Calling Out Around the World

Calling Out Around the World, by Mark Steyn.

All jihad is local, but all “Islamophobia” is global. So, if a Muslim of Afghan origin shoots up a gay nightclub in Florida and kills 49 people, that’s just one crazed loner and no broader lessons can be discerned from his act.

On the other hand, if a white guy shoots up two mosques in New Zealand and kills 50 people, that indicts us all, and we need to impose worldwide restraints on free speech to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

I’m ecumenical enough to mourn the dead in both gay clubs and mosques, but I wonder why we are so conditioned to accept Islamic terror as (in the famous words of London mayor Sadiq Khan) “part and parcel of living in a big city” that it is only the exceptions to the rule that prompt industrial-scale moral preening from politicians and media. …

London mayor Sadiq Khan

After the Islamic terror attack in Melbourne four months ago, Muslim community leaders refused to meet with Aussie Prime Minister Scott Morrison because of all the systemic Islamophobia. After the Christchurch attack, the same Muslim community leaders are demanding a meeting with Morrison because of all the, er, systemic Islamophobia. …

Things are changing faster than you think. The urge to change New Zealand’s gun laws might be politely excused as a reflexive response to the means by which an appalling attack was carried out. But the demand throughout the west to restrict both private gun ownership and free speech are indicative of a more calculated clampdown, and of broader assumptions about control of the citizenry on all fronts. In the transition to the new assumptions, we are approaching a tipping point, in which the authorities of the state (as in the average British constabulary’s Twitter feed) are ever more openly concerned to clamp down on you noticing what’s happening rather than on what is actually happening.

It’s the Birthrates

It’s the Birthrates, by Jim Goad.

When Omar Mateen murdered 49 people at an Orlando gay nightclub in 2016, the mainstream press resolutely ignored the fact that during the shooting, he dialed 911 and claimed he was doing it in Allah’s name; nope, they twisted the narrative and blamed it on Donald Trump and the white-male homophobia whose flames he allegedly stokes. For better or worse — from where I stand, it’s far, far worse — we are occupied by an academic/media complex which refuses to blame Muslims for anything.

Now, with Brenton Tarrant’s alleged death toll at one body higher than Mateen’s, and with Tarrant explicitly proclaiming that he did it to curb Muslim population growth and to frighten them all the way back to their ancestral homelands, you can bet your every last worthless Federal Reserve Note that for the next year at least, we will continue to be forcibly spoon-fed the notion that white-male terrorism is the big threat and that any time white males even notice that the reigning cultural climate is hostile toward white males, blood will inevitably be spilled, because white males are violent monsters and there’s absolutely nothing racist about that statement.

For the family and friends of those murdered in the attack, their pain is understandable. For Westerners who like to feel good about themselves by making public displays of empathy for Muslims … this is a golden opportunity to bask in masochistic righteousness.

Conservatives face a tough fight as Big Tech’s censorship expands

Conservatives face a tough fight as Big Tech’s censorship expands, by Donald Trump Jr.

As Big Tech’s censorship of conservatives becomes ever more flagrant and overt … Our right to freely engage in public discourse through speech is under sustained attack, necessitating a vigorous defense against the major social media and internet platforms.

From “shadowbans” on Facebook and Twitter, to demonetization of YouTube videos, to pulled ads for Republican candidates at the critical junctures of election campaigns, the list of violations against the online practices and speech of conservatives is long.

I certainly had my suspicions confirmed when Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, “accidentally” censored a post I made regarding the Jussie Smollett hoax, which consequently led to me hearing from hundreds of my followers about how they’ve been having problems seeing, liking or being able to interact with my posts. Many of them even claimed that they’ve had to repeatedly refollow me, as Instagram keeps unfollowing me on their accounts.

While nothing about Big Tech’s censorship of conservatives truly surprises me anymore, it’s still chilling to see the proof for yourself. If it can happen to me, the son of the president, with millions of followers on social media, just think about how bad it must be for conservatives with smaller followings and those who don’t have the soapbox or media reach to push back when they’re being targeted? …

How?

Facebook appears to have deliberately tailored its algorithm to recognize the syntax and style popular among conservatives in order to “deboost” that content. “Mainstream media,” “SJW” (Social Justice Warrior) and “red pill” — all terms that conservatives often use to express themselves — were listed as red flags, according to the former Facebook insider. …

This future is looming:

Left unchecked, Big Tech and liberal activists could construct a private “social credit” system — not unlike what the communists have nightmarishly implemented in China — that excludes outspoken conservatives from wide swaths of American life simply because their political views differ from those of tech executives.

Americans Are Divided by Their Views on Race, Not Race Itself

Americans Are Divided by Their Views on Race, Not Race Itself, by Eric Kaufmann in the New York Times.

The country is not divided by racial conflict, but by conflict over racial ideology. This is a crucial difference — and it is also grounds for optimism. …

“White” is a description of a person’s race, whereas feelings about whether whites are privileged or whether diversity makes the country stronger are part of a person’s racial ideology.

Liberal whites — not minorities — are setting the tone on these issues.

Says a lot:

Christchurch Massacre: Yes, It’s Terrorism, Yes, It’s Tragic—and Yes, Elites Could Halt It, By Halting Immigration. But They Won’t.

Christchurch Massacre: Yes, It’s Terrorism, Yes, It’s Tragic—and Yes, Elites Could Halt It, By Halting Immigration. But They Won’t. By Peter Brimelow.

Although apparently the act of an individual, it was terrorism, in the sense that the alleged perpetrator, Brenton Tarrant, consciously used the what Leftists used to extoll as “propaganda of the deed” to achieve a specific political goal.

And it is a tragedy, in the sense that it was predictable and preventable, but no-one listened.

The good news: massacres like this, and the Muslim atrocities that apparently provoked Tarrant, are still preventable — by ending mass Third World immigration. The bad news: Western elites just won’t do it. They prefer repressing the white host nations. But it won’t work.

In a peculiarly religious act of anathematization, Tarrant’s manifesto seems to have been largely scrubbed from the internet. This in itself shows how completely Cultural Marxist totalitarianism has displaced classical liberalism in Western elite ideology — none of this Brandeis-type nonsense about sunlight being the best disinfectant. …

But it is not “coverage” but objective reality that will “set someone off” tomorrow.

According to the 2013 census, the number of New Zealanders who identify as Muslim was 46,149. …

The Muslim population increased six-fold between 1991 and 2006…

This immigration-fueled growth is extraordinary. It raise the question: what does the New Zealand government think it’s doing? …

It’s an unfortunate fact (for the Left) that “genocide” as defined by the United Nations doesn’t just mean extermination, but also displacement. …

For the record, I do second the PC bleatings of Rod Dreher — and also his substantive point:

One of the biggest lies we hear whenever there is a mass terror attack, such as the one against New Zealand’s Muslims, is that the killing was “senseless.” It’s not without reason when ISIS does it, and it’s not without reason when people like Brenton Tarrant, the alleged NZ shooter, do it.

The acts are evil, but not senseless; there is a rationale for what they do….

Everything Tarrant identifies as qualities of a disintegrating Western civilization is true. You may think that declining numbers of ethnic Europeans is a good thing, or something that has no particular moral meaning. But it really is happening…

It is simply bizarre to think that all Europeans are going to acquiesce gently in the overwhelming of their nations by immigrants in this century.

Muslim immigrants mostly vote left. No debate allowed. Coincidence? You decide…

Open season on dissenters such as Fraser Anning

Open season on dissenters such as Fraser Anning, via Michael Smith.

Those who attack Fraser Anning are rewarded — Egg Boi’s GoFundMe site is up to $59,932:

‘EggBoi’ Will Connolly won’t press charges against Senator Fraser Anning, by Tess Akerman.

The teen known as “EggBoi” has no plans to press charges against Senator Fraser Anning and his supporters over their violent reaction to his smashing an egg on the senator’s head on Saturday, his lawyer said.

NZ Threatens 10 Years In Prison For ‘Possessing’ Mosque Shooting Video

NZ Threatens 10 Years In Prison For ‘Possessing’ Mosque Shooting Video, by Tyler Durden.

New Zealand authorities have reminded citizens that they face up to 10 years in prison for “knowingly” possessing a copy of the New Zealand mosque shooting video – and up to 14 years in prison for sharing it. …

Popular New Zealand Facebook group Wellington Livenotes that “NZ police would like to remind the public that it is an offence to share an objectional publication which includes the horrific video from yesterday’s attack. If you see this video, report it immediately. Do not download it. Do not share it. If you are found to have a copy of the video or to have shared it, you face fines & potential imprisonment.” …

Meanwhile in the UK:

On Saturday afternoon, a 24-year-old man from Oldham was arrested on suspicion of sending malicious communications in support of the mosque attacks. It is unclear what he is alleged to have written.

The Greater Manchester Police said in a statement that they “became aware of a post on social media making reference and support for the terrible events in New Zealand,” adding “Police have made urgent enquiries and a man aged 24 from the Oldham area is now under arrest on suspicion of sending malicious communications.”

And back in NZ the police have also been busy protecting citizens from certain information:

An 18-year-old man was denied bail at a court in New Zealand on Monday after he was charged with distributing a live stream of the mass shooting at a mosque last week, the New Zealand Herald reported. …

The teen was initially charged with publishing material insulting other races and ethnicities but that charge was withdrawn and replaced by the two new charges on Monday.

We live in a free, open, and tolerant societies where public policy is made by listening to what everyone has to say and then rationally choosing an evidence-based solution, everyone is given equal opportunity, and the law is applied equally to all. Are still we allowed to say that in Australia, comrade?

The propaganda effort and the response of the political class over the Christchurch terrorist massacre have been massive. And so very different from responses to the tens of Islamic terrorist massacres in the West. Yet somehow, both cases get turned into concern for protecting Muslims, and open-hating-season for those on the right. Don’t you get suspicious when they say every problem has the same solution, a solution that just happens to benefit them?

Dutch police arrest suspect over tram shooting that left three dead, five injured in Utrecht, by the ABC.

Dutch police have arrested a man of Turkish origin suspected of being involved in a shooting in Utrecht that killed three people and wounded five, city authorities say. …

But hours after the shooting, the gunman’s motive remained unclear.

Scarcely even rates as “news” now, does it?

A reader notes:

In other news, a female colleague (very non-PC) said she went to a meeting last week with public servants up here from Canberra. Three men and her. The public servants apologised to her at the beginning of the meeting that there weren’t more women present. She’s far too smart to day anything but thought they were total fools.

Bizarro-World Media

Bizarro-World Media, by Anonymous at Steve Sailer’s.

Watching the MSM reaction to the Christchurch Massacre is like watching the Bizarro-World reaction to Islamic Massacres.

1) As soon as it happened everyone started calling the perpetrator a terrorist, which was 100% accurate given his elaborate streaming setup. But a Muslim can hack people to death while shouting Allahu Ackbar and we really need to wait until all the facts are in, preferably until people forget about it.

2) Muslim terrorists are lone wolves who have noting to do with Islam but any time a white (or even partly-white guy) engages in terrorist behaviour, it’s part of a worldwide movement that somehow combines Islamophobes, White Nationalists, incels and 4chan, no matter how tenuous the links are.

In fact, many Islamic terrorists in the west are the exact equivalent of Breivik and apparently this guy …[and] …people who got all their ideas from a specific messed-up corner of the internet but never attended a training camp of any kind or are part of a large network of co-conspirators.

3) MSM gatekeepers are doing their best not to give viewers any information that might cast Islam in a negative light. During a Canadian round-table on the CBC, the talking heads pointed out the unmistakable reference to Alexandre Bissionette on the terrorist’s gun case, while leaving viewers to wonder what “For Rotherham” meant.

CH:

It’s obvious that the media abides an institutional racial double standard in how mass shootings and terrorist acts are reported. This double standard has the appearance of a coordinated operation, but it needn’t be to achieve the same effect. All you’d require is a media vastly overstaffed with [PC liberals] who think alike. …

I find that the reporting on these mass shootings follows a trend.
If shooter was nonwhite, it’s a news blurb then quickly forgotten.
If the shooter was white, it’s a few days of “diversity & inclusion” sanctimony and goodwhite virtue signaling, plus candlelight vigils, but no in-depth, exploratory reporting of motives. …

The media DOES NOT WANT anyone to know that the Whites who died at the hands of moslem terrorists is what motivated the NZ shooter. That muddies the anti-White narrative more than a bit, because it calls attention to a fundamental question: If there wasn’t so much moslem terrorism, there wouldn’t be an occasional White backlash. …

Polling over many years clearly shows that a significant minority to an outright majority of Moslems all over the world say in surveys that they support the actions of Islamic terrorists who target infidels.

In stark contrast, there is barely a tiny fraction of a percent of Whites who support the actions of lone wolf White terrorists. …

Islamic terrorism feeds off a vast network of social support and leaders who will excuse their violent foot soldiers. …

White reactionary terrorism enjoys none of that. They are almost entirely lone wolf attacks with no support from kin or clan, and no supportive social structure or tacit state encouragement to energize them.

Milo Yiannopoulos banned from entering Australia following Christchurch shooting comments

Milo Yiannopoulos banned from entering Australia following Christchurch shooting comments, by the ABC.

“Yiannopoulos’s comments on social media regarding the Christchurch terror attack are appalling and foment hatred and division,” [Immigration Minister David Coleman] said. …

Yiannopoulos had been planning to “come roaring back in 2019” after what he said were a miserable past few years in which he had been de-platformed, censored and announced he was broke.

“I am one of the most censored and most lied-about people in the world,” he said.

“Even my fans sometimes believe things about me that aren’t true, because journalists lie more about me than perhaps anyone else in America.”

So what did Milo say that got him banned? The ABC doesn’t even say. Presumably they don’t want you to know.

They are happy enough to tell us that Milo thinks Islam is barbaric but not that he rejects violence. Why withhold one and not the other?

In a Facebook post overnight, Mr Yiannopoulos said [Candace] Owens had “nothing to do with what happened” in New Zealand and appeared to blame the left for the deadly assault.

“People aren’t radicalised by their own side. They get pushed to the far-right by the left, not by others on the right,” Mr Yiannopoulos wrote in a post that has since been shared widely.

“Attacks like this happen because the establishment panders to and mollycoddles extremist leftism and barbaric, alien religious cultures. Not when someone dares to point it out.”

Mr Yiannopoulos noted in the post that he rejected political violence.

The left calls non-left people worse than that every day. If you disagree with their favourite scientific theory you may be likened to a paedophile, asbestos company, or Nazi killer.

I would remind readers that Milo is gay. Some cultures judge that as barbaric.

Could a senator like Fraser Anning be expelled from Parliament for offensive statements?

Could a senator like Fraser Anning be expelled from Parliament for offensive statements? By the Anne Twomey on the Conversation and repeated on the ABC.

In the wake of comments about the Christchurch massacre, members of the public have raised the question of whether a senator can be expelled from the Senate for making offensive statements.

Ohhh they want to. Again, they didn’t report what he said. Not for our ears. Free speech is only for the politically correct.

Found out what Anning said:

Is not truth a sufficient defense? Or free speech?

Have leftists declared open season on Fraser Anning?

Scott Morrison Owes an Apology

Scott Morrison Owes an Apology, by Augusto Zimmermann.

Scott Morrison says an Australian man massacred worshippers in an act of “extremist right-wing terrorism” which was streamed on the internet.

I am deeply troubled by the words employed by the Australian Prime Minister as it could incite violence against so called right wingers.

As it turns out, it appears that the terrorist is not even a right winger. He is a self-described anarchist and a radical environmentalist, and an admirer of Communist China.

In his own manifesto the terrorist gunman who killed 49 Muslims at a mosque in New Zealand…

  • wanted “no part of” conservatism
  • described himself as an “eco-fascist”
  • admired Communist China.

Answering the question “Are you a conservative?”, Brenton Tarrant wrote, “No, conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”

“Conservatism is dead, thank god,” he also wrote.

Describing the arc of his political journey, the killer said: “When I was young I was a communist, then an anarchist and finally a libertarian before coming to be an eco-fascist.” …

“The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China,” he wrote.

He claimed that he was left wing, writing, “Depending on the definition, sure.”

He also disavowed President Trump from the standpoint of his policies and decisions. In answering the question: “Were you a supporter of Donald Trump?”, he replied: “Dear god no.” …

Why did Scott Morrison get it so wrong?

So why would our Prime Minister choose to blame “right-wing extremism” rather than left-wing extremism?

As noted by a good friend of mine, “It could only be that he subscribes to the leftist narrative himself which seeks every opportunity to undermine conservatives and link us to violence. It’s as if this incident has caused him to nail his colours to the mast. It seems that when push comes to shove that Morrison will side with the left every time”.

It is certainly incongruous for Scott Morrison to lead what is supposed to be a right wing government, but falsely associate his own government and political party to a murderer by calling him a “right winger”.

This is simply beyond the pale. Scott Morrison owes an apology to every supporter of his party and to every person in this country who considers him/herself a conservative.

Left wingers refuse to acknowledge Rotherham, yet here it is written on his ammo clip:

More here.

Meanwhile the media is rather quiet about most of the 34,725 murderous attacks on non-Muslims by Muslims in the name of Islam since 9/11. For instance, here is a massacre of 40 Christians by Muslims two weeks ago in Nigeria.

Terrorism and Censorship, by Karl Denninger.

Last night I read the shooter’s “manifesto” on Scribd, all ~80 pages of it. This morning it has been scrubbed.

Book-burning is alive and well among so-called “progressives.”

I can make a fairly-clean argument for yanking the so-called “live stream” — but what is everyone afraid of when it comes to written words? Is someone (or lots of someones) afraid that perhaps there’s some truth embedded in what will be viewed as an expression of insanity?

A reader comments:

Are western leaders trying to examine the root cause of the problem following Christchurch? No. That would mean the western political class admitted its single largest mistake ever. Instead, they’re going after any and all discussion of the problem and shutting it down.

Truth or Trope?

Truth or Trope? By Steve Sailer.

Last week’s amusing face-off between freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar, leader of the Congressional hijab caucus, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi over Omar’s tweets about the influence of Jewish campaign contributions on American foreign policy was a classic illustration of my theory that the Democrats are a coalition of the fringes who can overcome their loathing of each other only by cultivating their mutual hatred of core Americans.

Careful use of language by the left:

“Trope” is an increasingly fashionable term out of deconstructionist literary theory. The word basically means “cliché” or “stereotype,” but it is intended to obviate your tiresome quibbles about whether or not a particular cliché or stereotype is true by assuming away the relevance of truth.

The use of “trope” signals a faith in the lit theory that the concept of “reality” is irrelevant, perhaps fictitious, and definitely oppressive. There’s no such thing as nature, only social constructs, which can presumably be deconstructed out of existence by socially reengineering the discourse. …

The tyranny of the fringe, coming to a ballot box near you:

The essential strategy of the Democrats is that, while they once represented core American constituencies such as Northern factory workers and Southern rednecks, they’ve recently found it more profitable to promote interests who feel alienated from basic Americans, such as Rep. Omar, whose beloved grandfather was a high-ranking minion of the brutal Somali dictator Siad Barre. …

The Omar clan had to vamoose from Somalia when their genocidal boss fell in 1991 and the country dissolved into anarchy. …

That Rep. Omar’s clan had to flee for their lives from the people back home who knew them best is widely seen today as granting her superior moral standing over you traditional Americans. After all, what can Americans teach a Somali about political wisdom? …

What’s truth got to do with it?

Pelosi tried to get Omar to grasp that she can’t say that American Jews give a lot of money to politicians because…well…because American Jews do give a lot of money to politicians. …

All this naturally raises the question of just how much do the Democrats and Republicans actually raise from Jews and gentiles. It seems like an interesting thing to know, but few have asked that question recently.

To answer it, I went to the OpenSecrets database of political donations maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, a bipartisan organization founded in 1983 by former senators Hugh Scott (R-PA) and Frank Church, the Idaho Democrat who led groundbreaking investigations into the Deep State in the 1970s. …

The results of Sailer’s research:

Of the $675 million given by the top 50 donors, 66 percent of the money came from Jews and 34 percent from gentiles.

Of the $297 million that GOP candidates and conservative causes received from the top 50 donors, 56 percent was from Jewish individuals.

Of the $361 million Democratic politicians and liberal causes received, 76 percent came from Jewish givers.

So it turns out that Rep. Omar and Gov. LePage appear to have been correct, at least about the biggest 2018 donors. But you can also see why Pelosi wanted Omar to just shut up about it: 76 percent is a lot. … You can understand Pelosi’s trepidation about the emerging civil war between Jewish and diverse Democrats.

His note:

Personally, I think both making a lot of money and giving away a lot of money are largely admirable traits. That Jews tend to be leaders in both wealth creation and philanthropy is commendable.