no more success disqualifying PEGIDA than the UK media has had in disqualifying UKIP or the French media has had in disqualifying National Front:

Its members have been dubbed the “pinstriped Nazis” and they refer to their demonstrations as “evening strolls” through German cities. But on Monday night, an estimated 15,000 people joined Pegida, or Patriotic Europeans Against Islamisation of the West, in a march through Dresden carrying banners bearing slogans such as “Zero tolerance towards criminal asylum seekers”, “Protect our homeland” and “Stop the Islamisation”.

Lutz Bachmann, the head of Pegida, a nascent anti-foreigner campaign group, led the crowds, either waving or draped in German flags, in barking chants of “Wir sind das Volk”, or “We are the people”, the slogan adopted by protesters in the historic “Monday demonstrations” against the East German government in the runup to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Associating themselves with the freedom demonstrations has given Pegida protests an air of moral respectability even though there are hundreds of rightwing extremists in their midst, as well as established groups of hooligans who are known to the police, according to Germany’s federal office for the protection of the constitution.

“The instigators are unmistakably rightwing extremists,” a federal spokesman said.

It was the ninth week in a row that Pegida had taken its protest on to the city’s streets in the eastern German state of Saxony.

Its first march, advertised on Facebook and other social media, attracted just 200 supporters. By last week the figure had risen to 10,000. By Monday night it had grown to an estimated 15,000.

Nine weeks to go from 200 to 15,000. At that rate, by the middle of next year they’ll be on the verge of throwing the traitoress Merkel out on her fat ass. Once the first anti-immigrant party takes power and people see how much better things are with the Third World flow going the proper way, the other electorates will rapidly follow suit.

That’s why you’ve got the English media freaking out about the rise of anti-immigrant parties in France, Germany and Sweden. Christendom will rise again. It’s absolutely ludicrous to ever count out a faith that began with just eleven frightened, cowardly men who abandoned their leader. Christianity doesn’t need numbers. It just needs the faith of a mustard seed.

Homeschool or Die: Pakistan

4GW prefers to aim at soft targets:

At least 126 people have been killed, more than 100 of them children, after Taliban gunmen stormed a military school in the north-western Pakistani city of Peshawar, in the worst ever militant attack to hit the troubled region.

It was reported that one suicide bomber blew himself up in a room containing 60 children and a teacher was set on fire in front of pupils, with the children forced to watch.

The attack started with the gunmen, disguised as security guards, entering the 500-pupil school – which has students aged 10 to 18 – in the early hours.

The jihadists shot their way into the building and went from classroom to classroom, shooting at random.

Army commandos quickly arrived at the scene and exchanged fire with the gunmen. Eye-witnesses described how students cowered under desks as dead bodies were strewn along corridors. News images of the aftermath of the attack showed boys in blood-soaked school uniforms with green blazers being carried from the scene.

Around 160 children, aged 13 and 14, are being held hostage, with four gunmen still inside.  A police inspector said they had trapped the terrorists in the principal’s office. Many of the soldiers involved in the rescue operation are trying to save their own children.

And the world looks on… and learns. The strutting, swaggering militarized police in America have already seen their own families targeted in Los Angeles and Colorado, but they haven’t taken the lesson to heart yet and dialed down their confrontational tactics. And yet, how quickly the agents of the state stop strutting and swaggering when they finally grasp that their families are easily reached even when they live behind barricades and their children go to special schools protected with security guards….

It’s a tragedy, to be sure, and in the West, the sort of easily avoidable tragedy that will nevertheless come to West in time, as we have already seen in New York, London, Madrid, and Sydney.

There is one answer, and only one answer. Mass repatriation. If it is not enacted, then America, and England, and Italy, and Sweden, and Germany, and every other country in the West will see its children subjected to the same jihadist violence. The East does not, and never has, practice the formal Western way of war. And they will prefer to target the soft targets, the women and the children who are incapable of fighting back. Note that this sort of soft-targeting is the very subject addressed by my story, “A Reliable Source”, in RIDING THE RED HORSE.

“We selected the army’s school for the attack because the government is targeting our families and females,’ said Taliban spokesman Muhammad Umar Khorasani. ‘We want them to feel the pain.'” 

Speaking of soft targets: “Over 1,000 schools have been destroyed by the Pakistan Taliban since 2010.“

The answer is not to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here. It is to send them back over there so we don’t have to fight them here.


UPDATE: Final count: “Nine Taliban terrorists attacked the Army
Public School in the north-western Pakistani city of Peshawar today,
slaughtering 132 children in the deadliest terrorist attack in the
nation’s history.”

Heroine of the pre-anti-backlash

Steve Sailer points out that the woman who is heroically declaring her support for Muslims in the wake of Muslims kidnapping and murdering white Australians is, to put it mildly, a mentally unstable, attention-seeking loon:

Below is the Australian Broadcasting Company’s interview with The Megaphone’s designated heroine of the unfortunate events in Sydney today in which two victims of a Muslim immigrant terrorist died.

But even before the murders actually happened, the media was moving on to the real story: its fears of a backlash against Muslims, and the one brave woman, Melbourne writer Tessa Kum, who courageously tweeted her opposition to this theoretical but widely hoped for / denounced backlash. 

What is particularly amusing is that this “Melbourne writer” is not merely a mentally unstable, attention-seeking loon, but an SJW of the SFWA variety. And, as we all figured was inevitable eventually, she’s been one of the first of them to turn on John Scalzi and attack him for his unbearable whiteness, his privilege, and his undeniable racism:

I also didn’t expect to see the white publishing scene – let’s call a turd a turd – take on my Shovel of Oh You Are So Right Tessa and start digging graves with it.

Suddenly, you’re all promoting Tricia Sullivan’s new book.

Solidarity is for white women, hey.

There’s John Scalzi over there, making a point of featuring Tricia Sullivan’s work, and making an even larger point of deleting comments that ‘drag in online drama from elsewhere’. You know John Scalzi, right? You guys fucking love him. He’s generally a beacon for progressive reasonableness, a vocal ally, decent writer and I’ve seen him dance. People like him. He’s a great guy. I’ve noticed that you, white person, are really championing him for his overt stance against G***rgater. He’s a rich white cishet man in a western country, he has privilege coming out the wooza, it’s ace to see him going in to bat against the G***rgaters.

Because doxxing is bad!

But not all doxxing!

(“Not all men!”)

Doxxing is okay if done to a PoC.

This is the message John Scalzi sends when he promotes the work of Tricia Sullivan. He has significant platform and volume and he ticks all the privilege boxes. The reach and impact of this message should not be dismissed or underestimated. It is tacit approval of her actions, taking the position that she should not be reproached but instead supported.

This lack of intersectionality undermines all the otherwise good work he has done. How can I take “We Need Diverse Books” seriously – which I really fucking want to, and do – when there are white feminists such as John Scalzi providing implicit support to a white woman who has shown not a moment of regret for what she has done to a person of colour?

I can’t…. What makes this racist is the simple fact that you, white person, have not done this to your own.

Jim Frenkle, Vox Day, Harlan Ellis, Will Shetterly. For fuck’s sake, how many decades did you let Frenkle prey in the scene before some young uppity voice of dissent forced your hand? You let him sexually assault people. You fucking enabled him for years. But he’s gone! you cry. We got rid of him! Your hand was fucking forced. You wouldn’t have done a thing if one of his victims hadn’t stuck her neck out to ‘make a fuss’. He would still be employed in a position of power in this field if it was left to you, white person. But we got Vox Day out of SFWA! Holy shit, how many years did that take too? How many mouthy PoC’s publicly pushing their dissent did it take for you act? Years. Decades. Remember Elizabeth Moon and Wiscon? How long did you ‘consider all sides of the story’? How slow were you to act? How, when discussing the making and maintaining of safe spaces, ‘fair’ is it to give the voice of the privileged equal consideration as that of the oppressed?

Fucking hypocrites.

It would be tremendously amusing to be able to see this woman’s face when someone informs her that I am a Native American of part-Mexican descent. The fact is that the only writer ever purged from SFWA was a PoC. How racist is that?

And I laughed out loud at this: “[John Scalzi] has privilege coming out the wooza.” If nothing else, this should inspire some amusingly desperate tweets as McRapey hastens to abase himself in penance for his continuing to play life on the easiest difficulty setting. That should be everyone’s standard rebuttal to Scalzi from now on. “Shut up, John, you have privilege coming out the wooza.”

But to return to the primary subject, this is why no amount of Muslim-hugging and anti-backlash propaganda is going to stop the backlash and eventual Reconquista 2.0: Up to 20 students dead and 500 taken hostage as Taliban gunmen storm military-run school in Pakistan. Beslan, coming to a public school in your country soon.