Not horrible but rather unpleasant and threatening

This is Scott Johnson’s description of the experience of a Swede who went into the Muslim area of Malmö “disguised” as a Jew:

John Howard Griffin famously enlisted the assistance of a dermatologist to have his skin darkened so he could pass as a black man traveling in the deep South for six weeks in late 1959. He reported his experiences in Black Like Me. Based on the journal he kept, the book has sold more than 10 million copies and remained continuously in print since its publication in 1961.

Swedish journalist Petter Ljunggren had a similar idea, though he didn’t have to go to Griffin’s lengths to conduct the experiment. Replicating the experiment conducted by journalist Patrick Reilly in October 2013, Ljunggren donned a kippah and a Star of David to walk the streets of Malmö, Sweden, with its large Muslim population. Captured with a hidden camera, the experience depicted is not horrible, but rather unpleasant and threatening (at 17:50 and 29:30 or so in the video below).

The Algemeiner reports on the results of the experiment here. Elder of Ziyon follows up here. . . .

The comments at YouTube indicate that accurate English subtitles are forthcoming; the current English subtitles were generated automatically via Google. They have the quality of Ezra Pound’s translation of Anglo-Saxon poetry into modern English without the imposing rhythms or alliterative lilt. You sort of get the drift.

Whether Christian or secular, this is your fate as well unless dealt with as a matter of some urgency.

I’ve completely changed my mind

I went back and watched a bit of the game between the Patriots and the Colts and everything about it sickened me. I know it’s only football, but Brady was cheating and the game’s the thing. And while it is true that “It’s not ISIS – No one died”, it’s not for him to say it. In fact, by using one of the most horrific aspects of international politics today as a means to distract attention from his own grubby conduct, his behaviour is even more grubby than it was before.

Whatever success he has had on the field, it is all ashes now.

“This isn’t ISIS. No one’s dying.”

I do love North American football, the game I grew up with, played and watched. There is, I must confess, nothing like it. But there is now a scandal overtaking the Superbowl that is quite astonishing. In the conference final for the AFC, the game balls used by Boston were underinflated which apparently makes them easier to catch. And let me tell you, catching a football thrown by a real quarterback is a bracing experience – try catching a leather-covered brick thrown at you at full speed from about ten yards. I can well believe that underinflation (which is different from deflation) can be a genuine benefit.

No one is owning up to anything. But I do have to say that if the single most important tool of your trade is a football, you will know what it ought to feel like the moment you pick it up. If it’s not quite 13 pounds per square inch – that is, if it doesn’t feel like a leather-covered brick – you will know, as will all of the people who the ball is being thrown to. Had Boston not won the previous game 45-7, the story would be even more intense, but with the score so one-sided, nothing else to say. And since each team uses its own ball, the other team’s quarterback would not have had the same advantage. And since the referees check the game ball before it goes into play, and are kept separate the entire time, for the balls to have been underinflated would require a conspiracy of some proportion.

Nevertheless, what interested me this morning was this comment by the Boston Patriots quarterback, Tom Brady:

“This isn’t ISIS,” Brady said. “No one’s dying.”

Sometimes it troubles me that I can wile the hours away on such frivolity as such things as grand finals, test matches, the World Series and of course, North American football while the world is going to hell at every turn. But if Tom Brady can see the relative significance of such things, so can I.

Go Pats!

Personal Explanation and Some Follow Up: I’ve just come home from reading The Herald Sun which has as its main front page story of the day, how England’s one-day cricket captain is being blackmailed. I have checked the front pages of The Boston Globe, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The La Times and The Washington Post. All have this story on the front page, and it will no doubt rage for at least another week.

The headline lead story on Drudge is “NFL ON THE BRINK” and comes with this picture.

nfl footy

Cheating in sport is not unknown. The referees pick up the ball on every play, so it is even possible (remotely) that Brady never noticed, since they didn’t seem to notice. But it is not the end of the world as we know it, there are other events going on that are more important. I find Brady’s sanity and sense of proportion in the midst of it all quite alluring.

FUTHER UPDATE: John Hinderaker at Powerline has also bought into this, where he can see things right from inside the US. He wrote:

Over the years, some have argued that not having to care about politics is a luxury that Americans are able to enjoy because of our stable democracy and effectively guaranteed freedoms. There is some truth to that. Still, it is hard to believe it is a good thing that sports arouse more passion, attract more attention, and are more often the subject of intelligent discussion than politics. If Americans knew as much about Republicans and Democrats as they do about Seahawks and Patriots, wouldn’t the country be better off? One would think so.

In his press conference this afternoon, Tom Brady – note that there is no need to identify him (QB-NE) the way we do with politicians (R-TX) – said of the football inflation controversy, “This isn’t ISIS, you know, no one’s dying.” To me that seems like a voice of sanity, but football fans were unconvinced. At the moment, at least, “Who deflated the footballs?” is a more compelling question than “Will ISIS take Baghdad?” And eight years after the event, there are still more people who consider Bill Belichick a villain for taping opposing coaches than who consider Barack Obama a villain for violating the Constitution.

Priorities. It is all a matter of priorities.

Free speech is not part of a suicide pact

There is an interesting argument that I think belongs to Leo Strauss, in which he says many of the great philosophers cannot be read straight, but must be seen to have written in a kind of code, because to say exactly what they meant would have landed them in major difficulty. I am not amongst the great philosophers, but I know the feeling. There are some things I don’t say, and others that are said in a way that is intended to diminish the dangers such thoughts must cause. No one is infinitely brave. We all wish to see another day and to continue earning our pitiful incomes and leading our lives without interruption. But we know the kind of world we are in, and hope to shape things for the better. And so we write, but on some things are not entirely straightforward. But to depend on others to see our intended irony, or to deduce what we really mean when we have written words that are intentionally obscure, is, I know, ridiculous.

I have gone back to read William Buckley’s God & Man at Yale which is astonishing, not just because he was 24 when he wrote the book in 1950, but mostly because it speaks to our own times with perfect foresight. He was writing about one form of totalitarianism while we are dealing with another. But his Chapter 4 on “The Superstitions of ‘Academic Freedom'” is so exactly stated that you would think he was observing us today. I found much of it astonishing, but this was right to the point:

“Democracy may not be truth, but so far as at least Yale University is concerned, it is the nearest thing to truth that we possess, so that while a faculty member is perfectly free to point out the limitations, defects, and weaknesses of democracy, as is right and proper, he is not privileged, at the margin, to advocate the abolition of democracy in favour of totalitarianism.” [p. 155]

From which he went on to say:

“Truth does not necessarily vanquish. Truth does not carry within it an antitoxin to falsehood. . . . Truth can win only where people are temperamentally and intellectually disposed to side with it, for the mere act of recognizing it as such does not entail the wilful act of attaching allegiance to it” [p. 157].

His point being that there is right and wrong, and it is our duty to stand up for what is right, and suppress what is unarguably wrong. So one more quote, and then that’s that:

“I hasten to dissociate myself from the school of thought, largely staffed by conservatives, that believes teachers ought to be ‘at all times neutral.’ Where values are concerned, effective teaching is difficult, if not impossible, in the context of neutrality; and further, I believe such a policy to be a lazy denial of educational responsibility.

“I believe, therefore, that the attitude of the teacher ought to reveal itself, and that, assuming the overseers of the university in question to have embraced democracy, individualism and religion, the attitudes of the faculty ought to conform to the university’s.” [p 181]

A wholly different world, since there is little doubt democracy, individualism, and religion, as Buckley understood them, are today opposed by administrations and faculty alike.

And while I’m at it I might mention this very long, but incredibly insightful, post put up online the other day: C. S. Lewis on Mere Liberty and the Evils of Statism by David J. Theroux. You can read the text, or if you prefer, watch the video below which is the better option.

I will just include this from the last part of the address since I think it is so pertinent to the way that economics is now studied and taught. It’s a trivial example, as these things go, but not without serious significance:

For Lewis, science should be a quest for knowledge, and his concern was that in the modern era science is too often used instead as a quest by some for power over others. Lewis did not dispute that science is an immensely important tool to understand the natural world, but his larger point is that science cannot tell us anything that is ultimately important regarding what choices we should make. In other words, Lewis shows that “what is” does not indicate “what ought” to be. Scientists on their own are not able to address moral ethics, and all social and political questions are exclusively questions of morality. Lewis furthermore viewed as nonscience, or scientism, all those disciplines that attempt to replicate the scientific method to analyze man: “[T]he new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. . . . If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. . . . Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about science. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man’s opinion no added value” (“Is Progress Possible?” pp. 314-15).

But do read (or watch) it all.

They certainly will if they can

The title is self-explanatory of the article, GERMAN EMBED REPORTER: ISIS PLANS ON KILLING ‘HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS’ IN ‘RELIGIOUS CLEANSING’. This is the whole article:

Jurgen Todenhofer, the first Western reporter to embed with Islamic State fighters and not be killed in the process, spoke to Al Jazeera about his time with the terror group.

Todenhofer lived side by side with the jihadist fighters for ten days in the Islamic State-stronghold city of Mosul, Iraq. He was accompanied only by his son, who served as his cameraman.

“I always asked them about the value of mercy in Islam,” but “I didn’t see any mercy in their behavior,” explained Todenhofer. He added, “Something that I don’t understand at all is the enthusiasm in their plan of religious cleansing, planning to kill the non-believers… They also will kill Muslim democrats because they believe that non-ISIL-Muslims put the laws of human beings above the commandments of God.”

The German reporter then elaborated on how shocked he was about how “willing to kill” the ISIS fighters are. He said that they were ready to commit genocide. “They were talking about [killing] hundreds of millions. They were enthusiastic about it, and I just cannot understand that,” said Todenhofer

He warned that the Islamic State “is much stronger than we think,” and that their recruiting has brought motivated jihadis from across the globe. “Each day, hundreds of new enthusiastic fighters are arriving,” explained Todenhofer. “There is an incredible enthusiasm that I have never seen in any other war zones I have been to.”

The journalist asserted that the U.S.-led bombing campaign was not going to stop the Islamic State and its continuing jihad. He told Al Jazeera that he believed the terror group would only be stopped if fellow Sunni Iraqis would rise up against them.

And then there’s this, Suppose Islam Had a Holocaust and No One Noticed, in which we find a good deal of other things, among which he says the following:

“We will conquer Europe one day. It is not a question of (if) we will conquer Europe, just a matter of when that will happen,” an Islamic State spokesman had warned. “The Europeans need to know that when we come, it will not be in a nice way. It will be with our weapons.”

“Those who do not convert to Islam or pay the Islamic tax will be killed.”

Imagine that the burning towns and villages aren’t in Nigeria or Syria. Imagine them in France or Sweden. It’s not that great of a leap from armed cells carrying out attacks to a militia capturing entire towns and villages. They’re different phases in the same conflict. [My emphasis]

On the road to cultural euthanasia

future we thought we would have

This is David Solway in the same observation mode that I find myself in as well: Watching the World Fall Apart. He writes what I think. The following para is a very grim start, but if you read the whole article, you can find more of what we both think about the future. It is a dark age, which can no longer be avoided, but it is hard to find anyone with a wide public audience to sound the alarm.

The name of the game today is denial of the undeniable all across the spectrum of the major issues that afflict us. Denial that temperatures have been stable for the last eighteen years and that the diminution of sunspot activity heralds an age of global cooling rather than warming, as John Casey, president of the Space and Science Research Corporation, has decisively established in his recently published Dark Winter. Denial that Israel is the only democratic, morally legitimate state in the Middle East and that the Palestinian narrative of historical and cadastral residence is demonstrably false. Denial that Islam is a totalitarian entity and a religion of war that has set its sights on the ruination of western societies; and denial of the fact that Judeo-Hellenic-Christian civilization, for all its flaws, marks the high point of human political, social, cultural and scientific development.

The political creed of our time is progressive internationalism: collectivist central direction in a world of open borders. It won’t last long, but in the meantime our generation gets to be entertained by watching what has been built fall apart. The next generation will get to live amongst the ruins.

Mark Steyn and Judenrein

The news is grim and a paralysis sets in. Cairo may yet become safer than Cannes. This is Mark Steyn on A Judenrein Europe:

Had they not died as part of the Charlie Hebdo killers’ final act, I wonder how much publicity the murders of Philippe Braham, Yohan Cohen, Yoav Hattab, and François-Michel Saada at a kosher grocery store would have attracted. An Islamic fanatic killed another quartet of Jews at the Jewish Museum in Brussels last spring, and it was a big story for a couple of days, and then faded away. Over the last decade, the Continent seems to have developed a certain psychological ease with the routine murder of Jews. What remains of Jewish communal life in Europe now takes place behind reinforced doors and barbed wire, and the actual extinction of an entire identity group’s presence is discussed as calmly as the long-range weather. Forty-five per cent of British Jews say Jews have no future in Britain, and 58 per cent says Jews have no future in Europe.

European leaders like M Hollande insist they’re able to protect the Jewish community – or at least hold the remorseless picking-off of their members to manageable levels. The leader of the continent’s biggest Jewish group is disinclined to take such assurances:

In a letter sent to interior ministries around Europe and obtained by Newsweek, Rabbi Menachem Margolin, director general of the Rabbinical Centre of Europe (RCE) and the European Jewish Association (EJA) – the largest federation of Jewish organizations and communities in Europe – writes: “We hereby ask that gun licensing laws are reviewed with immediate effect to allow designated people in the Jewish communities and institutions to own weapons for the essential protection of their communities, as well as receiving the necessary training to protect their members from potential terror attacks.”

The Jews are always the canaries in the coal mine, so they won’t be the last in Europe to discover that, when it matters, the state isn’t there for you. There is a memorable moment in Michel Houellebecq’s new novel Soumission, released the day of the Charlie Hebdo slaughter, in which the protagonist’s Jewish girlfriend Myriam decides it’s time to get the hell out of France and flee to Israel. And François says bleakly, “There is no Israel for me.”

Not many Frenchmen yet understand that. So they do not see the lesson for them in the dizzying and total de-normalization of Jewish life on the Continent in the 21st century. Here’s what I wrote on the subject just under three years ago:

If the flow of information is really controlled by Jews, as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright assured his students at the Chicago Theological Seminary a year or two back, you’d think they’d be a little better at making their media minions aware of one of the bleakest stories of the early 21st century: the extinguishing of what’s left of Jewish life in Europe. It would seem to me that the first reaction, upon hearing of a Jewish school shooting, would be to put it in the context of the other targeted schools, synagogues, community centers, and cemeteries. And yet liberal American Jews seem barely aware of this grim roll call. Even if you put to one side the public school in Denmark that says it can no longer take Jewish children because of the security situation, and the five children of the chief rabbi of Amsterdam who’ve decided to emigrate, and the Swedish Jews fleeing the most famously tolerant nation in Europe because of its pervasive anti-Semitism; even if you put all that to the side and consider only the situation in France… No, wait, forget the Villiers-le-Bel schoolgirl brutally beaten by a gang jeering, “Jews must die”; and the Paris disc-jockey who had his throat slit, his eyes gouged out, and his face ripped off by a neighbor who crowed, “I have killed my Jew”; and the young Frenchman tortured to death over three weeks, while his family listened via phone to his howls of agony as his captors chanted from the Koran… No, put all that to one side, too, and consider only the city of Toulouse. In recent years, in this one city, a synagogue has been firebombed, another set alight when two burning cars were driven into it, a third burgled and “Dirty Jews” scrawled on the ark housing the Torah, a kosher butcher’s strafed with gunfire, a Jewish sports association attacked with Molotov cocktails…

Here’s Toulouse rabbi Jonathan Guez speaking to the Jewish news agency JTA in 2009: “Guez said Jews would now be ‘more discreet’ about displaying their religion publicly and careful about avoiding troubled neighborhoods. … The synagogue will be heavily secured with cameras and patrol units for the first time.”

This is what it means to be a Jew living in one of the most beautiful parts of France in the 21st century.

Well, you say, why are those Jewish kids going to a Jewish school? Why don’t they go to the regular French school like normal French kids? Because, as the education ministry’s admirably straightforward 2004 Obin Report explained, “En France les enfants juifs — et ils sont les seuls dans ce cas — ne peuvent plus de nos jours être scolarisés dans n’importe quel établissement”: “In France, Jewish children, uniquely, cannot nowadays be provided with an education at any institution.” At some schools, they’re separated from the rest of the class. At others, only the principal is informed of their Jewishness, and he assures parents he will be discreet and vigilant. But, as the report’s authors note, “le patronyme des élèves ne le permet pas toujours”: “The pupil’s surname does not always allow” for such “discretion.”

Metropolitan Toulouse has a population of 900,000 or so, about the size of Jacksonville, Fla. Imagine if, in Jacksonville, synagogues were firebombed, and kosher butchers shot up, and Jewish schoolkids gunned down, and, in the dull, placid months between the spasms of front-page attention, the cold, ongoing Jew-hate were so routine that it was no longer safe for a Jew to walk his own city with any identifying mark of his faith, or for his child to reveal his Jewishness at school.

In Toulouse, much of the Jewish community arrived after the religio-ethnic cleansing of French North Africa in the Sixties and Seventies. What they fled has followed them to the Midi-Pyrénées, and now it’s time to move on again — as it is elsewhere in Europe. “Jews with a conscience should leave Holland, where they and their children have no future, leave for the U.S. or Israel,” advised Frits Bolkestein, the former EU commissioner and head of the Dutch Liberal party. “Anti-Semitism will continue to exist, because the Moroccan and Turkish youngsters don’t care about efforts for reconciliation.”

Thus, posterity’s jest. Pre-war Europeans would never have entertained for a moment the construction of mosques from Malmö to Marseilles. But post-war Holocaust guilt, and the revulsion against nationalism and the embrace of multiculturalism and mass immigration, enabled the Islamization of Europe. The principal beneficiaries of the Continent’s penance for the great moral stain of the 20th century turned out to be the Muslims — with the Jews on the receiving end, yet again.

And now Glenn Reynolds adds this: France’s demographic bad luck, in which he writes:

Now European nations are facing population deficits, and they’ve replaced those missing Jews with Muslim immigrants who — unlike the Jews — are for the most part far less educated, don’t really consider themselves part of European society, and have no particularly strong desire to integrate into it, which bodes poorly. As Eugene Volokh — himself an immigrant to the United States — observes, in a democracy, when you let in immigrants, you are letting in your future rulers.

Not as wild as you might think

Some background on Cheryl Strayed, the woman who wrote the book that has been turned into the film, Wild, starring Reece Witherspoon:

Strayed married Marco Littig on August 20, 1988. They were married for six years. In 1999, Strayed married filmmaker Brian Lindstrom. They have two children and live in Portland, Oregon. Her daughter, Bobbi Strayed Lindstrom, played the younger version of Strayed in the film adaptation of Wild. A long-time feminist activist, Strayed served on the first board of directors for Vida: Women in Literary Arts.

Conventional as her life may seem, I take it then that the film is intended to portray a feminist icon, although I must confess to having been quite shocked by the way the story went. I am a first-stage feminist going back to the 1960s. The moment the word “zipless” appeared, I knew exactly where I was. Indeed, I am a nineteenth century feminist, in that probably the greatest influence on my thinking has come through John Stuart Mill and his The Subjection of Women.

Still, what astonished me about the story was the role that men played in saving her at each of the main turning points in her life, at least as portrayed in the film. I won’t say where, but you can watch for it. The final moments, when a group of chaps tell her the trail name others have given her – something like Queen of the PCT (that is, Queen of the Pacific Crest Trail where she was hiking) – was due to the way everyone had bent over backwards to help her out as if she were royalty, made me think this was supposed to be a parody of the self-contained, independent woman. But it’s not.

One final point. Her mother dies of some unspecified form of cancer, but in the actual account she dies of lung cancer, and had presumably been a smoker. Not mentioned, nor do I recall seeing her mother with a cigarette. In Hollywood, positive characters are not permitted to have negative characteristics.

Unbroken – an absolute triumph

Don’t watch the video until you’ve seen the movie. But then you should watch it to see how true to his story the film really is. Or, you can watch the video anyway, and then decide for yourself. But I went just because we wanted to see a movie tonight and we’d seen everything else. I went with no expectations – actually I was somewhat reluctant – and it turned out to be a film I would not have wanted to miss had I known what it was about.

As for the film, I won’t tell you much, but I will say this. Not nominating Angelina Jolie for best direction is a scandal, and is only because this is one of the most conservative movies you are ever likely to see. It also has one of the best war sequences I have also ever seen, absolutely harrowing. You are in the plane, and you are asking yourself (a) how will they survive and (b) how does anyone ever go into battle in the first place, never mind get back in the plane the next day, and then the day after that?

My last point, which is not a spoiler. The left will not tolerate a positive story about religion, where a believer in God is treated as a normal human being with genuine virtues that come from that belief. You don’t find it in films very often, but you do find it here. “Based on a true story” comes with all the usual caveats. But it is also an amazing film, and if you want some idea of how true or not it is, you can watch the video, either now or when you come back.

Rotten Tomatoes: critics 50% / audience 73%
IMDb: 7.2.

Finally note this: Joel Coen (screenplay), Ethan Coen (screenplay). As far as storylines go, it doesn’t get better than that.

How, exactly, is this not true?

Theo Caldwell on The Future Belongs to Islam.

If A Christmas Carol and the Terminator movies taught me anything, it’s that the future can be changed. That said, barring some unforeseeable course correction in Western society, we are going to lose this so-called War on Terror.

Specifically, Islam will vanquish us – our government and civil structures overrun, and our vaunted institutions reduced to Ozymandias-style ruin.

This defeat will be accomplished by various means, including demography (as scrupulously documented by columnist Mark Steyn, a long-time harbinger of America’s decline), liberty-squelching surveillance, censorship, and, above all, our disturbing lack of faith.

Having lived too long on the intellectual capital of greater generations, we have no understanding, much less appreciation, of the legacies left to us. To wit, we don’t know who we are, we don’t know what we believe, and that’s why we’re going to lose.

The Charlie Hebdo and kosher market massacres in Paris (and before them, recent attacks in Australia, Canada, Boston, etc.), along with the pusillanimous, politically correct responses thereto, reveal the stunning contrast between our corpulent, complacent culture and the lean, hungry enemy we face.

To Muslim Jihadists, this isn’t just life and death – this is eternal, spiritual, divine.

And what do we believe in? Climate change, micro-aggressions and man-spreading. Do we even know what matters? By “we,” I mean all of us, top to bottom, in today’s culture.

The erstwhile leader of the free world pays lip service to the notion of free speech, while mendaciously blaming its exercise for his foreign policy failures. Simultaneously, his administration contorts itself hideously to avoid calling our pressing danger by its name.

Even the Pope – at a time when Christians are brutalized and murdered in Africa, the Middle East and across Asia, what does he do? He comes out full-bore against global warming.

We brag about our supposed freedoms and the inherent superiority of our systems, but do we believe any of that? Do we even know what it means?

I know the sort of freedoms I cherish, but the priorities of a little guy like me don’t amount to a hill of beans in modern America.

That is, they prevail on parchment, but not in practice. Run down the items in the Bill of Rights and see how many remain intact in our age of speech codes, civil forfeiture, obscene searches and capricious prosecution.

Moreover, if we were to start over again today, is there any chance we would enact such a charter of negative liberties (i.e., things the government cannot do)? More likely, we would weave some interminable, EU-style document infested with such newfangled “human rights” as free health care and transgender bathrooms.

Consider freedom of speech and private property. If our generation sought to build a new society, would we understand that these two rights form the bedrock of liberty?

Most important, where do these rights come from, in the modern reckoning? Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et al. were confident they are endowed by our Creator, nature’s God.

Whence do our rights emerge today? From the Supreme Court? The United Nations? Oprah?

Ask any Obama-voting, Jon Stewart-suckling pajama-boy to name the source of his freedoms and he’ll just stare at you like Cameron gawking at the Seurat in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

And this is why we are going to lose. We believe in nothing, let alone God. As for the Islamists, at least they have SOME god on their side.

As was stipulated in my radio interview with the Godfather of Canadian free speech, Ezra Levant, perhaps 99 percent of the world’s Muslims can be considered moderate. Even if that estimate were accurate, out of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, that leaves some 15 million – over ten times the number of active-duty personnel in the US military – eager for Holy War.

Numbers aside, survey the culture and governments of Muslim nations, to say nothing of the actions of the Jihadists, and ask yourself what influence such moderates wield in real terms. Is it logical to assume moderates will have more power after the radicals achieve victory over the West?

Again, that’s 15 million willing to kill, and die, for their convictions. As Hyman Roth asked Michael Corleone after the latter saw a Castro loyalist blow himself up rather than be taken alive, “What does that tell you?” The reply? “They can win.”

How does that compare with our side’s prevalent faith systems? Would environmentalists die for their beliefs? Heck, they won’t even live by them.

And so, we will lose. That is, unless we and generations yet unborn find a fortitude and cultural confidence that has not been seen on our side in decades. How likely is that?

Will we, pace Dylan Thomas, continue to go gently into that not-so good night? Or may we yet summon the will to rage, rage against the dying of the light?

And if that doesn’t depress you, and you’re still game for more, try this: Houellebecq and Cassandra. The first two paras:

So Michel Houellebecq quit promoting his new book. Instead he’s hiding out somewhere in the provinces.

Houellebecq, whose name I despise having to spell, is the French satirical novelist who was featured on the last Charlie Hebdo cover before the January 7th deluge of Islamist blood-whining. I have no inside information as to whether he retreated from the capital out of writerly dramatics, or real fear for his life; the news reports are cagey and I am not, alas, a personal acquaintance of the dour genius who was dragged into court in 2002 for calling Islam the stupidest of all religions.

It only gets worse from there.