White People Are Always Worse

In the face of Islamic terror attacks, Gavin McInnes takes on the Myth of White Terrorism:

Another common refrain regarding Islamic terror is groups like the SPLC reminding us that “In America, the face of terrorism is white.” This was made perfectly clear in a viral video circulated by AJ+ that featured lots of American skinheads Sieg Heiling next to images of dead babies and quotes such as “White supremacists are more responsible for terror attacks than people acting in the name of Islam.” WHAT?!
They like to start these studies on September 12th, 2001, but I ain’t buying it. I start the day before and that gives us 2,996 deaths. Then we had seventeen killed by the Beltway Sniper in 2002. Fort Hood left thirteen dead in 2009, and the Boston Marathon bombing four years later left six dead (with 280 brutal injuries, including the woman who lost her leg and just married the man who rescued her). In 2014, a jihadist beheaded his boss. Sixteen were killed in San Bernardino in 2015 and the Orlando nightclub shooting left fifty dead. That’s 3,099.

The white-supremacist deaths are around the “death from spider bites” level. There was Klansman Frazier Glenn Miller, who hated Jews so much he shot three men in an old-folks’ home he assumed were Jewish. There’s also that guy who came to NYC to kill blacks and got one. Finally, we have the member of the “Alt-Reich” (never heard of it) who stabbed a black student to death last week. That’s five.

How you make 3,100 look less than five takes some backbreaking mental acrobatics. Fort Hood and the Oklahoma beheading are considered “workplace violence.” They include “plots” and count virtually anything suspicious that either happens to a minority or is done by a right-winger. Any of those sovereign-state nuts who murder a cop is counted as white-supremacist terrorism, no matter what the race. If a white guy kills a pedophile priest for raping him, it’s neo-Nazi terrorism. They count that sad nut who flew his plane into an IRS building as domestic terrorism. A prank call to a synagogue is an act of domestic terrorism, and now a goofy 13-year-old is just as dangerous as Osama bin Laden. I’m not exaggerating. The above attacks are counted as “incidents,” so 9/11 only counts as one and the Alt-Reich kid counts as the same. We’re reaching a level of disingenuous where you have trouble believing they believe their own rhetoric.

The mental gymnastics are easy because, as we know, Islam is a religion of peace and white people are evil.  Facts shouldn’t get in the way of this.  But those pesky facts keep intruding:

Even if you take their numbers at face value, we have a serious Islamic terrorism problem in America. Muslims represent barely 2% of the population. According to their parameters, “Nazis” are about half the population. Assuming terrorists are almost always male, why are 80 million people coming up with the same kind of crime stats as less than 3 million? Probably because they have a predilection for terror (we knew this already because one in four American Muslims age 18–25 thinks “suicide bombing is sometimes or often justified”). Whoops, your propaganda just disproved your propaganda!


Why is the Left so intolerant?

Maybe because they started down the road of relativism long ago.

Relativism which might sound like a benign “you think what you want and I’ll think what I want — and we’ll all get along” has proved to be not so harmless.  More than a decade ago Pope Benedict had this to say:

“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”

He’s been proved correct.  The “dictatorship” has been increasing.  The intolerance of any opposing perspectives or opinions has increased to the point of people wanting to throw those who disagree in jail (Bill Nye on “climate deniers”) or ruining the livelihoods of those with the “wrong” ideas (Christian bakers, florists, etc.).  It has even gotten to the point that physical violence is justified against “wrong think” (“punch a Nazi” or Berkeley riots).

Benedict, as then Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in his book Without Roots:

“In recent years I find myself noting, how the more relativism becomes the generally accepted way of thinking, the more it tends toward intolerance. Political correctness … seeks to establish the domain of a single way of thinking and speaking. Its relativism creates the illusion that it has reached greater heights than the loftiest philosophical achievements of the past. It presents itself as the only way to think and speak — if, that is, one wishes to stay in fashion. … I think it is vital that we oppose this imposition of a new pseudo-enlightenment, which threatens freedom of thought as well as freedom of religion.”

In 2013, Benjamin Wiker wrote Benedict vs. the Dictatorship of Relativism and accurately identified where this was headed: the destruction of our civilization and the persecution of Christians.

That last point is key. While appearing to be the very essence of neutrality and equity — “all views are equal and equally valid” — it actually undermines both the freedom of thought and the freedom of religion. As to the latter, it does so (ironically) as a new religion itself, “a new ‘denomination’ that places restrictions on religious convictions and seeks to subordinate all religions to the super-dogma of relativism.”

As Cardinal Ratzinger noted in his Truth and Tolerance, “relativism … in certain respects has become the real religion of modern man.” It has become, especially in Europe, but now increasingly in America, the religion that stands at the heart of modern secular civilization in the way that Christianity defined the heart of Christendom.

It is the religion, Pope Benedict insists, which the Church must combat in the third millennium for the sake of civilization itself. A civilization built upon dogmatic relativism is one that ensures its own destruction. It is also a civilization in which Christianity — challenging dogmatic relativism with the proclamation that Jesus Christ himself is the Way, the Truth and the Life — must be persecuted.

Sinking just a little lower

We already know the left is disgusting.  The latest anti-Trump social media stunt even had some liberals disavowing it.  Although plenty of folks had no problem with it.  One jerk even mocked Baron Trump’s reaction: Game-show winner Ken Jennings mocked 11-year-old Barron Trump for reacting to comedian Kathy Griffin’s beheading photo of President Donald Trump

As if Kathy Griffin’s photo with a mock severed head of Trump wasn’t disgusting enough, the photo was on tv where little Baron Trump got to see it.

It Was Just Revealed How 11-Year-Old Barron Trump First Learned of Kathy Griffin’s Photo — Horrific

Barron Trump, President Donald Trump’s 11-year-old son, reportedly “panicked” and became distressed after seeing Kathy Griffin’s now-infamous “beheading” photograph because he didn’t know who Griffin was or understand the context of the photo.

Trump tweeted this response: “Kathy Griffin should be ashamed of herself. My children, especially my 11 year old son, Barron, are having a hard time with this. Sick!”

The left proves yet again that they have no taste, no sense of decency, and absolutely no thought of the well-being of children.  But these are often the same people who want to tell others how to raise their kids and impose more governmental control over parents and families “for the good of the children,” and to cry out for more gun control because “think of the children!”  These are the people who manufacture tears about children to manipulate people into agreeing with them.

These people don’t give a damn about real kids.

Can you imagine what would have happened if someone had done to Obama what Kathy Griffin just did to Trump?  There would have been no end to the outcry.  And someone might very well have gone to jail.

But this isn’t Obama; it’s Trump.  And Trump is apparently so evil that opposing him makes all fair game.  The only thing surprising really is that CNN actually fired Griffin.

UPDATE: Looks like Griffin might be quite pleased to upset Baron Trump so much – I really don’t have words for this witch…

Manchester: it’s about culture

I wasn’t consistently interested in politics until a year or so ago when things started to get a lot more interesting and to give hints of something other than the stale status quo, possibly even of hints of hope.  Politics had seemed a hopeless mess, but now what we’re witnessing on a national and international level (for many places) isn’t just about politics; it’s about culture.  Sounds like the oft quoted “politics is downstream from culture” really does apply.  It is culture, history, people and their stories and times that are fascinating. The reason I care so much now about current events and politics is because it’s about the survival of a culture and people and of what’s left of Western Civilization — or perhaps about its death, hopefully followed by the reemergence of something to replace it.

We are cursed to live in interesting times and to perhaps witness the end of an era and the beginning of a new one, a turning point.  These are times that would be griping to read about from a more distant perspective, but difficult to live through.  Life, if you’re paying attention, is more interesting than any novel.  And more scary.

There have been lots of PC hand wringing, calls of “solidarity!” and “not all Muslims!” hashtags in response to the recent Manchester terror attack. There have also been quite a few not-PC, and thus more true, responses. One by John Paul Meenan focuses right in on the cultural problem.

There’s only one real way to resist Islamic terrorism: is the apathetic West up to the task?

Yes, we must respond, and this is a ‘war’ of sorts, the first principle of which, as Sun Tzu says, is ‘know thy enemy.’ One aspect of that, in turn, is seeing ourselves as our enemies might see us… There is a method to the madness of ISIS, and they choose their targets with aforethought. To such ‘men’ who have their women dress, if dress is the right word, in what amount to full-body shrouds, one can see how someone like Grande and her troops of teenage imitators would make them froth and foam at the mouth.

Ah, yes, the clash of cultures, which our politicians and their followers, which includes most people, just do not get. At the heart of any society is its religion, whether that religion be supernatural or not, what God or gods they worship, what founds their laws and customs, where they put their time and energy, how they raise their children and govern their families, towns, societies. Islam has a very different idea of how all of this is to be done than what was once the Christian land of ‘Britain,’ but the hollowness of an increasingly agnostic and apathetic British culture, along with the rest of the West, is weak and prone against the onslaught of a resurgent Islam.

When these tragedies strike at the heart of our own culture…, I wonder why? Not in the sense of why Islam spreads its religion and gains converts by violence, for that has been the case since its founding by Mohammed, but, rather, that Islam has already, in a deep and real sense, won the war, without the necessity of such violence…

Furthermore, sheer demographic numbers, by births and immigration, ensure that Britain, along with many other European countries, will be more or less Islamic enclaves within a generation or two, and under such a regime, there will not be many, if any, concerts like Ariana Grande’s. I suppose the a priori violence signifies some level of impatience, so that they might hurry things along, or frustration, or just to prove who’s really in charge. As ISIS has already implied by their social media response, there is more of this to come.

No one knows how many potential terrorists there are in Britain, which has over 3 million Muslims, with more or less untrammeled immigration still continuing. Most of these are law-abiding citizens, one may presume, but some, even if it be a small number, are not only prone to such mayhem but actively planning further bloodshed, and it does not take many to bring a numerically more dominant culture to its knees.

Yes, we must resist, and do what we can by police and military intervention, but how do you stop people who are willing to kill and die in the process, seeing this is a glorious ‘worship offered to God’? How many police officers, gates, cameras, barriers, security? Do we hole up in reinforced walled communities, fearful to go out the door? To face such an enemy requires primarily a resistance that is cultural, which ultimately means religious, something we have by and large lost.

As we reflect and pray, Brits and all the rest of us have a lot of soul searching to do, to ask who we are, what it really means to be ‘British,’ or ‘Canadian’ or ‘American.’  For if we know not who we are, how can we know who is the enemy?

And this is why so many people are searching for identity, why there are so many resurgences of populism, civic nationalism, the alt-right, people focusing on racial identity.  Everyone is searching to find their “tribe” and to ensure its survival.  On some level, people realize that this is about the survival of a way of life, maybe even the survival of their own lives.  Some non-religious people are waking up to the fact that actually Christianity wasn’t such a bad thing and did make the good of Western Civilization possible.  When the barbarians are at the gate, maybe it’s time to get religion.  Unfortunately, it’s probably going to have to get a lot worse before most Westerners wake up.


Seth Rich and the 400 Pound Hacker part 2

Seth Rich’s family says Kim Dotcom tried to hack into slain DNC staffer’s email to plant fake evidence that he gave documents to Wikileaks

The alleged attempt came by way of a request sent to Rich’s gmail account from the email address welcome@mega.nz. Mega is the New Zealand-based cloud storage company that Dotcom used to work for and resigned from in 2013.

Rich’s father, who has been monitoring his email account since his death, believes the invitation was an attempt to hack into the account and the family has consulted specialists.

In a statement, they said; ‘We are outraged that certain individuals continue to try to use Seth’s name and memory to advance their political and ideological agendas.

‘We hope people will think twice the next time someone makes an outlandish claim to have discovered new evidence in this case.’

Kim Dotcom wasted no time in issuing a refutation and threatening to sue them for defamation:

5. I remain prepared to assist in the investigation, as I have said. While I want to show understanding to the family in this difficult time, I also maintain that what I have said is true and will be substantiated upon investigation. While that may be difficult for the family to accept, in time I expect it to play a valuable part in revealing the truth. However, that is a matter for the current investigation. I simply wish to make sure that the investigators have the benefit of my evidence.

6. I have said that I will share what I know, and why, with the relevant authorities if the appropriate arrangements can be made. That is what I understand from our communications the family also want. The family, once fully informed, can then make up their own mind, as will the investigation. However, that will not happen by ignoring the evidence of witnesses like me who are prepared to speak up, or by seeking to discredit such witnesses by pre-emptively attacking their credibility. I simply ask that the family listen, before attacking.
13. The suggestion that I am attempting to plant evidence into Mr Rich’s email account would appear to be an attempt to discredit any evidence I may give before I have a chance to give it. That those who seek to speak the truth are, as I have been, subjected to a smear campaign to try to discredit them indicates to me that the truth is known and not welcome.
21. I therefore request that, in the meantime, the family refrain from repeating the false statements described in this letter. I have not taken the step of commencing defamation proceedings in relation to the above statements although I would be entitled to do so in New Zealand. I reserve all of my rights and remedies in this regard. My preference is that the family and I move forward together. If, after learning what I have to say through the appropriate channels (as requested by the family), the family choose not to accept it, that is a matter for the family. I seek only to pass on what I know so that the truth can be fully and openly investigated and then reported on. Why that should cause me to be unduly attacked raises more questions than it answers. My view is that the truth is not something to be feared.

22. If, however, the statements are repeated, I will have no choice but to consider the formal legal options available to me. I hope this will not be necessary, hence this correspondence.

Making things a little more complicated, one has to wonder if it’s actually the family saying this stuff or their “spokesman.”  WND published claims by another third party who says that that family had been saying things to him contrary to what the spokesman is.


Giving in won’t save you

It sure looks like it’s done Hannity a lot of good to cave on the Seth Rich case:

Advertisers Bow to Activist Left, Begin Pulling Ads from Hannity

Companies including Cars.com, Peloton, and Leesa Sleep have all given in to pressure to cease advertising on the show over Hannity’s pursuit of now retracted claims made by Fox News that murdered DNC employee Seth Rich had contact with Wikileaks before his death.

On Tuesday evening, Hannity invited internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom onto his show to discuss his claim that Seth Rich had provided Wikileaks with internal Democratic party emails.

However, after Rich’s family sent a letter to Fox demanding that Hannity not host KimDotcom, the appearance was cancelled, with Hannity saying he made the decision “out of respect for the family’s wishes.”

“I totally and completely understand how upset and how hard this is on this family, especially over the recent coverage of Seth’s death,” he said. “I’ve been communicating with them. I got a very heartfelt note. I also sent them a heartfelt note back.”

“However, out of respect for the family’s wishes, for now, I am not discussing this matter at this time,” Hannity continued, although he later contended that he had “retracted nothing” and would continue to “try to get to the truth.”

In a series of tweets on Wednesday, Hannity accused figures including George Soros, David Brock of Media Matters, and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of “liberal fascism,” after his advertisers were reportedly “inundated with emails” from left-wing groups asking them to stop advertising on the show.

He shouldn’t have gone along with the family’s wishes.  Since when have families’ wishes been even slightly considered by the media?  But this looks like it was a good opportunity for another stab at Hannity.  Their sexual misconduct trick fell through.  He’ll be let go soon enough.  I wonder if Razorfist is right about why Fox is purging conservatives.

Are things really quite so grim?

Jonathon Van Maren thinks so.  His recent blog post is entitled “Grim poll: Conservatives are losing catastrophically on every single issue…except this one”

If certain enthusiastic public figures are to be believed, there is a wave of iconoclastic and libertarian youth who are fed up with political correctness and ready to turn the Left on its head. When I attended a campus event featuring the recently disgraced and even more recently resurgent Milo Yiannopoulos last fall, he made the claim loudly and boldly: “I might be the only one who has noticed this trend, but young people hate the Left. I have thirteen-year-olds emailing me. I even have children attending my campus events.”

Ignoring for a moment the obvious problem with a child attending an event put on by the self-described “Dangerous Faggot,” this sort of optimism is entirely unwarranted—unless, as is obviously the case with Milo, you do not see moral issues as indicative of national health overall. On that front, Americans continue to shift to the left, and continue to abandon Judeo-Christian values—if they even know what those are anymore. Gallup recently released new polling data for their annual Values and Beliefs poll, and the results were very sobering.

He goes on to talk about all the “sobering” data points covering views on marriage, sexuality, the family, etc. — all with predictable and completely unsurprising revelations. None of this is news.  How did Van Maren miss that we were no longer living in a Christian society, that we had long since passed into a pagan one?  That traditional Christian morality is not the standard by which most people live shouldn’t be surprising or discouraging.

He notes that the polls didn’t show a large increase in support of abortion, which he believes is due to massive efforts of pro-lifers to educate people:

On every moral issue, social conservatives are losing ground—except for abortion.

Looking at the raw data, it’s hard to see where someone like Milo Yiannopoulos gets his optimism from. He may not care about most moral issues—his relaunch party, after all, featured male and female strippers—but even on free speech and free markets, the numbers look grim. Millennials are embracing socialism, rejecting the fundamental idea that freedom of speech and freedom of expression are bedrock values in a democracy, and turning university campuses into totalitarian safe spaces that exclude any idea they find threatening to their fragile progressive worldviews.

The truth is that an entire generation has grown up more or less disconnected from the Christian past of the West, and that activists must fight tooth and nail to educate the public on each and every issue. We see what happens when massive educational efforts are undertaken: On abortion, we are not losing ground—and even under the most pro-abortion president in American history, over 300 laws were passed on the state level. Pornography, while still prevalent, is now attracting the ire of government bodies across the West who are recognizing it for the public health crisis it is. Social conservatism as a worldview may be on the fringe, but there are many, many opportunities to change that.

Here Van Maren recognizes that kids have grown up in a non-Christian world; so why the surprise at the poll results?  His faith in the “raw data” of the poll is misplaced. Polling isn’t exactly a hard or perfect science (anyone remember 2016?).  Who’s to say we really should trust a poll’s conclusions over our own observations or the anecdotal evidence presented by someone else?  Then he talks about millennials, but Milo isn’t talking about millennials; he’s talking about the next, even younger generation. It can also be noted that Milo specially said he didn’t have any proof, any hard data for his hopeful statement, but that it came from his experience of meeting and talking to, and receiving messages from young people.  Milo isn’t the only person who has noted this trend of the younger generation leaning more conservative.

Even the one place where Van Maren strikes a hopeful, positive tone, he’s probably at least partly wrong.  You can understand why, being part of the pro-life movement, he would be quick to attribute the lessening support for abortion to the efforts of the prolifers.  I hope he’s right that all those efforts have helped, that education does help. But there’s something else powerful that is influencing young people to turn conservative: they have seen and felt the consequences of their parents and others leading a life without conservative morals or standards.  They may be the unwanted children of selfish parents, the products of divorce or homes where they never had two parents to begin with.  They may have seen older siblings or relatives or friends make terrible choices and suffer for them.  Those with eyes to see can see the wreckage caused by abandoning traditional morals.  And the liberals, feeling assured of victory, have turned up the heat too fast; things they are pushing for are so obviously against nature that people with will to think for themselves can see we are headed in the wrong direction.  But cultural trends do not reverse directions overnight.  The problems we are seeing today began long before Van Maren was born.  Some would argue they began even before his parents were born.

Van Maren himself is a contradiction to this poll.  He’s young, conservative, Catholic, pro-life and fighting for it.  And surely he works alongside other young people.

Other than being overly pessimistic and incorrect in his interpretation how we are losing the culture war — rather we have already lost, but perhaps have hope of rebuilding from the ashes — he is wrong about Milo.  Previously, I had noticed that he was particularly critical of Milo (and the Alt-Right) as unacceptable for Christians to follow.  He objects to Milo’s lifestyle, vulgar humor, and that he isn’t very nice to people.  Van Maren also tends to exaggerate Milo’s behavior (can you believe that’s possible?!): Milo’s re-launch party, as aired on youtube (surely Van Maren didn’t have an invitation?), did not have “male and female strippers.”  Milo calls them “models” for his photo shoot, and they are scantily, and one might say tastelessly, clad (and waving prop guns around), but they do not strip any clothes off which I think would be the definition of “stripper.”  They might be strippers elsewhere, I don’t know, but at Milo’s party they were just eye candy — which is problematic in its own way, but let’s not over-exaggerate things.

I was surprised to see Van Maren had actually attended a Milo speech so I read what he had to say about it.  It was the same old attitude so many on the Right have towards those they deem impure.  They are like Pharisees who don’t want to associate with sinners for fear of contaminating themselves.  Milo is definitely a sinner, but Jesus frequently ate with and talked to sinners.  Jesus did not worry about being made unclean.  God often uses sinners and unlikely people to carry out His work, sometimes even people who do not know Him.

It doesn’t matter to Milo’s critics on the Right if he is effective or that we really need to reach people where they are — and where they are isn’t necessarily ready to listen to Christian moralizing or preaching.  Milo has a point about reaching people with humor and fun (even if he does take it a bit too far at times); humor and fun are attractive, especially to young people.  Free speech, for which Milo has made himself a standard bearer, is an important battle.  If Christians are silenced completely, there will be no chance of educating people or changing hearts and minds through dialogue.  Milo is an ally in that battle, even if he is a public sinner.