Free housing for refugees

Brian Chesky, CEO of Airbnb, has criticized President Trump’s “crackdown on immigration” and has offered free housing to refugees and “anyone impacted” the supposed crackdown. Similarly, the very left-wing executives at Starbuck’s have announced plans to hire 10,000 (!) refugees in their overpriced establishments.

By the way: Chesky, like the owners of Starbuck’s, fit the typical pattern: immigrant stock, or is that (((immigrant stock)))? And millennial too, in the case of Chesky.

In the social media, one Tumblr blogger who dared to criticize Chesky’s action was promptly called (by a fellow Tumblr blogger) an ‘ignorant racist’ and told that as Tumblr was a ‘pro-immigration site’, people who dissent from that stance must ‘get off’ Tumblr, followed by other profane and insulting remarks. The conservative blogger who criticized Chesky said simply that while our own veterans are often without housing, people like Chesky ignore them and prefer to morally preen and strut by showing their ‘compassion’ towards unknown third-worlders. As the offending ‘conservative’ lady said, we ought to care for our own first, a viewpoint which was the consensus view up until recent times.

The rhetoric is getting uglier and uglier on internet spots like Tumblr, which is dominated by maleducated, brainwashed millennials, and only one viewpoint is acceptable there. That group of people are the least tolerant, the most totalitarian, of any age group alive today, probably than any group of people in history. The Jacobins in 18th-century France were probably paragons of tolerance compared to the millennials of Western countries. I see some very worrying trends; it seems that the younger leftists (that’s redundant, by the way; they are almost all SJWs, and the fact that there are exceptions does not negate the rule) are allying more and more blatantly with Moslems. I’ve noticed that they are showing signs of not just ‘supporting’ moslems, but actually have an attitude of adulation and admiration towards them. There is a meme going around with an image of our old friend, that lady of easy virtue, Lady Liberty, with her arm around the shoulder of a burka-clad female Moslem, saying “All Are Welcome.” Yes, it’s come to that. I wonder how Jewish Emma Lazarus, who composed that mawkish ‘verse’ at the foot of the Liberty statue about the wretched refuse, etc., would react to this trend? Actually she would probably approve. The enemy of my enemy, etc., and all too often the perceived arch-enemy, as far as Jews are concerned, is the Anglo-American. Anything that damages us and diminishes our power is ‘good for the Jews’, so they believe.

And the left is increasingly stoking the fires of fear on the part of their minority allies/mascots. The media and the brainwashed leftist mobs are repeating this idea endlessly: minorities (especially the poor moslems), including and especially gays and trans-whatever, are in actual physical danger and are experiencing fear and panic, supposedly — fear of the mythical baying mobs of White ‘haters’ and ‘nazis’ who are lurking around every corner. This is more than just irresponsible, this fear-mongering lie. It amounts to a blood-libel against White Americans, promoting the false belief that Whites are out to commit pogroms against minorities, or that they in fact have done such things. I think they half-believe it themselves, having repeated this Big Lie so often.

This is as wrong and unjust and immoral as it can be. Why do we let it pass so often? Each and every person who perpetrates and passes on such lies is responsible for the mayhem that has happened so far, and that includes the malevolent media, and every ignoramus and fanatic on the left who repeats these canards and slanders. All of these miscreants bear some responsibility for violence that has happened, and for the violence that is undoubtedly still to come if they are allowed to persist.

They are inciting to violence. Their intent is to stoke the fires of hatred towards majority America; they smell blood, and they are openly referring to violence. Yet is it our side, despite the restraint we have shown so far, that is slandered as being ‘violent’ and hateful? Lies. More lies.

I was comparing notes with someone on what we are seeing on the Internet, and it seems that there are people posting almost word-for-word certain ideas: these people are posting to their supposed ‘gay and Muslim friends’ that they must be careful, but not be afraid to go out. Supposedly gays and moslems are cowering in fear behind closed doors, afraid to show their faces outdoors lest they be attacked or lynched or something. As if. As if anything remotely like that is happening, or has happened. These people are either delusional, or just paid disinformation agents. I tend towards believing the latter.

And P.S.: I don’t believe that many people, even millennials, have lots of ‘gay and Muslim friends’ at all; gays don’t make up that big a percentage of the population, contra Kinsey and the mendacious gay activists. Nor do Moslems, as of now. But yet everyone has ‘gay and Muslim friends’? Doubtful, to say the least.

Just another day in the realm of the Lie Machine. But we mustn’t shrug it off; things are escalating, and I have a sense of foreboding. We need to be in prayer, and if we’re not the praying kind, we need to do all we can to stop the momentum of the Lie Merchants and the instigators. Some say that President Trump has already done a lot in that respect — and in some ways he has, but he is in fact leading to a kind of coming to a head. And none of us knows exactly how this will play out.

Which story to believe?

According to The Hill, Kellyanne Conway denies that Donald Trump “exploded in anger” at media executives and reporters. The New York Post and other media outlets had described Trump’s meeting with these media figures as a ‘firing squad’, with him denouncing the mainstream media in harsh terms as ‘liars.’

“The meeting took place in a big board room and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks…,” the source said.

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong. He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was network of liars.”

If he did say that, he was merely stating facts, as anyone with powers of observation can see. But did he, in fact, ‘rip into’ the reporters and executives as the New York Post and many Alt-Right blogs are saying? I would love to think so. After all the years of the egregious bias and mendacity of the media, after the mountain of lies they’ve heaped up, not even counting their lies-by-omission, it would be justice if at long last someone called them just what they are: duplicitous, manipulative, unprincipled, and malicious. I hope he did in fact read them the riot act.  They’ve apparently never had the truth spoken to them in all these years, thanks to the lack of real opposition from the right. Too many weakling Republicans were only interested in ‘reaching across the aisle’ and currying media favor, so calling the media on their behavior in the bluntest terms would be just a needed start, just scratching the surface of their wrongdoing.

So what is the truth, though? Were the reports of the ‘firing squad’ just exaggerations by the professional media liars, intending to confirm their image of Trump as ‘harsh’, cruel, boorish, and hateful? Is Kellyanne Conway trying to mitigate what she sees as damage done by the reports? Who is telling the truth?

It is a good sign that Trump is bypassing the corrupt, lying media and using other means, such as his recent You Tube message, to speak directly to the people.

If Trump did not ‘explode in anger’ at these media whores, he should have, and in a just world, he would. It’s about time that someone reined in the out-of-control, arrogant media.

Suspect descriptions: problems

For about 10 years, perhaps more, law enforcement officials along with news media have made a conspicuous effort to avoid too-specific descriptions of criminal suspects or fugitives.  I first began to notice it when there were alerts out for local suspects  and the descriptions said something like ‘suspect is a male about 30 years old wearing dark clothing, driving such-and-such a vehicle.’ No mention of race or ethnicity or complexion, which, let’s face it, are some of the first things we notice about people.

Then there was the Brian Nichols case in Atlanta, wherein Nichols, a black man being escorted to the courtroom by a ‘guard’ who was a female (and a grandmother), overpowered her and escaped, killing a total of four people before being recaptured.

When I first heard the ‘breaking news’ about the escape, the description of Nichols told his height, his age, and the fact that he had a ‘medium complexion.’  I thought the omission of race was odd, as that was not yet standard practice, and I thought to myself he must be White, because of his complexion description and his White-sounding name. Blacks these days don’t tend to be named ‘boring’ white-bread names like Brian.

Imagine my surprise when I learned he was black. Soon every criminal suspect was given a vague, non-ethnic/non-racial description, and we were left to guess, though the guesswork is simplified if we know the suspect’s name. Nobody named DeQuantavious is going to be White. Also the nature of the crime often tells us who the suspect is, racially or ethnically. Shooting or stabbing at a girl’s 15th birthday party? Hispanics. Quinceanera. If you are not familiar with that word (and is there anybody in America that is not?) look it up, and for more interesting info, just look up ‘quinceanera stabbing’ (or shooting).  Riot at a pizza parlor or children’s birthday party? Black, usually involving many mothers.

So the shooting at the Washington state mall in Burlington immediately suggested ‘random jihad’ or ‘immigrant derangement syndrome’, so most people correctly guessed that the perpetrator was from an Islamic background, Middle Easterner most likely. The official description mentioned ‘Hispanic male’, and from the security camera picture, there could be some ambiguity there. Understandable. And the police officials in the area probably figured that because of the high percentage of Hispanics in the county that the odds were more in favor of the shooter being Hispanic. I mean, it’s not as though Hispanics are nonviolent, and always law-abiding. They are not the Amish, (I mean the real Amish, not those who are wryly described as Amish).

So why in heaven’s name are so many apparent White people, even ”conservatives” online getting all outraged and sputtering about the outrage of Hispanics being horribly wronged by this shooter suspect being described as Hispanic? Why not save their outrage for the many, many times that Whites are slandered by having nonwhite suspects called ‘White’, or Hispanics and Middle Easterners on ‘Most Wanted’ lists described, for the record, as ‘White’ — even when their names and photos scream that they are in no way White, nor could anyone honestly mistake them for White? No, these fools are working themselves up into a lather with this kind of nonsense:

Why are Hispanics not SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER at being smeared by the media?”

Don’t give them ideas! Next thing you know, LaRaza or MECha or somebody will be suing everybody for this slander against their law-abiding and pacifistic folk.

The question that this probably White person asks should rightly be about why Whites are slandered, being made to bear the burden, statistically, of nonwhite criminals identified as ours? People should be wondering why we aren’t ‘screaming bloody murder’ about our own folk being smeared.

I’ve said I judged this mall shooter, Cetin, to be Middle Eastern by the pictures shown. But in some cases there can be confusion. Just look at these photos of fugitives. Most are Hispanic, some Middle Eastern/Caucasus origin. Some could honestly be confused, one for the other. Some Hispanics do have more olive skin than brown, and some do have heavier eyebrows like Middle Easterners. The differences are not always clear-cut.

What with so many different ethnicities being thrown into the melting pot, how on earth can all of us become experts in distinguishing someone’s origins, out of so many hundreds of ethnicities?

Maybe the official policy of withholding information on race/ethnicity of suspects is preferable if people are going to get all incensed on behalf of some poor innocent minority group when an incorrect description is made.

What is to be done about these many brainwashed Whites, who instantly go into their defense mode when it comes to being ‘White Knights’ for their favorite minority group?

Mall shooter ID’d?

It may not be official yet, but a Twitter user has identified the Burlington, Washington mall shooting suspect as a Turkish immigrant.

See the Free Republic discussion here.

When the suspect was referred to by authorities as possibly a ‘Hispanic male’, I was skeptical, thinking he looked more Middle Eastern. Hardly a surprise.

There will be more known later, obviously.

An illustration

This discussion on Steve Sailer’s blog features many comments by someone with the creative screen name ‘Anonymous’, who seems to be an example of the paid operatives who are assigned to Internet blogs and forums (fora, if you want to be pedantic) to issue the Official Party Line, and to derail/influence/steer discussion in an appropriate (read: government-sanctioned) way.

This kind of thing has been brought out in the open for several years now, but it’s amazing how it’s still thought of as being more ‘conspiracy theorizing.’ But note how the principals named in that blog piece I link above explicitly discuss how to discredit ‘conspiracy theories’ in general, by Internet manipulation of discussion.

“Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government.”

Some will say that this ‘Anonymous’ person is just your garden-variety Leftie troll or ideologue. He may well be; there are many such people. This person, however, like many such commenters of that type, seems to have endless hours to devote to hanging on one discussion thread and writing detailed responses to those who disagree. They often seem to be one-man armies of discourse manipulation, and often disinformation.

Not all of them will be focusing on ‘conspiracy theories’ as such but just spreading the usual multicult, anti-White propaganda; trying to demoralize and spread fatalism among people on the right oftentimes is their focus.

Granted, there are many obsessive leftist/multicultis who seem to do nothing but post on multiple blogs and forums and comment sections, often cut-and-paste jobs, the same comments everywhere. They may be the stereotypical slackers living in Mom’s basement, spending days and nights online fighting their ideological enemies but chances are those who spend this much time dispensing so much propaganda online are part of Sunstein’s army or something similar.

Less freedom for honesty

Increasingly, there is no place left for free expression as in politically incorrect (read: honest) ideas, opinions, or images.

On Vox Day’s blog, a report of one Pinterest user having her board on Nationalism deleted as ‘hate speech.’ The fact that it was labeled ‘hate’ indicates, if there was any doubt, that the nationalism at issue was White people’s nationalism. I sincerely doubt that black nationalism or Jewish nationalism/Zionism would be designated as ‘hate’, and such a board would not be summarily deleted, and the owner warned of possible account suspension.

I requested that my Pinterest account be deleted, though it appears that accounts can’t be deleted at the user’s request, only ‘deactivated.’ You can enter but you can’t fully opt out of the Pinterest world. Just as with google, or, come to think of it, with the sacred American Union.

For some time I’ve thought of deleting my Pinterest boards and account, finding it to be time-consuming and rather pointless. Now, I never had a political board there, really, but I did have items related to controversial history and images of the Confederate Battle Flag, which is now being designated as a ‘hate’ symbol. As wrong as that is, the fact is, the enemies of the flag and of the South and her people are now winning, easily, with very little resistance or pushback from our side. Sad. But other than those images (which I expected would sooner or later be the occasion of complaint from some SJW or ‘aggrieved victim’) my boards were innocuous and non-controversial. Actually my reason for being there was for sheer escapism; the desire to divert my mind from all the disheartening news and the lack of an outlet through which to channel my frustration. I just enjoyed looking at, and pinning, examples of beauty in some form or other, something to counter all the ugliness of this upside-down world we inhabit.

And, as John Keats said, beauty is truth, and truth, beauty. Our current world, this present darkness, has banished both.

Am I caving to the politically correct commissars? You might look at it that way, but why just sit and dread the inevitable? I’d rather depart of my own free will and not wait to get my warning letter or notice of suspension. Better to leave by the front door than to be kicked out. Pinterest just isn’t that important to me.

One of my first exposures to Pinterest was when a pro-White woman spoke of it as a possible venue for sharing pro-White views, as she said she was doing. I now have my doubts as to the value of doing that; it seems the majority of users are either apolitical women (from all countries, by the way) and the rest, people with an obvious ‘social justice’ agenda, people who constantly post multicult ‘diversity’ propaganda. I had to unfollow a number of people who constantly pushed that kind of thing. Pinterest may not be as blatantly leftie/globalist/antiWhite as tumblr, but it is still not friendly to White ethnonationalists, as we are seeing.

I don’t think I will miss Pinterest, but the thing that troubles me is that it is becoming more obvious that by design there are fewer and fewer places online where people may speak freely and honestly. I am surprised that the major blogging platforms still allow free speech at all. Soon we may be reduced to speaking in whispers, in secret, as in the old Communist regimes. And with today’s high-tech surveillance, which spares no one, there really is no private communication between individuals anymore — at least if we are to believe the Snowden revelations.

One last thing: the question that occurred to me was: who owns Pinterest?

Reinforcing illusions

At VDare.com, Matthew Richer writes on “Moderate Whites” and the opportunity presented by the ‘race problem.’

Donald Trump is being criticized for his tweets about a recent shooting, in which a cousin of an NBA star was killed in some kind of crossfire incident. He tweeted the following:

“Dwayne Wade’s cousin was just shot and killed walking her baby in Chicago. Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!”

Predictably, the left seized on this to castigate Trump. Examples:

    That time Donald Trump used Dwyane Wade’s cousin’s murder to campaign for the Black vote. https://t.co/fQPlUuDdEx pic.twitter.com/SjxOqPjshu
    — BET (@BET) August 27, 2016

    Trump fixed the spelling of Dwyane Wade’s name. Still doesn’t offer condolences. Same self-congratulatory tone.

    @realDonaldTrump An absolute disgrace

Honestly, the leftists love this kind of thing; it gives them a chance to gleefully express their moral outrage, and virtue-signal to each other.

In the VDare piece, Richer notes that Trump does not respond in a defensive manner to this kind of thing. He advocates that Trump should react aggressively to the left’s attempts to smear him as a ‘Nazi’, bigot, or whatever else:

“If Trump is to win, therefore, he must employ the language of assault to bypass the Left/MSM narrative and establish himself as the genuine America First candidate.”

Richer says, correctly I think, that recent speeches by Trump addressing black concerns were not so much appeals to the black vote or to blacks as a group, but directed at ‘moderate’ White voters:

”While the black vote is insignificant compared to the white vote, the challenge is that Trump must campaign for the black vote, to some extent, in order to win a significant portion of the white vote.

A great many whites have a strong psychological need to see themselves—or more exactly, to be seen by other whites—as people committed to the well-being of allegedly oppressed minorities.

If a candidate can be depicted as someone insensitive to minority concerns, some whites will not support him—even if they largely agree with the candidate on everything else.”

I realize I am outside the majority, even on the right, when I say that in adopting this kind of strategy, Trump is in fact playing according to the PC rules. He is, in fact, reinforcing the PC ‘narrative’, and because so many on the right (the ‘cuck’ establishment notwithstanding) support him so unconditionally, they will ‘go there’ with him, and nod their heads, and say, yes, he has to do this. If he wants to ‘win’, he has to do this.

All the talk of Trump ‘shattering political correctness’ and refusing to play that game by the left’s rules is just so much talk, if he is to adopt this strategy and follow it.
All the talk of the ‘Overton Window’ being shifted for good by Trump’s bluntness and iconoclastic image may also prove to be illusion based on wishful thinking.

Maybe those younger than 40 or so don’t remember the George W. Bush years, but this is much like what happened when G.W. Bush began to push amnesty and talk of Islam as a ‘Religion of Peace.’ Those who pointed out that this was not what we thought we were voting for were castigated for being ‘purists’ or ‘Bush-haters’ when warning about Bush’s disregard for his ‘base’ and for Americans in general.

Bush pushed amnesty relentlessly and yet the true Bush believers shouted down any conservative who had a problem with that, just as they did with those who objected to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I remember that very well, as it was what drove me away from the GOPe and into blogging. Loyalty to leaders is good — provided they are in the right, but loyalties should be to something more than an individual.

So does Trump ”have to” make speeches about how blacks have ”suffered more than anybody else”, carrying on the rancid ‘Democrats are the Real Racists‘ meme?

If this is for the benefit of the ‘moderate Whites’ (I would call them liberal, if they are more concerned for black interests than their own, but that’s just me), then how long must both political parties and all candidates cater to these people, as well as to the ‘Victimocracy’? Some of us began to hope that Trump would be the one to break the mold and thus pave the way for others to have the courage or the ”permission” to speak up for the rest of us, the majority. So if he is declining that role, preferring instead to continue this charade which is de rigueur as of now, who will ever have the courage and the independence to say ‘No!’ to the whole farce? The longer it continues unopposed the stronger it will become.

I mean, if not now, when? When will it ever be time?

‘Moderate’ Whites who see themselves as protectors or champions of blacks are people who need to have their eyes opened, rather than having their silly ideas reinforced by politicians. They urgently need to see that we (including those same clueless Whites) are under an existential threat. Politicians on both sides who perpetuate their politically correct platitudes and false morality are complicit in what is happening to us.

The ‘Lancaster Plan’ — is it real?

At Morgoth’s Review, a commenter links to a piece describing the idea of something called the Lancaster Plan, ostensibly something put together by the British government in conjunction with Islamic leaders. The source of this information is this piece at The New English Review.

The writer describes a weekend party at a friend’s house, at which an acquaintance, apparently someone ‘in the know’, described how the government has a plan in place to avoid the kind of terrorism that has happened in France and other European locales.

“He stated quite plainly that the situation in Britain would not be allowed to get out of hand as had happened, in his humble opinion, on the continent. What was more, he asserted, the British government had a Plan to keep the Muslim situation in the U.K. under control, and had had such a Plan in place since it was drawn up under the Blair Labour government back in 2005, after the bombings in London, when it had been known as the Lancaster Plan, named, he explained, after John of Gaunt who, although never king himself, sired the line of English Kings that came after him, kings who kept England together and at the forefront of world developments.

[…]It was simple, he informed us. The Lancaster Plan contained several different provisions that could be brought into play to defuse the threat of Islamic violence in the U.K.

[…]He informed us, with no special tone in his voice, just in a matter-of-fact way, that the first two provisions of the Lancaster Plan had already been activated and were proving to be successful. Further provisions could be activated when necessary and in that way Muslim violence in Britain could be contained or minimised, or maybe even staved off indefinitely if the plan came to be implemented in its entirety.

[…]He carefully explained to us the two stages that he’d just mentioned. The first stage was, so he said, the careful use of legislation to make any criticism of Islam, or Muslims, almost impossible. Many in government, he stated, were a little upset that in order to do that they had also made it legally very difficult to criticise other faiths such as Christianity or Hinduism, but their concerns about this had dissipated over recent years as it had become obvious that the police and the judiciary simply treated any criticism of a faith other than Islam, or criticism of a believer other than a Muslim, as being far less serious than criticism of Islam itself or of Muslims. The careful positioning by many NGOs, and left-wing thinkers, of criticism of Islam and Muslims as racist had not been entirely co-incidental either, so he averred, but had been initiated and encouraged by government officials in furtherance of the first stage of the Lancaster Plan.”

The rest can be read at the link.

Morgoth himself expresses disbelief of the story. It’s true that some anonymous person at a party is the source of the information, and that is hardly enough for us to accept it uncritically. And it’s sensible to have some healthy skepticism in this age of disinformation. I am not familiar with the writer of the piece who relays this information to us, and the anonymous source could be a disinfo agent. It does happen that ‘our’ governments deliberately sow disinformation both to demoralize us and to keep us confused. Disinformation has many possible uses.

However, in this age of unprecedented levels of madness on the part of those supposedly ‘in charge’, it seems almost nothing is too bizarre to be true. Many of us still don’t accept that the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan is true, though we see enough evidence to make it believable. And this alleged Lancaster Plan sounds like the kind of collaboration and capitulation which we can see taking place in all Western countries.

So can we say categorically that it isn’t true?

We’ve all read the saying, “To learn who rules over you, find out whom you are not allowed to criticize.” There are a number of protected groups who are held to be immune to criticism, among them blacks, gays, and especially Jews. In fact, though, these groups are not equal in their immunity from criticism; for example people can and do criticize the first two groups without fearing arrest or prosecution, in most cases, but to question the Holocaust can bring arrest and/or prison time, if convicted, and has resulted in imprisonment in some European countries and Canada. But as of now, it is only the criticism of Islam that has led to people being arrested or questioned in some European countries, in the wake of the refugee onslaught and recent terror attacks. Social media like Twitter, to their great discredit, have become an arm of governments in going after people who mildly criticized Islam or the sainted ‘refugees.’

So why is it that Islam is suddenly more of a sacred cow than the other protected groups, even more protected by Western governments than blacks or Jews or gays?

Recently some of us have wondered aloud, in the real world, if in fact ‘our’ governments have in fact capitulated to Islam and agreed to some kind of dhimmi-like status and/or ‘jizya’ in exchange for being allowed to keep their outward power as some kind of puppet rulers or collaborationist regimes? Why else would ‘our’ leaders be so deferential and servile towards people who clearly see themselves as our enemies and who boast of one day conquering us and our lands?

I realize that some people on the right abhor neocons and counter-jihadists, both of whom they regard (maybe rightly) as serving Jewish interests. I personally got fed up with the neocon warmongering many years ago, and soon saw that the counterjihad is a dead-end, ultimately bound by its own version of PC.

However that does not mean we should blind ourselves to the reality of Islam, nor should we understimate the perfidy and machinations of the Western leadership.

Jumping on the bandwagon

Here’s globalist Gingrich trying to strike a tough pose, Trump-style, and of course playing into the left’s hands:

“Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported,” Gingrich said in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

It may sound tough on the surface, and of course to the left it’s as a red rag to a bull, but if you look at what he is saying it is politically safe, if not PC. Does any informed rightist think that asking Moslems if they support sharia will draw honest answers?

I’ve read so many Republican comments about Gingrich’s ”brilliant mind”, his supposed intellectual prowess, but I can only conclude that he has never heard of words like taqqiya  and kitman.

And Gingrich’s next sentence betrays his real stance, which is PC to the core:

“Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization. Modern Muslims who have given up Sharia, glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door.”

Great, Newt. Now put your money where your mouth is and move to Dearborn, Michigan.

I think the San Bernardino Mr.-and-Mrs. Jihadists would have passed your test, and appeared as people you would think to be acceptable neighbors. They had well-paying jobs; mixed with their infidel co-workers, and blended right in. Until they opened fire.

Meanwhile, Mike Pence tweets his thoughts about the attack in Nice, France.

2016-07-14_224157

He doesn’t name any names; he mentions ‘all those responsible.’ This is a carefully-crafted, purposely vague statement.

And his past statements were rather different. For example:

2016-07-14_223724

God save us from politicians.

Incitement?

More fallout from the Dallas police murders: a man went to the home of an Indianapolis police officer and fired shots at the officer’s home and car.

The officer, a 10-year veteran of the force, was relaxing in his home around 2:25 a.m. after a night shift when a bullet whizzed near the window, police said. His wife and child were sleeping in the home. The family is unharmed, though the officer is concerned for his wife and child, IMPD Chief Troy Riggs said.

[…]Riggs said Ratney wore a T-shirt that, on the front, had the words, “F— the police.” On the back, he said, the shirt read, “Black Lives Matter,” a social justice movement that protests police shooting deaths of black men. The movement was born out of the acquittal of George Zimmerman, who was accused in the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teen.

Riggs cautioned the community to refrain from using Ratney’s alleged actions to judge those who support Black Lives Matter.”

Hmm, might Riggs have a bias in this case? Why the need to caution the public, excuse me, the ”community” against ‘judging’ BLM supporters? Would such a warning be issued against those judging supporters of some (theoretical) ‘white supremacist’ group?

Just a rhetorical question of course.

On Steve Sailer’s blog, his usually astute commenters offer opinions on what provoked this attack or similar attacks since the Dallas cop murders. Someone opines, quite reasonably, that videos (presumably YouTube and others) fan the flames and lead to more violent incidents. I won’t argue with this, and obviously it’s not just YouTube militants stoking up anger and rage, but the controlled media play a huge role.

But are outside sources the ultimate cause of this kind of thing? They may be the proximate cause, but evidently this man in Indianapolis and others who have similarly acted out have long-standing grievances and grudges and hatreds, and needed little to provoke him to do something violent.

But think about similar violence back in the 1960s. There was no YouTube then, and the media, while they were rather liberal/leftish even back then, were much less incendiary than today’s masters of agitprop masquerading as ‘journalists’. So on what can we blame the 60s black-on-White violence or cop-killings ? There were, of course, militant black groups behind much of the aforementioned.

But what about the anti-White violence of the Reconstruction-era South? Today’s agitators and race-hucksters were not there — but there were in the South carpetbaggers and scalawags who incited or passively allowed such violence, and provided opportunity for it to be carried out on a disarmed and disenfranchised White populace. Still, they could not have incited violence unless there was a receptive attitude to that incitement on the part of the black ‘freedmen.’

The ultimate cause of this kind of violence is that disparate peoples, judging by all of human history, seem always to end up in some kind of conflict, often violent to some degree or other. Even peoples of the same skin color and similar appearance, as in the former Yugoslavia, found themselves unable or unwilling to live together in the same geographical area. Human nature can’t be overruled by governmental edicts, nor is even the most persistent propaganda powerful enough to bring about harmony between incompatible peoples. Many White Americans stubbornly persist in the belief that if we all agree to be ”colorblind” and to be ”just Americans” that all can live happily as neighbors. This only proves that a strong desire, an overpowering need to believe such ideas, and a wish for ‘peace’ at any cost, can cause people to cling to a failed idea indefinitely. So far.

Unfortunately it is only White Americans who subscribe to this fantasy idea of ‘colorblindness’ as a magic cure for interracial conflict and violence. It will never work as long as only one side agrees to pretend; one side cannot make the pretense work all alone. And most White people still don’t see this, refuse to see it. So far.

Thomas Jefferson foresaw what would happen long ago.

“It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us.