Tag: Clash of Civilizations

The suicidal altruism of Western women

But stupidity always has its consequences. Women’s rights are rapidly proving to be the mortal wounding of the West:

A woman opened her heart and her door to a 12-year-old boy who had fled the horrors of war in Afghanistan after losing his parents – or so she thought. In reality, not only was the boy in her care, Jamal, almost a decade older than she had been duped into believing, but he also had Taliban and child abuse material on his phone.

A dentist’s check found his age to actually be around 21 and a subsequent investigation uncovered the shocking content on his mobile, according to the Sun. She took Jamal to a climbing centre, where he displayed upper body strength far beyond his supposed years and also was able to completely strip a rifle at a shooting range.

While in her care, he shared a room with three children aged between 12 and 14.
Rosie told the paper’s Nigel Bunyan and Chris Pollard: ‘It’s ridiculous how everybody else could see it but not the social workers.’  Although she could not confirm if he was a terrorist, she was adamant he had spent time in a training camp.

She added that his last words to her were ‘I’ll kill you and I know where your children are.’

It probably would be a useful object lesson to the women of the West if he did. Unfortunately, female solipsism is such that too many women would merely scoff at the example, and argue that the object of their virtue-signaling, Abdul, is a wonderful boy who just loves to babysit for her two younger children.

There is a reason why the conquerors of the world either slaughtered the children of their enemies or enslaved them and turned them into slave-warriors. Because children always grow up. All these altruistic idiots are doing is ensuring that the next war between Christendom and the Dar al-Islam and will be fought here rather than there.

And the fact that Christendom is far less fundamentally Christian than the Dar al-Islam is fundamentally Muslim means that the odds are increasing in the latter’s favor. Bringing secularism to a civilizational war is akin to bringing a rubber knife to a gun fight.

Safe as houses

The cartoon above is a reasonable summary of the current state of the West. After finishing The Clash of Civilizations, it is eminently clear to me that most people, from proposition-nation white conservatives to rainbow-haired, diversity-drunk, quad-gendered, genetically-vibrant multiculturalists, are as completely and absolutely clueless about what the future holds with regards to the ongoing remaking of the world order as the average rotisserie chicken. That’s not surprising. To me, the remarkable thing is how early, and how clearly, Huntington saw the civilizational trends developing. This just goes to show how useful a sound conceptual model is, and how pointless it is to stubbornly insist on retaining models that events or logic have proven to be observably false.

Which leads me to address a concern that was expressed by several people concerning the way in which certain specific individuals happen to disagree with me, such as John C. Wright, whose recent post entitled Hooey and Phooey takes serious exception to what could be described in general terms as my Alt-West thesis. From the comments:

John C. Wright
“As for Vox, I admire his fight against the enemies of civilization, he’s actually doing something about it. He can be wrong about an issue and right about the need to fight for something. An unintegrated horde of millions of people with a hostile ideology from one of the most violent places on earth should be opposed on the basis of common sense (no race-science needed).”

I agree.

This is a holy war, not a race war. The religion of secular leftism (and it is a religion in all but name) has made an alliance with the horrid and enduring heresy of the False Prophet, Mohammedanism, against the religion of the West, Christianity: those two are teamed up, and the Left are trying to use demographics to destroy us. He is right that it is an invasion: he is right that men who hate us cannot assimilate and certainly must be expelled from the nation.

Vox is dead wrong on the ultimate reasons and the ultimate cure for it. The ultimate reasons are spiritual, not genetic. The ultimate cure is revival of Christianity, a re-dedication to the founding principles of this nation, not the creation of a White Lives Matter movement coupled with an abolition of those principles.

Tom Simon
Vox is dead wrong on the ultimate reasons and the ultimate cure for it.

Sir, I am very glad that you acknowledge this. I have sometimes been fearful lest your business dealings with Mr. Beale (conducted to mutual profit) might incline you to overlook his faults in politics and dialectic.

Camilla Cameo
At the same time, I for one hope that this disagreement does not cause any rift between! (Though I suggested debate earlier, it was with the acknowledgement that the possibility of ill feeling would be a good reason not to.)

Let me be perfectly clear. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on anything, let alone everything. I suspect – let me correct that, I KNOW – that every single Castalia House author disagrees with me with at least some aspect of my Alt-West thesis even if they tend to generally support its objectives. Not even the co-author of Cuckservative wholly agrees with me; he is not a Christian, for one thing. I think William S. Lind would probably come the closest of them all and he does not even use computers.

So, I have to assume that my idea of direct techno-democracy is right out with him.

Now, I do happen to think the estimable Mr. Wright is so vastly and utterly and risibly wrong on this particular subject that one day he will find it it hard to imagine that he ever genuinely believed what he now believes quite sincerely.

But so what? I have been every bit as wrong about other concepts myself in the past, such as free trade, just to give one example.

There is neither a rift nor any reason for one. I don’t edit and publish Mr. Wright’s books because I care what he thinks about the Alt-Right or Western civilization, but because he is one of the three best SF/F writers writing today. His novels are entertaining, important, and uplifting. I wouldn’t hesitate to publish China Mieville either even though Mr. Mieville’s ideas concerning political economy are considerably more frothing-at-the-mouth mad than Mr. Wright’s could ever be even if Mr. Wright were bitten by a rabid, syphilitic mongoose.

Nor do I admire Mr. Wright because I agree with him about one particular concept or another, but because he is a great writer and a good man. He is, without question, better than me on both counts. Although I think he is wrong with regards to American posterity, Aristotelian rhetoric, human intelligence, genetic science, and the art of war, just to name a few things concerning which we disagree, I enjoy reading his thoughts on those and other topics, and I do not mind his criticism in the least, as it is considerably more honest and substantive than most I receive. I consider it to be both an honor and a privilege to work with him.

The truth is immutable. But none of us have the capacity to see it clearly and fully. Perhaps time will help clarify who is correct and who is not, or perhaps not. In the meantime, all we can do is observe and reflect as honestly as we can.

Besides, if current events are any guide, I expect Mr. Wright and nearly everyone else to begin to come around to my way of thinking soon enough once the ongoing clash of civilizations strikes close enough to home to make an impression on them. Back in 2002, people were a lot more dubious about my opinion concerning a coming financial crisis than they are about anything I say these days. Frankly, I see “dead wrong” as a big step up from “seriously, what color is the sky in your world?”

A missing mandate

When elected politicians ignore the people, the people will ensure their voices are heard and their will is ultimately obeyed.

Over the past several months, the German people have become increasingly frustrated with Merkel’s “open-border” policy that has allowed over 1mm migrants to flow into the country from the Middle East and North Africa.  The flood of migrants has brought with it a wave of violent crime including sexual assaults resulting in a rising nationalist tension as people have turned their backs on Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union party in recent elections.

The most recent example of backlash over the migrant crisis comes from the small German town of Oersdorf in Northern Germany.  The Mayor of Oersdorf, Joachim Kebschull (61), was recently beaten unconscious outside of the city’s Town Hall where the construction committee was meeting to discuss a new housing development for migrants.  The mayor was apparently struck with a club from behind as he stepped out the Town Hall building to get a laptop from his car.

According to DW, Kebschull had been receiving threats for months.  In fact, the committee meeting had already been postponed twice over bomb threats.

The controversy surrounded a local subsidized housing revitalization where the mayor wanted to offer apartments to asylum-seekers.  “If we could also offer a family of refugees a new home in our village, we would like to take this opportunity and make a small contribution to people who had to flee their homes,” the association said in a statement on its website.

It will be interesting to see if the mayor learns anything from the experience or if he’s going to follow Angela Merkel’s lead and keep doubling down. Germany will not tolerate this invasion much longer and it won’t surprise me in the slightest if these one-off attacks – this is not the first attack on a pro-migrant politician – are replaced by a more organized campaign over the next year.

Keep in mind that this sort of violent response to an authority figure is very much a “last resort” behavior on the part of Germans. They are far more inclined to violence in obedience to authority than in resistance to it. It is a telling indicator that the German political establishment has lost the proverbial “Mandate of Heaven” and is on the verge of entering a pre-revolutionary state.

Right now, there is still the hope that the AfD will come to power and set things straight. But if they are, like the Front National, kept out of power through collusion by the major parties, or if they fail to repatriate the invaders, Germany is going to see violent civil strife that goes well beyond the Red Brigades scare of the 1970s.

The Age of the Orc

Dyskord fails to grasp the importance of priorities with regards to the survival of the West:

All the talk of socialism as if its a valid form of government and wont lead to the same failed mess it always degrades into is laughable. I mean seriously now these socialists have jumped on the alt right bandwagon and under the guise of white nationalism proclaim socialism a white concept that only failed because of the inferior genetic or whatever faults of the OTHER races. Another pathetic excuse for a truly foolish system of governance.

I have to ask Vox, if a group of alt white Communists start proclaiming us and others false flag bearers will you accept them as valid by dint of being white nationalists.
At this rate the alt right should it succeed will fall into the same traps which led to the current decline.

I support the 14 words. I believe that in the history of the world only Western Civilization has raised individual men and women to a level of safety, security and freedom unprecedented in recorded history. I believe that nowhere outside of Europe or current predominantly white former colonies like New Zealand and Australia does democracy and Western values prevail. However not all white peoples are equal. In fact today pale-skinned latino’s are considered white. A century ago Italians weren’t considered white. The same regarding the Irish.

I’m not trying to dispose of the alt white or rally against them. By all means lets work together. But this acceptance of Socialism as valid is IMO disheartening. The rise of the right across Europe in my understanding is a refutation of socialism and its fruits.

First, let’s get one thing perfectly clear. In any non-white West, some form of socialism may be the best case scenario. It is more likely that there won’t be an economic system that is recognizable as a coherent Western system of any kind. After all, what is the best way to describe the economies of Mexico, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, or Malaysia?

Second, identity always trumps ideology in the end. I don’t accept socialist economics any more than I accept the idea that 1+1=37 or that the Merovingian dynasty was descended from Jesus Christ. But every mass movement needs the participation of the left side of the bell curve too. The socialists of the Alt-Right are no more harmful to the core cause of the Alt-Right at this point in time than are the free traders, the monetarists, or the Keynesians. Their collective economic ignorance is irrelevant.

The largest invasion in human history is taking place and its consequences are going to shake the world for decades, possibly centuries. The Men of the West have laid down their guard and been invaded en masse by orcs and goblins and other creatures; even their cradles are filled with changelings.

Consider this: there are fewer than 1,000 speakers of my tribe’s language alive today. It will be extinct by 2150. My tribe’s blood is more diluted than that of the Numenoreans of Middle Earth; it is entirely possible that one day, your grandchildren’s claim to be white will be scoffed at in much the same way some scoff at my claim to be American Indian. The same thing has already been happening to the American tribe for more than 150 years, to the point that the very definition of “American” has already been altered beyond all recognition.

The propositionals and universalists among us are wrong, Wrong, WRONG, because they refuse to read history, refuse to listen to us, and refuse to pay any attention to what the orcs and goblins themselves are saying. They believe, erroneously, that orcs and goblins are not only no different under the skin, but also want to be men just like them. But the truth is, they don’t. Orcs and goblins want to continue to be exactly what they are, they simply want to pillage and rule in the West in exactly the same manner they do elsewhere.

As Sam Huntington noted 20 years ago, our values are not theirs:


The author of another cross-cultural survey of individualism and collectivism similarly highlighted the dominance of individualism in the West compared to the prevalence of collectivism elsewhere and concluded that “the values that are most important in the West are least important worldwide.”

Not just less important, LEAST important. The West will not transform the orcs or their values through its magic dirt. To the contrary, they will do as immigrants have always done, and transform the West into the Not-West, just as America has already been transformed into Not-America by not-Americans.

And yet, the Men of the West not only will not fight the invaders, they will not even cease to open their arms, their legs, their hearts, and their homes to them. What we are witnessing, what we are participating in, is nothing less than a civilizational mass suicide.

Curiosity and cognitive paradigms

As time has passed, I have realized that my ability to easily defeat other intelligent, educated people in debate has considerably less to do with my intelligence and more to do with what appears to be a higher degree of curiosity, which doesn’t actually have much, if anything, to do with intelligence or formal education.

As has often been noted here, Man is a rationalizing animal. And what I have increasingly noted of late is that most people devote most of their intelligence to rationalizing what they already think to be true than they do to figuring out what they think is not true. This desire to rationalize rather than learn is, quite possibly, the intelligent individual’s biggest intellectual weakness.

Now, we all do it to varying degrees. But the more we do it, the more absurd and indefensible and self-contradictory positions we will take. Thus we see the monetarists seriously discussing the outlawing of paper money, evolutionists denying the existence of species, anthropologists presenting literal fiction in the place of history or archeological science, and Christians arguing the virgin birth of a non-divine individual.

But this is only one form of the rationalization process. The other one is to base one’s opinion on conclusions drawn from incomplete information, to argue on the basis of knowing about something rather than genuinely knowing it. Those of us who have graduated from good colleges are particularly susceptible to this, as we have been introduced to a broad range of classics, we have listened to lectures from professors deeply steeped in them so that we recognize them and know a little bit about them, but the truth is that we don’t really know much of anything concerning their details.

Which is why we will so often see someone saying that Marx is wrong without have the least conception of what he might be wrong about, declaring that Fukuyama’s declaration of the end of history is stupid on its face without understanding what Fukuyama meant by “history” – and any would-be intellectual should be humiliated upon the realization that his level of knowledge doesn’t rise to the level of a pop song by Jesus Jones from 26 years ago – and appealing to all things “quantum” without even being able to define “quantum mechanics”.

Complicating this is the common preference for binary thinking, or if you want to sound more philosophical, Abelardian philosophy. “It is so or it is not so” is the binary thinker’s mantra; the concept of necessary, but not sufficient eludes him. Consider two contrary examples from the comments on Huntington’s book, The Clash of Civilizations, yesterday.

“I suspect that it might be easier to start with worship of blood, soil and nature and work up from there.  The popularity of paganism should be no mystery.”

“I would go further, and say not only that Christianity is needed for Western Civilization, I say Christianity IS Western Civilization. You can see from that why the appeal of the Alt-Right, claiming that my racial identity trumps my Church, is an idea not even worth discussing.”

Despite being directly opposed, both statements are equally silly, and both are similarly ignorant. Anyone who has read even part of Huntington’s book will instantly recognize that neither commenter has read it. The first comment violates the recounting of the history of the various civilizations in general and Western civilization in particular. Given that even a sophisticated religion such as Buddhism has proven insufficient to support the development of a major civilization, and even the highest, most noble forms of virtuous Roman paganism failed to compete successfully with Christianity, it is obvious that working up from the sort of pre-civilized animism that the commenter recommends would not be easier than metaphorically taking whips to the temple and reforming the Christian churches. In fact, it is improbable to the point of being a virtual impossibility.

As for the idea that Christianity IS Western Civilization, this is a historical and definitional absurdity. While religion is much more important in defining civilizations than the secular students of liberal democracy would like to admit, a civilization is considerably more than its definitive religion. Thus, both the following statements by Huntington are both true:

  1. People of the same race can be deeply divided by civilization; people of different races may be united by civilization….The crucial distinctions among human groups concern their values, beliefs, institutions, and social structures, not their physical size, head shapes, and skin colors.
  2. A civilization is the broadest cultural entity. Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, all have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneity. It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people. People have levels of identity: a resident of Rome may define himself with varying degrees of intensity as a Roman, an Italian, a Catholic, a Christian, a European, a Westerner. The civilization to which he belongs is the broadest level of identification with which he strongly identifies.

First, an individual’s values, beliefs, institutions, and social structures are heavily influenced by his race; race and culture are deeply intertwined. Second, Christianity is not Western civilization, it is merely one of the most important aspects of Western civilization; as the Alt-Right sees it, Christianity is one of the three necessary components. The idea that one’s racial identity trumps one’s religion is not worth discussing because it is irrelevant, both to the Alt-Right and to the civilizational paradigm. Both religion and race are necessary components of a civilization, but are insufficient in themselves. This should be entirely obvious from the start, given that neither religion nor race are recognized synonyms for civilization.

Third, the fact that there are three other major Christian civilizations besides Western civilization, Byzantine, Orthodox, and Latin American, (to say nothing of minor Christian civilizations such as Ethiopean) means that Western civilization cannot be Christianity and Christianity cannot be Western civilization. That is an idea that is not worth discussing, because it is as obviously and mathematically untrue as the statement that 1+3.5=1.

Now, we can argue whether a society of Chinese Christians will be more Sinic than Western or more Western than Sinic. I strongly incline towards the former view myself, though I would not view the matter as completely unworthy of discussion. But regardless, we should all be able to concur that it will not be Japanese or Muslim, or, for that matter, neoliberal.

And furthermore, the civilizational paradigm tends to highlight why Alt-West and Alt-White are not necessarily in competition with each other. Alt-White is less an alternative to Alt-West than a subset of it, as Alt-West is focused on the civilizational level, while Alt-White is focused on the national level. However, it also indicates that the Alt-White is going to have to come to terms with the necessity of Christianity to its own objectives if it is going to find any success going forward.

It can, of course, reject the civilizational paradigm, but that is a suboptimal response given the way it is increasingly clear that the civilizational paradigm is vastly superior in explanatory and predictive terms to either the bipolar superpower paradigm that preceded it or the universalist neoliberal paradigm that was supposed to succeed the superpower model.

Why he was wrong about Christianity

Although I am familiar with the concept expressed by Sam Huntington’s civilizational paradigm and have actually read the famous essay in Foreign Affairs called “The Clash of Civilizations”, I am a little embarrassed to say that I made the typical college mistake of assuming that knowledge about the concept was an adequate substitute for detailed knowledge of the concept. Which is to say that I’d never read the book that is the expansion of the esssay, which mistake I am presently correcting now.

It’s a brilliant, brilliant book that goes well beyond the refutation of Fukuyama’s silly “History is Over and We’re All Liberal Democrats Now” paradigm and already it has me thinking about how the civilizational paradigm affects the reality of the Alt-Right. And it occurs to me that one of the keys to the success of the Alt-West is going to be a) Christians realizing that Churchianity is not Christianity and driving it out of their institutions and places of worship combined with b) non-Christians realizing that Christianity is, far from being a societal negative, a societal necessity for any Western civilization.

Tom Howard’s journey away from Christianity into antiquity, then back again, is one that I expect will be repeated by many an apostate, agnostic, and even atheist.

When I was a boy, my upbringing as a Christian was forever being weathered by the gale force of my enthusiasms. First, there were dinosaurs. I vividly remember my shock when, at Sunday school one day, I opened a children’s Bible and found an illustration on its first page of Adam and Eve with a brachiosaur. Six years old I may have been, but of one thing – to my regret – I was rock-solid certain: no human being had ever seen a sauropod. That the teacher seemed not to care about this error only compounded my sense of outrage and bewilderment. A faint shadow of doubt, for the first time, had been brought to darken my Christian faith.

With time, it darkened further still. My obsession with dinosaurs – glamorous, ­ferocious, extinct – evolved seamlessly into an obsession with ancient empires. When I read the Bible, the focus of my fascination was less the children of Israel or Jesus and his disciples than their adversaries: the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Romans. In a similar manner, although I vaguely continued to believe in God, I found Him infinitely less charismatic than my favourite Olympians: Apollo, Athena, Dionysus. Rather than lay down laws and condemn other deities as demons, they preferred to enjoy themselves. And if they were vain, selfish and cruel, that only served to endow them with the allure of rock stars.

By the time I came to read Edward Gibbon and the other great writers of the Enlightenment, I was more than ready to accept their interpretation of history: that the triumph of Christianity had ushered in an “age of superstition and credulity”, and that modernity was founded on the dusting down of long-forgotten classical values. My childhood instinct to think of the biblical God as the po-faced enemy of liberty and fun was rationalised. The defeat of paganism had ushered in the reign of Nobodaddy, and of all the crusaders, inquisitors and black-hatted puritans who had served as his acolytes. Colour and excitement had been drained from the world. “Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean,” Swinburne wrote, echoing the apocryphal lament of Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome. “The world has grown grey from thy breath.” Instinctively, I agreed.

So, perhaps it was no surprise that I should have continued to cherish classical antiquity as the period that most stirred and inspired me. When I came to write my first work of history, Rubicon, I chose a subject that had been particularly close to the hearts of the philosophes: the age of Cicero. The theme of my second, Persian Fire, was one that even in the 21st century was serving Hollywood, as it had served Montaigne and Byron, as an archetype of the triumph of liberty over despotism: the Persian invasions of Greece.

The years I spent writing these studies of the classical world – living intimately in the company of Leonidas and of Julius Caesar, of the hoplites who had died at Thermopylae and of the legionaries who had triumphed at Alesia – only confirmed me in my fascination: for Sparta and Rome, even when subjected to the minutest historical inquiry, did not cease to seem possessed of the qualities of an apex predator. They continued to stalk my imaginings as they had always done – like a tyrannosaur.

Yet giant carnivores, however wondrous, are by their nature terrifying. The longer I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, the more alien and unsettling I came to find it. The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics, and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more. It was not just the extremes of callousness that I came to find shocking, but the lack of a sense that the poor or the weak might have any intrinsic value. As such, the founding conviction of the Enlightenment – that it owed nothing to the faith into which most of its greatest figures had been born – increasingly came to seem to me unsustainable.

What Howard learned is something I pointed out in a controverial WND column called “The Morality of Rape“, in which I noted that the very idea that rape is wrong, let alone a crime against the state, is an intrinsically Christian concept. The inescapable conclusion is that one simply cannot separate religion from culture, much less from civilization; indeed, Huntington observes that the strongest identifying element of the eight competing major civilizations is, in fact, religion.

Blood, language, religion, way of life, were what the Greeks had in common and what distinguished them from the Persians and other non-Greeks. Of all the objective elements which define civilizations, however, the most important usually is religion, as the Athenians emphasized. To a very large degree, the major civilizations in human history have been closely identified with the world’s great religions; and people who share ethnicity and language but differ in religion may slaughter each other, as happened in Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, and the Subcontinent.

Where it all started

This was my first political column, written in response to the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago. It led to a regular op/ed column on WorldNetDaily, national syndication by Universal Press Syndicate, and eventually, this blog. 


Unfortunately, in the intervening time, events within the USA have gone largely as I feared they would, with the federal government using the attacks to rationalize more government violations of the unalienable rights of Americans. Even worse, the immigration crisis and the subsequent demographic corruption have combined with the expansion of central state power with the global economic depression to imperil the stability of the US as a unitary state entity. I also think it is interesting to note that even then, before I had become familiar with the concepts of 4GW and non-Trinitarian war, it was readily apparent to that conventional war would not suffice to subdue the latest wave of Islamic expansion.

Yield No More Freedom

In response to a number of questions inspired by last week’s column, we were working on a piece related to PC security, specifically the sort offered to one’s e-mail communications by various encryption technologies, when we were interrupted by the horrifying events of Tuesday. The fatal hijackings and subsequent media response has been difficult to dismiss from our mind, so we have tabled the usual technology review for a week in favor of some reflections on these recent events.

One of the many troubling aspects of the hijackings is the brutal demonstration that we, as a people, have received very little of the security we were promised in return for the many violations of personal freedom and civil liberties that have been enacted over the past decade. We would go so far as to raise the question if this had not been a fool’s bargain, wherein we have given up something of precious value in return for … arguably, nothing. It is bad enough that we allow the FBI to filter our e-mails and record our keystrokes, that we permit the National Security Agency to intercept every electronic communication floating through the aether, but it is even worse that we have done so without realizing that which we hoped to gain.

Just as the drug war has not reduced the amount of illegal drugs used in this country, the sacrifice of our civil liberties on the altar of national security has not brought us security. Keep this in mind, as the inevitable drumbeat begins for more sacrifices, as the calls begin for Americans to give up even more of their hard-won freedoms. National security cannot seriously be cited any longer in the attempts to ban personal encryption technology, not when, as WorldNetDaily reported yesterday, far better forms of communications encryption have already been delivered to terrorist-sponsoring states like Syria with the full approval of the previous administration.

It is said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but that vigilance must be applied within as well as without. A thousand suicide bombers could not destroy America, but America is quite capable of destroying itself in the pursuit of any number of false idols, among them wrongheaded and illusory notions of security at any price. Individual privacy, like private property, is one of the foundations of our freedom, and it must not be thrown away out of fear. Anonymous cell phones or encrypted e-mail missives could be used by a terrorist, true, but the same is also true of a razor blade or a flight simulator.

What our leaders must realize is that personal technology is not a foe, but a powerful ally. The enemy we face can be subdued and contained by soldiers, bombs and a strong national will, but it cannot be ultimately defeated through conventional war. But satellite transmissions and the Internet know no borders, nor does the concept of freedom. Our enemies recognize this, which is why they fearfully denounce every sign of American influence as decadence, because they well know that they cannot raise another generation of suicide warriors if that generation is allowed to partake of the dangerous and forbidden fruit of freedom.

Some have protested that America must not strike back, that doing so will only perpetuate the “cycle of violence,” that others will only rise up to replace those we strike down. But this is demonstrably untrue, as no German ever rose up to replace Hitler, nor does a Japanese war party trouble us today. It is appropriate for a nation to fight a war in its own defense, especially when war has been openly declared upon it. But in doing so, we must resolutely resist the call to sacrifice that which makes the United States of America a country worth defending – our inalienable rights and our individual freedom.

#No49ers

The media has been sweeping it under the carpet, but the real reason behind the recent Kaepernick controversy regarding his public disrespect for the American national anthem is that the 49ers QB is now a Muslim convert engaged to a Black Lives Matter activist:

A controversy has erupted today because San Francisco 49er’s Quarterback Colin Kaepernick refused to stand up during the playing of the national anthem.

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” ~ Colin Kaepernick

So what exactly is going on.  Well, there’s a little more to the story than most are willing to accept.  The media and the NFL will avoid these discussions like the plague, but what the heck – the Truth Has No Agenda.

During the off-season Colin Kaepernick converted to Islam.   Colin Kaepernick is also engaged to Black Lives Matter activist and hip-hop radio personality DJ Nessa Diab. Black Lives Matter as an activist group is synonymous with promotion of authentic Islam…. According to NFL players who are friends with Kaepernick, Colin and NessA Diab are going to have a traditional Muslim wedding.

Although I am a lifelong NFL fan, I won’t watch any 49ers games as long as Kaepernick is with the team. I’m using the #No49ers to indicate as much.

Fortunately, after Donald Trump wins in November, Kaepernick can be repatriated to his newly adopted homeland in Saudi Arabia.

Well, who needs roads?

Tell me again how immigration is good for the economy:

Migrants wielding bats and knives have been smashing up vehicles on roads near Calais as their owners sit in traffic, reportedly “just for fun”. Local residents are warning others to avoid the area, saying that the migrants are not even checking to see whether children are in the vehicles before they set upon them.
One resident has posted pictures to Facebook of her brother-in-law’s car, which sustained more than €500 worth of damage when over a dozen migrants set about it with bats, completely smashing a side mirror and the rear window, and shattering the windscreen.

“You’re leaving work and then you’re attacked by migrant shits just for fun – it disgusts me!” commented Maëva Mayla, in a post which has been shared by more than 6,000 people.

“Tell your relatives so that they can avoid it happening to them,” she advises, before appealing for others who have experienced similar attacks to come forward so that they could mount a joint compensation claim.

A number of people have left comments of support, and expressing anger at the situation in Calais. Nathalie Brioit said it is “a shame they have all the rights,” while Marine Gabrielle confessed “I no longer use the highway as I’m so scared.”

Let reason and outdated economic theory be silent when experience contradicts it.

It survived the Borgias and Avignon

So one would presume the Catholic Church will also survive the increasingly disastrous Pope Francis. But I expect he is testing the Catholicism, though not the Christianity, of more than a few Catholics these days. I mean, seriously, “a new humanity”? What sort of Communist post-Christian anti-Biblical happy talk is that?

Flying back to Rome Sunday night from Krakow, he was asked by reporters why he has never used the word “Islam” when denouncing terrorist attacks.

Francis said he thinks “it’s not right to identify Islam with violence.”

He added that every religion has its “little group of fundamentalists.'” He said that if he speaks of violent Islam, he’d have to speak of violent Catholicism, since Catholics kill, too.

Referring to Isis, also known as Islamic State group, Francis said it “presents itself with its violent identity card, but it’s not Islam.'”

God, said Francis in his final homily of the pilgrimage, “demands of us real courage, the courage to be more powerful than evil, by loving everyone, even our enemies.”

“People may judge you to be dreamers, because you believe in a new humanity, one that rejects hatred between peoples, one that refuses to see borders as barriers and can cherish its own traditions without being self-centered or small-minded,” Francis told his flock.

Earlier in his pilgrimage, Francis had expressed dismay that many people and places aren’t welcoming enough to refugees or those fleeing poverty in their homelands.

That’s not Catholicism. That’s not Christianity. That’s raw Neo-Babelism. One observes that despite his attempt to encourage Poles to meekly accept Islamic invasion, Francis has taken in fewer refugees than the so-called Nazi Pope took in Jews.

He’s literally preaching an anti-Crusade of Muslim occupation. I understand that his comments often get taken out of context, but this is straight from the jackass’s mouth. No wonder the very Catholic Polish government wasn’t enthusiastic about his visit.

I’m very interested in knowing what the Catholics here think about this pope. I am NOT interested in hearing the various anti-Catholics spewing their usual venom nor is this an invitation to do so, so be aware that I won’t hesitate to delete Protestant comments on this post. But from an outsider’s perspective, considering the way in which this pope followed on the heel’s of Benedict’s resignation, there does appear to be something seriously wrong in the Vatican.