Cool War, Warm War, Hot War. Part 1

If there is one issue on which the liberal/left and I can agree, it is that neither party wishes to see another war in Europe. My personal feeling is that the suicidal belief systems of the Western elites will not only lead to war but also serve as a virtual blueprint on how to subsequently lose it as well. Such a paranoid outlook, of course, is not shared with those of the spiritually enlightened left.

They are more in tune with the European Union’s motto, “United In Diversity” which in truth is more a phrase of liberal wishful thinking than one grounded in reality. There are several groups of people who would testify to this, notably the Serbs, Croats and Muslims of ex-Yugoslavia, the non-Muslim Africans in the Sudan, the Jews of Israel and their dwindling remainder in the Middle East, the Tutsis and the Hutus, the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland or even the Flemish and Walloon populations of Belgium itself — to name but a few.

In fact, it would be hard to find a phrase exhibiting such an awe-inspiring example of utter historical ignorance coupled with sinister Orwellian doublethink, save perhaps for “Arbeit Macht Frei”, the “welcome” sign above the gates of Auschwitz concentration camp.

It should never be forgotten that the Nazi party were the one-time allies of the Communists, those moral-free “egalitarians” whose present day ideological progeny now run the European Union on unelected soft totalitarian fiat, unashamed that their motto harks back to the sloganeering of genocidal regimes, and unaware, apparently, that they are setting the wheels in motion for future genocidal conflict.

What the liberal/left palpably fail to realise, is that not only must our present policy of “United In Diversity” — manifested as it is, in mass immigration and multicultural relativism — inevitably lead to war, but that we are already at war on many fronts, and we are losing all of them.

Paul Weston on Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism - An Evil Ideology Designed To Destroy The West

Until very recently British politicians and journalists were forever eulogizing on the merits of a multicultural society. They told us how enriching it was and how we should celebrate our vibrant diversity hitherto unavailable in the racially stale and homogenous West. However, despite these outpourings of praise verging on the messianic I have yet to hear any of them elaborate on the concrete positives of multiculturalism. Just one instance would suffice, but multiculturalism’s adherents prefer to praise in the general rather than the specific. As such they are just words with no meaning and no intention of meaning, other perhaps than that of deliberate subterfuge.
 

After the July 2005 bombings of London’s transport system two lone voices miraculously came to the fore to gently propose that multiculturalism as preached in the UK was more divisive than inclusive. Fortunately, these voices belonged to non-white immigrants and were therefore listened to and reported on rather than being shouted down with the inevitable charge of racism. Trevor Philips, the Lenin-admiring Guyanese chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality suggested we were sleepwalking toward segregation whilst Dr. John Sentamu, the Ugandan Archbishop of York, alerted the native British to the dangers of losing their culture.

With the taboo apparently broken Britain is now engaged in an “intense debate” as to the merits and debits of multiculturalism — with particular regard to Islam. The general consensus, fairly unsurprisingly, is that multiculturalism’s ideology of encouraging a separate Muslim identity is to blame for the alienation of British Islamic youth. This is partly true but what is not mentioned is that British Muslims need little encouragement to retain their identity, whilst their propensity to vent their righteous indignation by self-detonating in crowded tube trains is semi-excused. This does not appear to me to be a debate that can in any way be termed intense.

Conservative Reality V Dangerous Liberal Fantasy

There were two interesting letters in the Daily Telegraph this morning. One was very unusual in that it implicitly referenced the Koran and its influence on Islamic terror. I don’t believe I have ever seen this in the mainstream media before. The other was the usual liberal/establishment kumbaya guff that got the West into trouble in the first place. One of the letter writers understands Western civilisation - the other threatens it.

SIR – After yet another Islamist terrorist atrocity, is it not time to examine carefully from where they are driven? The Koran contains 109 verses exhorting Muslims to violence, many directly against Jews and Christians. The vast majority of peaceful Muslims reject this teaching, but those who do not are not “radicalised”, they are just following the Koran’s teachings. It is time for a mature debate on what Islam teaches and stands for.

SIR – It is vital that the horrific murder of Fr Jacques Hamel does not – as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant intends – divide Christians and Muslims. It is more important than ever that Christians and Muslims together affirm their trust in the unfailing mercy of the one God. It would be good if more clergy invited an imam to speak in church and arranged social occasions, such as the annual Peace Walk in Oxford, where people meet and those afraid of racist abuse know they are supported.

Paul Weston Discusses Islam/Europe at CPAC Conference, Washington.

Can Multicultural Europe Avoid World War Three?

When Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man in 1993, it was to argue that Western liberal democracy and free market economics meant an end to warfare within the west, and by default, the end of history. This idea that warfare within the West is now a thing of the past seems to be shared by an overwhelming section of Western people, reared as they are on a diet of enlightened tolerance and historical ignorance.

In 1990 it would have been relatively difficult to argue with Fukuyama’s prophecy. The West, excluding the inevitable frictions that came with the break-up of the Soviet Union, was clearly not going to engage in the type of politics that led to the two world wars, whilst the demise of Communism meant an end to the global proxy wars between Russia and America.

What Fukuyama failed to realise, however, was that the ingredient for yet another “war to end all wars” was already in place. The cultural clashes between Nazism, fascism, communism and liberal democracies had simply been replaced with another ideology that would inevitably clash with the Western host cultures — Islam.

France Has Two Choices - Civil War or Submission

In the aftermath of the Bataclan theatre massacre in 2015, President Hollande declared France was at war with ISIS. In the aftermath of the Islamic carnage in Nice, Hollande declared France was at war with ISIS. In the aftermath of the Islamic attack on the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray and the beheading of Father Jacques Hamel, President Hollande declared France was at war with ISIS. 

What strange times we live in. Hollande cannot declare war on ISIS because ISIS is not just some foreign power in far-away lands which can be bombed from the air with impunity. ISIS is Islam and Islam is in France. Islam is in Paris and Marseilles. Like a rapidly expanding virus, Islam has invaded France and is attacking the racial base, the cultural base, the spiritual base and the political base of the host country itself.

So Hollande’s war is a myth, which is hardly surprising. After all, what is he realistically able to do? Invade Paris and level the banlieues? Build internment camps and lock up everyone with a beard? Hollande knows he is on difficult ground here, as can be gleaned from his following abject statement: “we must fight this war by all means, while respecting the rule of law, what (sic) makes us a democracy.”

Koran (47:4)

Left-liberals within the BBC, Sky News, CNN etc, all seem to be terribly confused as to why Muslims cut off the heads of non-Muslims. Earlier today, in the church of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, two Muslims beheaded Fr Jacques Hamel, 84. Journalists working for any of the organisations mentioned above might like to memorise the following verse from the Koran - which might help overcome their current confusion:

Koran (47:4) “If you encounter the disbelievers in a battle, strike-off their heads. Take them as captives when they are defeated. Then you may set them free as a favour to them, with or without a ransom, when the battle is over. This is the Law. Had God wanted, He could have granted them (unbelievers) victory, but He wants to test you through each other. The deeds of those who are killed for the cause of God will never be without virtuous results.”

The Forbidding of England

The following article is by British philosopher Roger Scruton

 

I attended an ordinary English state school in the late 1950s. In our history lessons we were taught that England is the heart of Great Britain, that Great Britain is the heart of an Empire, and that, thanks to this Empire, ideas of law, freedom, and democratic government had spread around the globe. We were therefore proud of the Empire, which we described as British, not English, and thought of it as proof of our national virtues and a contribution to the advancement of mankind. Our flag was the Union Jack, a striking synthesis of the emblems of our constituent peoples, and we believed that this flag represented a peaceful union, rather than the triumph of one nation over others. We sang “Rule Britannia,” the rousing chorus of which declares that “Britons never never never shall be slaves!”

Questioning the Sanity of Liberals

The following article is from my 2007 archive. I don't think it dates - if anything, it is more pertinent now than it was then! 

**************************************

Is it possible to be well adjusted, attractive, educated, successful, and a liberal? Alternatively, is it possible to be both Politically Correct and a liberal at the same time? In order to understand the peculiar contradictions of contemporary liberalism it is necessary first to understand the meaning of classical liberalism circa 1900 and the liberalism of the West in 2007.

Classical liberalism meant a belief in the democratic process, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity (although never quite couched in such terms), the presumption of innocence, small government, the individual before the group, religious freedom, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the rights of the child, an obligation to help the genuinely disadvantaged in society and, generally speaking, a live and let live laissez-faire attitude. It was the product of many hundreds of years of gradual evolution encompassing Christianity, the reformation, the enlightenment, common law, the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It was a cause for the good and the term liberal one to be worn with pride.

How does this square with the self confessed metropolitan liberals of today? Imagine the smooth young advertising executive, hosting a dinner party in Greenwich village or Notting Hill, suddenly announcing to his Armani-clad coterie of media and public relations friends that, whilst holding himself up as a liberal, he disapproved of mass immigration, multiculturalism, state education’s socialist propaganda, the European Union, same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, atheism and feminism.

Germany is Committing Economic, Racial & Cultural Suicide

Rape, murder, machetes and guns. Angela Merkel has blood on her hands. If you invite barbarians into your liberal democracy you can only expect them to behave like barbarians. If you invite enough of them in, then your liberal democracy will be harmed in the short term and destroyed in the long term.

The numbers involved are huge. One million mainly young Muslim males last year, most of whom will bring at least five family members which could well include four wives if they so choose. If the four wives go on to have four children each – as is the average today for Muslims in the West - Germany’s next generation will be Muslim majority.

Thought For The Day

The left-leaning mainstream media seems extraordinarily determined to link the Munich killer Ali David Sonboly with right-wing political thought, despite there being zero evidence of such a link. In contrast though, when Muslims commit murder in the name of Islam, the same left-leaning MSM go to equally extraordinary lengths to deny the Islamic link. Which is why the MSM is deemed a member of the traitor class which must one day be held accountable.