The Psychological War

The Psychological War, by the Z-Man.

A good current example is the Breonna Taylor issue in Louisville. For the longest time, the mass media has claimed that cops murdered her for no reason. They executed a “no-knock warrant” and just opened fire, killing her in the process. This led to riots in Louisville and contributed to the summer of mayhem.

It turns out that none of that was true and the Breonna Taylor story was a complete lie. The only thing true about it was the names of the people involved.

This is a familiar pattern in these cases. First, we get the incident, which often goes unnoticed by the mass media. Then sometime later the story bursts on the scene with an official narrative and a media kit, which always includes images of the victim from when they were young. In an instant, every hair-hat in the media is chanting the same lines over top the same canned video. A mob is then ginned up wherever it happened and the authorities then rush to jail some white guy.

Go back to the Trayvon Martin story and you see the same operation. First there was the well-orchestrated media campaign. Then we got protests followed by famous blacks showing solidarity by wearing hoodies. The famous blacks are heralded by the media for their courage. Then we learned that Trayvon Martin was not a boy, but a man who was bashing the head of George Zimmerman against the curb. The whole thing was a carefully choreographed propaganda campaign.

The thing about patterns is they usually indicate some common agent upstream from the observable pattern. In this case, it is becoming clear that a well-financed group is working in the shadows to create these incidents. Before the grand jury announcement in the Breonna Taylor case, someone shot video of a U-Haul truck full of riot accessories being unloaded in Louisville. The renter was easily identified by the identification numbers on the side of the truck. …

See the U-Haul Truck with riot supplies being unloaded at 7:30 in this video. Two cops were killed in that riot.

It is increasingly clear that well-financed agitators are creating the incidents. They prepare the media kits, organize the mobs and then supply them with riot equipment. Then they use the media coverage, which is all based on the media kits, to rope in support from famous rich people. …

There are two important take-a-ways from this bit of reality. One is the people behind this stuff are playing a long game. It takes years to build out the infrastructure to orchestrate something like this. …

The second take-a-way is that the authorities are either compromised and unwilling to dig into these networks or incapable of doing it. The top of the country’s domestic intelligence pyramid is obsessed with right-wing extremism, a thing that is about as real as leprechauns riding unicorns. …

The FBI cannot find the culprit, but there’s her picture above:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact that internet sleuths are better at finding and identifying radicals caught on video than the police and FBI is important. This tubby woman behind the U-Haul truck caper is a great example. …

Where we find ourselves now is in a world where well-organized and financed domestic terror groups are operating with impunity in major cities. The government at all levels is either unable or unwilling to confront it. … If the people in charge wanted to put an end to the unrest, they could do so tomorrow. …

What has happened this year is right out of the handbook on psychological warfare. There are the hundreds of little lies seeded in the popular culture, which in turn make the big lies more plausible, but more outrageous when they are discovered. The point of these operations is to destroy social trust and trust in the ruling class. Someone or a collection of someones is waging a psychological warfare and our rulers don’t see it.

If you go and read from the left’s echo chamber (I make a point of reading the Huffington Post and the Sydney Morning Herald every day, and watch the ABC Nightly News), you have no hint of this. Only news that helps the left or is too well-known to be omitted is mentioned, so those on the left simply do not have the information at hand to assess the situation. Clueless. And you cannot tell them a wide range of facts, because they are certain that if those facts were relevant then their “news” would have told them — so they just can’t be true!

FBI Finds Ballots in Pennsylvania in the Trash. They Were All Votes for Trump.

FBI Finds Ballots in Pennsylvania in the Trash. They Were All Votes for Trump. By Katie Pavlich.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has found a number of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania discarded in the trash. They were ballots cast for President Donald Trump.

“On Monday, September 21, 2020, at the request of Luzerne County District Attorney Stefanie Salavantis, the Office of the United States Attorney along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Scranton Resident Office, began an inquiry into reports of potential issues with a small number of mail-in ballots at the Luzerne County Board of Elections,” the Department of Justice released in a statement. “Since Monday, FBI personnel working together with the Pennsylvania State Police have conducted numerous interviews and recovered and reviewed certain physical evidence. Election officials in Luzerne County have been cooperative. At this point we can confirm that a small number of military ballots were discarded. Investigators have recovered nine ballots at this time. Some of those ballots can be attributed to specific voters and some cannot. All nine ballots were cast for presidential candidate Donald Trump.”

So it begins.

hat-tip Charles

‘We were shocked’: RAND study uncovers massive income shift to the top 1%

‘We were shocked’: RAND study uncovers massive income shift to the top 1%. By Rick Wartzman.

Just how far has the working class been left behind by the winner-take-all economy? A new analysis by the RAND Corporation examines what rising inequality has cost Americans in lost income—and the results are stunning.

A full-time worker whose taxable income is at the median—with half the population making more and half making less—now pulls in about $50,000 a year. Yet had the fruits of the nation’s economic output been shared over the past 45 years as broadly as they were from the end of World War II until the early 1970s, that worker would instead be making $92,000 to $102,000. (The exact figures vary slightly depending on how inflation is calculated.)

“We were shocked by the numbers,” says Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist who came up with the idea for the research along with David Rolf, founder of Local 775 of the Service Employees International Union and president of the Fair Work Center in Seattle. “It explains almost everything. It explains why people are so pissed off. It explains why they are so economically precarious.” …

The RAND data also makes clear who the winners from inequality are: those in the top 1%. …

RAND crunched the data in all sorts of ways, and the basic pattern held true for part-time workers, entire families, men and women, Blacks and whites, urban dwellers and rural residents, and those with high school degrees and those with college diplomas.

Notice the turning point: 1971 (a highly recommended article that gets a lot of hits).

It is due to the financialization of the economy. The last link between money and gold was broken in 1971, which allowed the financial smarties to manufacture lots of money, unconstrained, and to dominate the asset shuffling game. Did you get your share? Probably not.

UK Labor lost Brexit, then reversed course away from extreme leftism

UK Labor lost Brexit, then reversed course away from extreme leftism. By Maurice Glasman.

Brexit was the fault-line that destroyed the Left and created a one-nation Conservatism that would push Labour back to its progressive comfort zone in the big cities, sealing it off from the small towns and working class heartlands forever. …

[The Tories] didn’t notice when [Labor leader Keith Starmer, the man in the mask sitting alone on the frontbench opposite,] said that the issue of Brexit had been resolved and Labour supported leaving the EU by the end of the year.

  • The biggest issue in British politics had dissolved into a previous era and the Covid response was centre stage.
  • They didn’t notice when Rebecca Long-Bailey was sacked and all links with the Corbyn camp were severed.
  • They didn’t notice the hundreds of letters of suspension that went out to people who had said strange things about Jews.
  • They didn’t notice that he was writing articles on VE day in the Telegraph, on Memorial Sunday in the Mail and whenever he liked in the Sun — an act considered treachery by Labour leaders for more than a decade.
  • They didn’t notice that he was tapping into a form of modest Labour patriotism that once had deep roots in the Party, and still does in the country. …

Tuesday’s speech was the first time that Starmer could speak directly to the nation about who he was and what he stood for. Labour is under no pressure to develop a manifesto, it needed a general direction of travel, a sense of mission and of vision. A sense of the temper of the man who was leading it. And he seized the opportunity to express the ethics of a profoundly conservative person in a way that no member of the Conservative front bench possibly could.

His credo was that “the greatest contribution we can make is to care for one another”. This puts relationships at the centre of it, and to emphasise that, he followed it up with the wish to live in “a country in which we put family first”. He actually used the word joy and family in the same sentence — I can’t remember any other Labour leader doing so. He spoke about Grandparents, and sacrifice, care workers, cleaners, shop workers, life savers.

He spoke about trust being lost and concentrating on security, jobs and community. He concluded with the thought that “the conservatives don’t conserve very much”. Which has the virtue of truth.

He did talk of a plan. It was related to the economy and skills. He spoke about a partnership between businesses and trade unions in a clean economy that “didn’t force people to move hundreds of miles to find a decent job”. The idea of regional economic renewal based upon a partnership between business, workers and the state was precisely the ‘plan’ the Government was elected on. Starmer’s stress on the “everyday economy” gives a clue to its future development.

Who would have predicted this reversal of Labor’s direction while Corbyn was still leading?

If the US left lose the US election decisively, and acknowledge it, perhaps they too will abandon their extremist edge and move back towards where most of us are.

“I Was Never An ‘Evil Monster’ Until You Decided That I Was…”

“I Was Never An ‘Evil Monster’ Until You Decided That I Was…” Internet meme.

 

I never cared if you were ‘gay’ until you started shoving it in my face, and the faces of my children.

I never cared what color you were, until you started blaming my race for your problems.

I never cared about your political affiliation until you started to condemn me for mine.

I never cared where you were born until you wanted to erase my history and blame my ancestors for your current problems.

I never cared if you were well-off or poor, until you said you were discriminated against, when I was promoted because I worked harder.

I never cared if your beliefs were different from mine, until you said my beliefs were wrong.

NOW I CARE!

My patience and tolerance are gone.

I’m not alone in feeling this way, there are millions of us who do and we have had enough!”

What It’s Like Living in California Now

What It’s Like Living in California Now, by AwakenWithJP. This is pretty good, in a bitter-sweet way:

Mankind, beginning with England in 1750, only recently escaped Malthusian conditions. For eons, the number of humans grew to match the food supply, and further population growth was limited by starvation. This kept living standards low. There were only minor variations in living standards in the ten thousand years before 1750, as measured in calories or the time required to obtain those calories.

But then the modern miracle occurred, as technological development powered by WEIRD European people outran population growth. For the first time in human history, there was plenty to eat and mass obesity become a problem. One group had cracked the problem, and shared it with everyone.

But since 1970 technological progress has noticeably slowed, social policies encourage smarter women to have fewer kids (“idiocracy”), living standards have been declining slightly in the West, and some parts of the global population continue to grow fast. The group that cracked the problem is increasingly reviled.

 

Black lives matter

 

It is by no means inevitable that humanity will return to Malthusian conditions, and given our current knowledge and technology it seems far fetched.

But still, you have to wonder at times. California is in most ways the most advanced society on the planet. If mankind were on a path leading back to Malthusian poverty after a brief few centuries of flowering, what would it look like? What would be the early signs? They would look a lot like the video above.

Suicide of the Liberals: Revolutions never succeed without the support of the wealthy, liberal, and educated — who are then killed

Suicide of the Liberals: Revolutions never succeed without the support of the wealthy, liberal, and educated — who are then killed. By Gary Morson.

Waiting for the excesses of today’s left to abate as common sense asserts itself? Judging by this historical precedent, don’t hold your breath.

Between 1900 and 1917, waves of unprecedented terror struck Russia. Several parties professing incompatible ideologies competed (and cooperated) in causing havoc. Between 1905 and 1907, nearly 4,500 government officials and about as many private individuals were killed or injured. Between 1908 and 1910, authorities recorded 19,957 terrorist acts and revolutionary robberies, doubtless omitting many from remote areas. As the foremost historian of Russian terrorism, Anna Geifman, observes, “Robbery, extortion, and murder became more common than traffic accidents.”

Anyone wearing a uniform was a candidate for a bullet to the head or sulfuric acid to the face. Country estates were burnt down (“rural illuminations”) and businesses were extorted or blown up. Bombs were tossed at random into railroad carriages, restaurants, and theaters. Far from regretting the death and maiming of innocent bystanders, terrorists boasted of killing as many as possible, either because the victims were likely bourgeois or because any murder helped bring down the old order. A group of anarcho-­communists threw bombs laced with nails into a café bustling with two hundred customers in order “to see how the foul bourgeois will squirm in death agony.”

Instead of the pendulum’s swinging back — a metaphor of inevitability that excuses people from taking a stand — the killing grew and grew, both in numbers and in cruelty. Sadism replaced simple killing. … One group threw “traitors” into vats of boiling water. Others were still more inventive. Women torturers were especially admired.

 

 

The politically correct elite aided and abetted the terrorists, but were the first to be killed after the revolution:

How did educated, liberal society respond to such terrorism?

What was the position of the Constitutional Democratic (Kadet) Party and its deputies in the Duma (the parliament set up in 1905)?

Though Kadets advocated democratic, constitutional procedures, and did not themselves engage in ­terrorism, they aided the terrorists in any way they could. Kadets collected money for terrorists, turned their homes into safe houses, and called for total amnesty for arrested terrorists who pledged to continue the mayhem.

Doesn’t this sound like today’s Democratic Party?

Kadet Party central committee member N. N. Shchepkin declared that the party did not regard terrorists as criminals at all, but as saints and martyrs. The official Kadet paper … never published an article condemning political assassination. The party leader, Paul Milyukov, declared that “all means are now legitimate . . . and all means should be tried.” When asked to condemn terrorism, another liberal leader in the Duma, Ivan Petrunkevich, famously replied: “Condemn terror? That would be the moral death of the party!”

Not just lawyers, teachers, doctors, and engineers, but even industrialists and bank directors raised money for the terrorists. Doing so signaled advanced opinion and good manners.

Too PC to see it coming:

A quote attributed to Lenin — “When we are ready to kill the capitalists, they will sell us the rope” — would have been more accurately rendered as: “They will buy us the rope and hire us to use it on them.”

True to their word, when the Bolsheviks gained control, their organ of terror, the Cheka, “liquidated” members of all opposing parties, beginning with the Kadets.

Why didn’t the liberals and businessmen see it coming? That question has bothered many students of revolutionary movements.

Revolutions never succeed without the support of wealthy, liberal, educated society. Yet revolutionaries seldom conceal that their success entails the seizure of all wealth, the suppression of dissenting opinion, and the murder of class enemies.

Read it all.

The parallels and similarities with the developing US situation are obvious. Different time and place, but human nature hasn’t changed.

Are Liberals Responsible For the Consequences of Their Death Threats?

Are Liberals Responsible For the Consequences of Their Death Threats? By John Hinderaker.

Incendiary and violent language is used constantly by liberals, including the most important Democratic politicians. Thus, no one should have been surprised when Bernie Sanders volunteer James Hodgkinson tried to assassinate a group of Republican House members in 2017, and would have succeeded in killing Steve Scalise but for the miracles of modern medicine.

Since Hodgkinson’s assassination attempt, things have only gotten worse. Implied or explicit death threats from liberals, not just random nobodies on Twitter and Facebook but people with standing in the liberal world, have become rather common.

The latest case in point is Nils Gilman, who may be a nut but is also employed by the Berggruen Institute, which according to Wikipedia has an endowment of $500 million and annual revenue of $17 million. He also has 14,000 Twitter followers. So he is a liberal of recognized stature in the Democratic Party, not just a social media troll.

On Monday, Gilman tweeted a death threat against Michael Anton of the Claremont Institute:

Robert Brasillach was a Frenchman who was executed by a firing squad in 1945. So Gilman said, clearly and unequivocally, that Anton should be shot.

Michael Anton has some interesting things to say, which we’ve quoted from on the Wentworth Report here, here, here and here. The leftist counter-argument is to threaten to kill him. How progressive!

Trump Wants Supreme Court Justice Confirmed ASAP to Counter Democrats’ Election ‘Scam’

Trump Wants Supreme Court Justice Confirmed ASAP to Counter Democrats’ Election ‘Scam’, by Tyler O’Neil.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump called for the Senate to confirm his Supreme Court nominee as quickly as possible, insisting that the Supreme Court needs to be at full strength to counter the “scam” Democrats plan to pull in the 2020 election.

“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court,” the president said of the election …

Trump argued that “we have a lot of time” to confirm a justice. If the president submits his nomination on Saturday, he will have 38 days before Election Day. The Senate has confirmed two justices in a time period shorter than that: the body took 19 days to confirm John Paul Stevens and another 33 days to confirm Sandra Day O’Connor. The Senate confirmed Ruth Bader Ginsburg in only 42 days.

Trump referenced the John Paul Stevens window in his remarks. “One justice was picked in 19 days–19 days! We could do four at that rate or five,” he said. “And we have a lot of time–before the election and then you have after the election too.”

“But in terms of time, we can go to January 20th, but I think it’s better if you go before the election because I think…this scam that the Democrats are pulling — it’s a scam — the scam will be before the United States Supreme Court,” the president added.

If Republicans and Democrats must litigate the election results at the Supreme Court, Trump said he would prefer to have all nine seats filled.

“I think having a four-four situation is not a good situation …”

Mitt Romney gives GOP numbers to confirm Supreme Court nominee, by Cameron Stewart.

Senate Republicans have secured the numbers needed to confirm a new Supreme Court nominee before the US presidential election in a major win for the Trump administration and American conservatives.

Although the confirmation process will be rushed, Republicans believe they will be able to confirm a new conservative judge to the court before the November 3 election, giving the nation’s highest court a 6-3 conservative majority.

Playing for the team, this time

Republicans were all but guaranteed the 50 Senate votes required to confirm a new justice after Republican senator and Trump critic Mitt Romney said he would vote to confirm a new judge to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Senator Romney, who voted to convict the president on one impeachment charge early this year, said on Wednesday (AEST) he was willing to vote on Mr Trump’s nominee regardless of the proximity of the election.

Senator Murkowski, who was also suspected of voting with the Democrats on this, is wavering. In any case, it looks like Trump has the Senate support he needs to ensure a speedy conformation of his nominee.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle test limits of royal protocol by advocating Americans to vote

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle test limits of royal protocol by advocating Americans to vote, by Cameron Stewart.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have tested the limits of royal protocol by advocating Americans to vote in the “most important election of our lifetime’’, in comments that appear to be directed against Donald Trump.

Neither the Duke or Duchess of Sussex mention Trump or his opponent Joe Biden by name, although Prince Harry urges voters to reject ‘hate speech, misinformation and online negativity”.

The comments, in a video to mark Time Magazine’s list of the world’s 100 most influential people, follows reports that Meghan Markle has been cold calling Americans to urge them to vote to help elect Biden.

Royal protocol is for members of the royal family to avoid politics although both Prince Harry and Ms Markle have stepped down from their roles and have moved to the US. …

Famed Feminist Gloria Steinem said Ms Markle had been active in helping to elect Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris.

“(Markle) came home to vote,’’ Steinem told TV’s Access Hollywood in an online video, noting that the pair had met up at Steinem’s home. “And the first thing we did, and why she came to see me, was we sat at the dining room table here, where I am right now, and cold-called voters. And said, ‘Hello, I’m Meg,’ and, ‘Hello, I’m Gloria,’ and, ‘Are you going to vote? That was her initiative,’’ Steinem said.

What further proof is needed that the Left is now the party of the rich and the establishment?

A repeat of 2016 would reveal the centre-Left as having no response to populism

A repeat of 2016 would reveal the centre-Left as having no response to populism, by Matthew Goodwin.

According to the latest snapshots the race is still Joe Biden’s to lose. The Democratic challenger is enjoying average leads of more than six points in the national polls and four points across the all-important battleground states. Today, Trump leads in just three crunch states: Georgia, Iowa and Texas. If the polls are correct, then the path that Trump took to victory four years ago is simply no longer available. …

But the bookies give him only a 54% chance …

What if today’s extreme leftism and identity group politics fail again at the ballot box?

Since the revolts of 2016, liberalism has essentially had two opportunities to reply to the new alliance of cultural conservatives and national populists: the first was through the Brexit culture war; the second is through today’s campaign against Trump’s re-election.

The first went disastrously wrong. Rather than engage meaningfully and seriously with what Brexit represented, a request for change, liberals did all they could to block the vote outright, overturn it or dilute it so that it was largely indistinguishable from the status quo.

Along the way, they repeatedly derided and dismissed the other side as racists and relics from the past. The failure of liberalism to rise to the occasion and chart a more constructive path forward was then reflected in what happened next: Boris Johnson’s comprehensive victory, the worst Labour vote since 1935, and the passing of the Withdrawal Agreement.

If, after four long years, this winter the Democrats similarly fail to articulate a compelling, convincing and successful reply to Trump-ism, then alongside recent events in Britain this will confirm that liberalism is in a much deeper crisis than people thought four years ago.

Aside from exposing the fact that “anti-populist” campaigns are on their own insufficient, a Biden defeat, coming so soon after Brexit, would throw light on a glaring absence of ideas that might otherwise be capable of maintaining or even saving the liberal project.

This is the most significant but acrimonious US election for decades. If the left loses again, will they reverse course on identity politics or any items of grand strategy?

Or will today’s white left continue stacking the electorate with third worlders? If so, they will inevitably watch their country being ruled by the new immigrants, not by them. Will the US then become just another “world culture”, perhaps preceding a slide back towards the Malthusian economy that was mankind’s lot until 1750? Will humanity’s bright spark only last three centuries, before being dimmed and overwhelmed by the new mouths to feed?

The Reverse-Colonization of France

The Reverse-Colonization of France, by Guy Millière.

Lyon, the third largest city in France, July 20, 3 a.m. A middle-class neighborhood. A young woman walks her dog on a quiet street. A car arrives at high speed and crushes her dog. The driver stops, backs up, runs over the young woman and crushes her too. He goes forward again, at full speed, and drags her dead body half a mile. People awakened by the noise write down the license number of the car. The police officers who come to the scene are horrified. The young woman’s body was dismembered. A leg was found on one side of the street; the rest of her body was shredded. One arm was close to the body of her dog. The other was still holding onto the dog’s leash. Her name was Axelle Dorier. She was a nurse, only 23.

 

 

The French Department of Justice asked the police not to release the name of the killer. An anonymous policeman released it anyway on a social network site. The killer’s name is Youssef T. He was driving under the influence, without a license. The prosecutor charged him with “reckless murder”. He is in jail awaiting trial. He risks a maximum sentence of ten years. Residents of Lyon wanted to organize a peaceful march to pay tribute to the young nurse. They asked the government to get tough on crime. The young woman’s parents objected: they said they have “have no hatred” for the killer. …

Just like us??

Equally horrific acts, increasingly numerous, have been taking place every day in France, many times, for years. The perpetrators are usually young adults in their late teens or early twenties. All are immigrants from the Muslim world. They are not Islamists and have no political or religious motives. They generally show no remorse.

They are described by the psychiatrists examining them as “practicing gratuitous violence”: a violence without a goal other than enjoying inflicting violence. They appear to have no respect for human life or for laws. …

Submission:

Sometimes, as with Axelle Dorier, submitting is not possible: she did not have any contact with her killer until the moment he crushed her. Sometimes — if you are, say, a bus driver or part of the police force — your job does not allow you to submit.

The families of the victims, however, can submit, and often do just that. They are then showered with congratulations from political authorities and the media.

Days after the terrorist attack at the Bataclan Theater in Paris in 2015, Antoine Leiris, the husband of a woman horribly tortured and killed inside the music hall, posted a letter to the terrorists on Facebook. He said he understood their motives and does not hate them. He added that he is not angry and has to continue living his life. The letter was immediately shared by hundreds of thousands on social media. A publishing company asked the author of the letter to add elements to the letter and make it into a book. The book, called “Vous n’aurez pas ma haine” (“You Will Not Have My Hate”), became an instant bestseller. …

Asking the police and the media not to give the name of killers is an attempt to hide the truth and prevent the public from knowing exactly who in France is committing these acts. Hiding the name shows a desire to appease the killers: when a killer has a Christian name, it is immediately printed on the front page. Hiding the name shows fear of the communities to which the killers belong and of anger among the rest of the French population.

 

One is a real President, the other merely a resident of the presidential palace

 

The political authorities do the same. They know that Muslim votes matter more than ever. Commenting on the murders of Axelle Dorier, Mélanie Lemée and Philippe Monguillot, President Emmanuel Macron called them “incivilities” and “regrettable”, then quickly fled to another subject.

Only Marine Le Pen, leader of the rightist National Rally Party, sounded firmer: “What level of barbarism must we reach for the French to say stop to this increasing savagery in our society? How many policemen, gendarmes, bus drivers, slaughtered young girls or boys does it take?” Immediately, the mainstream media accused her of pouring fuel on the fire and being an irresponsible extremist.

Immigration without assimilation is colonization:

“France is undergoing reverse colonization,” commented a journalist, Éric Zemmour, on television.

“Populations coming mainly from countries formerly colonized by France have settled in France without any intention of integrating. Most of them live in neighborhoods where the laws of Islam now reign and where imams spread hatred of France. Successive governments have allowed these neighborhoods to grow in the belief that hatred of France and the French would not come out of these neighborhoods.

“The hatred of France and the French did come out and took the form of riots and terrorism. It now takes the form of assaults and murders: a generalized expression of hatred of France and the French. And in a gesture of submission, the French authorities say that hatred does not emanate from those who kill, but from those who want to react and say that we must put an end to assaults and murders. It is a suicidal attitude.” …

The French swamp sides with the invaders:

[In June] in Paris, another demonstration took place: in support of the family of Adama Traoré, an African criminal who died while violently resisting arrest. That demonstration was also banned by the government, and the police again ordered not to intervene.

“Death to France,” the protesters shouted, and sometimes, “Dirty Jews”. Neither the government nor the mainstream media were shocked.

French youths people belonging to Génération Identitaire (Generation Identity), a movement for the defense of France and Western civilization, stood on a roof and held up a banner saying, “Justice for the victims of anti-white racism”. A man climbed on the roof of the building, in an apparent to destroy the banner. During interviews by television stations he was described for days as a hero of the “fight against fascism.” The French youths who had held the banner, meanwhile, were arrested and charged with “incitement to hatred”.

 

 

Some of the assumptions behind rapid immigration and multiculturalism are not working out, and it will cost us dearly. Chalk these victims up to immigration from alien cultures, or to Islam?

hat-tip Stephen Harper