How does anyone know what anyone else really believes?

Some facts, perhaps. And then there’s this by Victor Davis Hanson: The Dream Of Muslim Outreach Has Become A Nightmare.

The real problem is that Islamic terrorism feeds off the self-induced failures of the Middle East. Jihadists try to convince the Arab street that returning to religious fundamentalism and exporting jihad will empower Muslims to recapture lost primacy over a decadent and guilty West, just as in the mythical glory days of the caliphate.

In truth, religious intolerance, gender apartheid, illiteracy, autocracy, statism, tribalism and religious fundamentalism all guarantee poverty, economic stagnation and scapegoating. While much of Asia and Latin America progressed through reform, the Middle East blame-gamed its miseries on affluent Western nations and on Israel.

More disturbing, millions of Middle Easterners fled to the safety of Europe and the United States — but on occasion, only to resist assimilation and show ingratitude once they got there.

In short, the dreamy Obama approach to terrorism has proved a nightmare — and it is not over yet.

Not over! It has not yet even really begun.

David Solway on How to Defeat Terrorism

How to Defeat Terrorism, offered not as a practical guide but as a demonstration that it cannot be done:

The measures and policies that would need to be put in place are so obvious that the failure to implement them is nothing but a sign of lethal complacency and moral cowardice. What are these measures? The list is not unduly long and, as I say, entirely obvious.

You can go to the link to find out what needs to be done which consists of a list of actions that will not be done. We no longer have a religion of our own which makes taking such steps all the more unlikely.

The alt-right

From a link picked up by Old Ozzie on a previous thread. I have kept Old Ozzie’s boldings.

If you listen to the mainstream media, the Alt-Right is the birth of an American far right Frankenstein that was mid-wifed by Donald Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric in this election cycle.

But what we are seeing now is bigger than even Donald Trump. It is part of a massive paradigm shift that has been underway for some time now. For those that have been paying attention, it is clear that nationalist, patriotic movements are everywhere ascendant in the West.

The endless migration of millions of 3rd world men into Europe, the callousness of the Elite class to the concern its Natives, and the fever-pitched identity politics of the Regressive Left have brought us to a crossroads… It should come as little surprise to nobody that the native populations of the West have started asking some hard questions about their own identity.

Who are we? What do our people stand for? Will we have a future if nothing changes?

These are some of the civilizational questions being raised for the first time in the West since the end of the Cold War. And the “Alt-Right” is the term (that hit the Internet by storm in 2015) under which many dissidents have rallied under in the United States. The etymology of the term however, does not go far in explaining the significance of this rapidly growing movement and the underlying trend in politics that it represents.

Context is King

The last 7 years (at least) have seen the complete takeover of national discourse and cultural exchange by a group of rabid left-wing fanatics in the West. These “Social Justice Warriors” as they have come to be known, have managed to push their fringe Trotsky-ist ideas on the cultural mainstream of America and now act as the enforcers of punishing speech codes in academic institutions, the HR offices of corporate America, the mainstream media and our elected officials.

They have managed to do so with the tacit approval and even outright encouragement of the Establishment Elites.

It is no exaggeration to say that the West is in a state of complete self-negation, lost and confused, angry as well- and willing to lash out. There has perhaps been no other time in history where the Western peoples have been so abjectly demoralized.

The younger generation of Westerners in particular has been systematically taught to be ashamed of their heritage during their 12+ years stint in the Education camps. It is especially noticeable in higher education, where students are taught to believe there is something uniquely oppressive in being a straight male, something uniquely oppressive in being of European descent, something particularly deplorable about being straight…and on it goes. And there are serious consequences for stepping out of the echo-chamber of ethno-masochism and self-hate…

It has come to the point where it is easier to come out publically to polite society as a Tranny than it is to come out as a Trump supporter.

But for every action there is a reaction. The witch-burning mob mentality of the Regressive Left engendered a reaction, and in 2015, the lame stream media finally caught a whiff of it. But even before the current year, many Nativist patriots, non-interventionists, economic nationalists or social conservatives found themselves unable to articulate their views in any public capacity without facing serious repercussions for their unfashionable WrongThink.

Consequently, many movements took to the wild unexplored reaches of the Internet to hone their rhetoric, conduct their discussions and reach out to new minds. By the very nature of the current political paradigm, the many disparate movements that were spawned online had to remain anonymous. (This is true in Europe as much, if not more than in the United States. ) And it seems that only now with the Donald Trump’s meteoric rise in the Republican party has the Overton Window begun to shift back to the right, and allowed for the public articulation of these taboo sentiments.

But what IS the Alt-Right? What do they stand for?

The span of blogs, sites and online communities that can be called “Alt-Right” is as vast as it is varied. They range from well established alternative dissident right sites like Unz, Vdare, Takimag, and Amren that pre-date the “Alt-Right” label and instead can be thought of as the inheritors of a Natural Conservative or Paleo-Conservative tradition in American politics. But there are also younger, more free-wheeling sites like The Right Stuff, and the masthead of the Alt-Right- Radix Journal.

To quote the Head Editor of Radix, Hannibal Bateman:

“The Alt-Right is a growing cultural and political movement that rejects the liberal and globalist hegemonies, particularly in the United States, that have defined the post-World War II West. As such, it is a young, technologically savvy movement that is engaged in building a new counter culture against America’s aging soixante-huitardes similar to continental ‘Identitarian’ movements.”

Many of these new right thinkers eschew the big tent “Alt-Right” label that the MSM has lumped them under for one reason or another, but all together they comprise a massive samizdat movement of online Dissidenti. Furthermore, the alt-right does not just deal with politics; it is an all-encompassing intellectual movement. There are HBD (human bio-diversity) enthusiasts, male self-improvement advocates, rebellious sub-cultures of 5th gen. meme-warriors as well as Monarchists, Traditionalists, National-Libertarians, Socialist-Nationalists, Identitarians and Russo-philes…

On Russia

In the West, Russia is usually viewed with a mix of foreboding and hysteria. However, the Alt-Right has a more favorable opinion. Their generally russo-philic attitude stems from their view that Russia and Eastern Europe have preserved the best of European cultural values. After the fall of communism, a sort of role-reversal occurred. The west remained free of economic communism, but fell under the spell of “Cultural Marxism.”

On the topic of Cultural Marxism, whole tomes can be written, but suffice it to say, whereas traditional Marxism aims to erase economic inequality, Cultural Marxism aims to eliminate perceived social inequality based on race, gender and sexual orientation. One could say that the West won the Cold War and retained its free-market economic system of Capitalism…and yet there is everywhere apparent a spirit of Cultural Marxism prevalent in the West. .

The late Jonathon Bowden, (a dissident right wing thinker from the UK) articulated a prevailing belief in the Alt-Right in a talk titled, Western Civilization Bites Back.

“The new Eastern Europe is rather really interesting and will have a lot to say about the future of European man in the next century or so. Eastern Europe was preserved by communism from the decadence of the liberalism which has semi-destroyed Western Europe (and points to the west of that)… Communism was a strange doctrine, because it preserved under permafrost many of the characteristic social chapters of what it means to be a European.”

To put it simply, Russia is seen as a beacon of reason and civilization by many on the Alt-Right. Time will tell if their faith in Russia is justified or not. But they, and other similar Dissident Right movements are the only parties that will even hear Russia out.

Generation Trump

Just as Russia is being encircled by NATO forces, and pilloried in the international media, so too have the hyenas in the MSM been hounding the now GOP nominee, Donald Trump.

To put it mildly, the entire edifice of Western civilization is crumbling and it would only be a slight exaggeration at this point to point out that much of the West lives in a post Camp of the Saints scenario. Yet, just as America- shell-shocked and confused- hit Peak-PC, Donald Trump arrived like a savior in the night. His boldness and willingness to openly state Anti-Globalist policies won him the adulation of dispossessed middle-America…and the scorn of the Neo-Trotskyite Intelligentsia. Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump is seen by many on the Alt-Right as the last chance for Western Civilization to save itself from the brink of civilizational collapse.

Most importantly, the rise of Donald Trump heralds the new era of identity politics. As Donald Trump taps into the simmering discontent of the dispossessed white working class of America, he begins to transcend the traditional left/right divide among voters. The real divides are now along the lines of Identity. With him stands Generation Alt-Right. Against him stands the New Internationale.

Perhaps the best example of the merger between globalist interests and the Regressive Left can be seen in the recent #marchforeurope protests. Indoctrinated Millenials, old-school labor voters, and the recently imported Third World have joined in an unholy alliance with The City and EU bureaucrats to protest a popular referendum on the European Union. The New Left- once a champion of liberal values in the West- now demands harsher controls on speech in the name of combating “Hate Speech” and actively promotes greater flows of economic migrants who will undercut the wages of the native working class.

To many of the older generation, much of what I have said may come as a surprise. But the fact remains that the old political positions have gone topsy-turvy, and it all has happened in the relative blink of an eye. As it stands now, the old peace-promoting, anti-imperialist, pro-working class Left has left the stage. We live in a brave new borderless world now- or so we are told by the new cultural commissars. Many are coming to realize that there is no left or right anymore. There are only Globalists and Nationalists, and the young Alt-Right stands at the vanguard of the latter. They are the product of a new generation being forced to rediscover their identity and come to terms with their dispossession.

A generation who spit out the narratives of guilt and self-hate they were fed as children. A generation that intimately understands the raw deal they have been given and that resents a political culture that justifies their economic, and social plight on the grounds of fighting “systematic racism.” For their whole lives, they have been blamed for historical “sins” outside their control. And now they fight over an offense they did not give, against those who were not even alive to be offended. That realization forms their consciousness. Where Samuel Huntington once asked: “Who are we?” – the Alt-Right has picked up the torch and started coming to its own conclusions…

“Free movement of people is simply incompatible with democracy”

This is from a commentary on an interview in The New York Times with Michael Ignatieff, someone who almost defines the meaning of the word globalist, and titled, “Who Belongs?”.

Q. Brexit took a lot of people by surprise as a specific political event, but also as an expression of some larger trends. One of those is rising nationalism despite globalization and the development of cross-border institutions like the European Union. Where are these coming from?

A. One thought that does strike me is: Why should we be surprised?

Globalization and a borderless world have been terrific for the educated, the young, the mobile, the multilingual, the multicultural. But globalization has been really tough for people whose jobs are tied to a community, whose mobility is limited by limited education, and — more positively — whose first allegiance is to their community, their locality, their place of birth.

Cosmopolitans are perpetually surprised that, A, they’re only 1 percent of the population, and, B, most people don’t think like them. …

They feel the global, mobile, cosmopolitan world is simply out of reach. Not only out of reach, but malign, in the sense that the global cosmopolitan elite are the people who are shipping the jobs out. …

This is a story not just about nationalism. It’s also a story about inequality. The division between cosmopolitans and nationalists is going to define the 21st century. Brexit is not just a little hiccup on the path toward a bright cosmopolitan future. Nor is nationalism. Cosmopolitans continually condescend to nationalism, but my patriotic pride is your nationalism, right?

Q. But if nationalism comes from positive feelings of pride and connection to one’s community, why does that often seem to manifest in fears of immigration as a threat to that community, as it did with Brexit?

A. The issue always is: Who belongs?

In many ways, global migration is exacerbating the salience of the division between a citizen and a stranger. Citizens are saying everywhere, “The one thing that political community means to me, the one thing a nation means to me, is control of my borders and the right to define who comes in and who doesn’t.”

Brexit was an amazing spectacle in which people who are recent immigrants, Indians, Pakistanis in origin, were saying, “No more Poles.” These were citizens saying: “We’ve lost control of our frontiers. Free movement of people is simply incompatible with democracy. It’s incompatible with the self-determination of peoples.”

That’s what nationalism is: “Take back control, control of our borders. Take back control of our economy.”

The problem, in a globalized world, is that all control is relative.

And here’s some more.

I do think that there’s a real disconnect between an international cosmopolitan discourse about rights — the rights of migrants, the rights of refugees — versus the way in which ordinary people in most democracies see this question.

For ordinary people, a citizen’s relation to a stranger is a gift relationship, not a rights relationship.

They think it’s up to the citizen to decide who gets in. It’s up to the citizen who decides what the boundaries of a political community are.

That’s what democracy means to them. That’s what democracy promises them: control of borders and the handing out of discretionary gifts to those they decide belong in the community.

There are a lot of Brexiters who think a decent country is generous to strangers, is compassionate to strangers. But that’s the language of the gift. That’s not a language of rights. This is an emerging theme that a lot of liberal cosmopolitan politicians — and I have been one! — didn’t understand.

This is a key element of this nationalist turn. We’ve all been slow to see that happening, but that’s a big trend going down, the distinction between rights and gifts. It helps to understand that.

Entebbe – 40 years on

entebbe memorial

A statue in Uganda of Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother Jonathan, who was killed in the Entebbe raid

For me, the anniversary is on the sixth of July 1976 which is the day the news of the raid at Entebbe reached us here in Australia. Today is the fortieth anniversary of that moment. To show how the world does change, the commemorative service, addressed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – whose brother led the raid and was killed by the terrorists – spoke at Entebbe on the anniversary.

Monday’s ceremony at the scene of the raid was attended by some of the rescued hostages and Israeli special forces who carried out the operation.

Mr Netanyahu said: “Exactly 40 years ago Israeli soldiers carried out the historic mission in Entebbe. Forty years ago they landed in the dead of night in a country led by a brutal dictator who gave refuge to terrorists. Today we landed in broad daylight to be welcomed by a president who fights terrorism.”

His elder brother, Jonathan, was shot dead as he led the operation to free hostages, who had been taken captive on an Air France flight by Palestinian and German militants.

For those who do not know of this moment, the story is told as the story of Yoni Netanyahu, the Prime Minister’s brother, who led the raid on an exhilarating day I have never forgotten.

The consequence of a civilizational commitment to civilizational suicide

These are the same people who think Global Warming is a problem. And after you have watched it through, then you can read how a generation lost its common culture wherein will be found:

Our students’ ignorance is not a failing of the educational system – it is its crowning achievement. Efforts by several generations of philosophers and reformers and public policy experts — whom our students (and most of us) know nothing about — have combined to produce a generation of know-nothings. The pervasive ignorance of our students is not a mere accident or unfortunate but correctible outcome, if only we hire better teachers or tweak the reading lists in high school. It is the consequence of a civilizational commitment to civilizational suicide. The end of history for our students signals the End of History for the West.

What you don’t know can hurt you

These are the questions that come from an article on HOW A GENERATION LOST ITS COMMON CULTURE, but all it really shows is the chasm that separates the generations. No one would know this, but what’s worse, no one among the young would think it matters.

Ask them some basic questions about the civilization they will be inheriting, and be prepared for averted eyes and somewhat panicked looks. Who fought in the Peloponnesian War? Who taught Plato, and whom did Plato teach? How did Socrates die? Raise your hand if you have read both the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Canterbury Tales? Paradise Lost? The Inferno?

Who was Saul of Tarsus? What were the 95 theses, who wrote them, and what was their effect? Why does the Magna Carta matter? How and where did Thomas Becket die? Who was Guy Fawkes, and why is there a day named after him? What did Lincoln say in his Second Inaugural? His first Inaugural? How about his third Inaugural? What are the Federalist Papers?

None of them understand how an economy works, which I think is infinitely worse. They could barely give you a coherent explanation how their bread and milk find their way to the kitchen. But then again, neither could most adults.

They don’t know that their societies have enemies, or even have enough knowledge of what their society is, and how it is different from all others, to know that it needs to be protected, nor would they know how to do it.

It seems bad to me and to the chap who wrote the article, but who knows if it is? But if it does turn out to matter as we think, consequences will follow. Until then, but only until then, we shall just go on as we have.

The new racism

From The New Reform Club: Reflections on the Revolution in the UK – Number 4. The first three can also be found at the link.

A fictionalized exchange on television between any Labour candidate for MP and an audience member during the 2015 general election …

Labour Candidate for Parliament: We hear your pain.

Audience Member: My neighbourhood is being transformed by mass migration. I don’t like many of these changes.

Labour Candidate for Parliament: I understand. New immigrants—frequently coming without skills that fit the modern U.K. economy—cause wage compression at the low end of the wage scale. We will make sure employers pay the minimum wage; we will ensure that your economic interests are protected.

Audience Member: No, that’s not my point (at least, that’s not my only point). I don’t like how our society is being changed by mass immigration. I don’t like polygamy. It is illegal, but no one gets prosecuted for it. I don’t like FGM. It too is illegal, but it is not actively prosecuted. I don’t like it when the immigrants’ customs are accommodated in these ways—I don’t want our criminal laws ignored by the immigrants or by the police and the prosecutors. It makes me feel unsafe—it makes me think the immigrants’ way of life is preferred over ours. The immigrants should be integrated into our communities, not the other way around.

Labour Candidate for Parliament: I understand. We will work to ensure that your wages are not compressed.

Audience Member: You’re not listening. That’s not what I said: I don’t like the direction your party’s immigration policies under Blair & Brown have taken our country. I don’t like where we are now as a result—not that Cameron has done anything to modify those policies.

Labour Candidate for Parliament: No, that’s not right. My job is not to ensure your vision of the good society. I live in the real world, in the EU which determines U.K. immigration policy, not in your antiquated vision of Little England and William Blake’s Jerusalem. My job is to protect your objectively rooted economic interests. I will do that by monitoring and controlling the behaviour of employers via the minimum wage, unions, and collective bargaining. But once that is done, then we must take all newcomers on an equal basis, particularly those claiming asylum. We should not pick and choose immigrants based on their likelihood to integrate into the extant political community. Picking and choosing immigrants based on their values (or language, or willingness to learn our language) is unfair to immigrants. Of course, as a result, society may evolve in a direction you don’t like. That could happen. But we are morally obliged (as we are obliged under international law) to take that risk. Your trying to block such a development in favour of your parochial Little England values is morally objectionable. Your values are no better than my values and no better than the immigrants’ values. Your language (English) should not be favoured over the immigrants’ languages. Our diversity must respect these differences. In fact, your trying to determine your society’s demographic future—through immigration controls—is (white van man) racism.

Simply put, you don’t have a right to decide what sort of society this will be: you don’t have a right to hold such an opinion. Sorry—that was over broad. I suppose you may hold any opinion you want; you can even voice it in private and public. What I mean is that I—as your member of Parliament—will not and should not value your opinion. This country, i.e., this country’s future, is not yours. You and your family just happen to live here.

Audience Member: My grandparents voted for Bevan & Gaitskell, and my parents voted for Frank Field & Tony Benn. You have lost my support, and I guess I want my country back.