How much resolve is there, was the question put. And the unmistakable answer is there is no resolve at all. This is the article at Powerline, The Global Establishment Closes Ranks Against Tommy Robinson, but what I am more interested in are the comments.

It’s the globalists against the nationalists across the board. In Britain, they want to censure free speech because the Deep state there is trying to overturn Brexit. In Italy, the globalists are subverting Democracy when it doesn’t return the results they want, just as they’re doing in America. For us, it isn’t about dems vs repubs, it’s globalists vs nationalists. the leadership of the GOPe side with the globaalists.

So instead of sequestering a single jury the entire country is kept from knowing the facts of the case.

The Islamists might as well be in charge in Britain, assuming that they aren’t in charge already.

Needless to say Islam opposes free speech. Muslims (and Muslim money) I suspect are driving the elite Brits.

The nice British politicians have been in control too long, have allowed massive immigration by mohammedans too long, have kow-towed to the filthy, rabid dog mohammedan invaders too long, have put up with the alien mohammedan ideology too long. It is time, and high time too get rid of those nice British politicians, one way or the other. Where are Nigel Farrage and Daniel Hannon and anyone–there must be others–who think as they do? The Saturday demonstration in front of Whitehall in support of Tommy must have some meaning. Is the whole UK going morally rotten? We were hoping it was just the politicians for life and the situation could be corrected.

Daniel Hannon? That articulate “conservative” gentleman actually favored Obama, don’t you know? And yes, the whole UK, at least their leadership and their establishment, have gone morally rotten and cowardly. Nigel Farage is an exception.

Britain is lost. It is ironic that the free countries in Europe are those that were in the Warsaw Pact. They saw tyranny up close and didn’t like it.

C’mon, in Canada, in Toronto even, where I grew up and from which I fled. Via Instapundit.

RESOLUTION REJECTED: “BE IT RESOLVED, WHAT YOU CALL POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, I CALL PROGRESS”: Friday night’s Munk debate in Toronto shows that Canadians (in general not exactly a rough bunch) reject political correctness.

Even before Michael Eric Dyson & Michelle Goldberg (FOR THE RESOLUTION) squared off against Stephen Fry & Jordan Peterson (AGAINST THE RESOLUTION), the crowd was already strongly against the resolution (36% FOR vs. 64% AGAINST). But after the debate it was overwhelming (30% FOR vs. 70% AGAINST). The shift of 6% to AGAINST made Fry & Peterson the declared winners of the debate.

Ho hum, right?  It’s not like this is surprising.  Yet the identity politics juggernaut marches forward both in Canada and the USA, aided by a strong and effective ethic of political correctness, which makes open discussion of the issues more difficult than is should be.

The Trump Administration has had only the most marginal effect. There is a special look of terror that comes over the eyes of conservative political leaders when one brings to their attention the opportunity to say or do something that would help. Alas, I have witnessed that look too many times to count.

There are often endless dangers in saying what you think. The left is only looking to run around shouting and to make your life a misery over the slightest word that can be wilfully misinterpreted to others who are always happy and excited to take their side against you. A 70% result in an anonymous poll only shows what everyone should know, and PDT’s election made clear.

A fascinating and terrifying story: Former NYC media player finds himself living in homeless shelter after life took ‘unfathomable’ downward spiral. The details are all too plausible and the outcome undoubtedly a nightmare. Life has no certainty and security is never guaranteed. Just a bit chosen almost at random:

He was at 30th Street for five weeks. His cell phone was stolen. On his 70th birthday, Sept. 15, Homeless Services staff told him he was moving to another smaller shelter in Brooklyn. They also told him he would have to get there by himself.

“I had two duffel bags,” he said. “I protested. They put me on a bus at 10 that night with three others. One was dropped at Wards Island. They dropped two guys in Queens. They dropped me off at 2 a.m.”

Jackson now found himself living in another dorm room within the 62-bed facility run by the non-profit group Camba. He says they promised he’d be out by Thanksgiving. He’s still there.

He is still sane and seems to have his senses together. Just every option seemed to close and no one could offer him a landing. The article is an attempt for him to find his way out, and there is a book in his experience that might even be more horrific than anyone would ever wish to read purely because there is no reason something like that could happen to everyone. The Count of Monte Cristo spend years in the Chateau D’If but Dumas has no story if he dies there. But in real life many do just that, if not actually most.

I don’t normally find Nietzsche worth quoting, but on the desire for revenge among those suffering ressentiment – which encompasses a depressingly large proportion of the left – he seems to be quite on the money. These madmen in Florida and Toronto, and not just there, appear to use murder as a form of self-therapy. They were described by Nietzsche in Book III – Section 15 of his Genealogy of Morals:

All those who suffer instinctively seek a cause for their suffering; more exactly, an agent; still more specifically, a guilty agent who is susceptible to suffering – in short, some living thing upon which they can, on some pretext or other, vent their emotions, actually or in effigy: for the venting of their emotions represents the greatest attempt on the part of the suffering to win relief, anaesthesia – the narcotic they cannot help desiring to deaden pain of any kind. This alone, I surmise, constitutes the actual physiological cause of ressentiment, vengefulness, and the like: the desire to deaden pain through the discharge of emotion.

The desire is to deaden, by means of a more violent emotion of any kind, a tormenting secret pain that is becoming unendurable, and to drive it out of consciousness at least for the moment: for this purpose one needs an emotion, as savage an emotion as possible, and, in order to excite that emotion, any pretext at all will do. “Someone or other must be to blame for my feeling” – this kind of reasoning is common to all the sick, and is indeed held the more firmly the more the real cause of their feeling remains hidden. . . .

All sufferers, one and all, are dreadfully eager and inventive in devising excuses for painful emotions; they revel in their suspicions, dwelling on imaginary slights; they scour the entrails of their past and present for obscure and questionable occurrences that offer them the opportunity to revel in tormenting suspicions; they intoxicate themselves with the poison of their own malice: they tear open their oldest wounds, they bleed from scars long since healed; they make evildoers out of their friends, wives, children, and whoever else stands closest to them. “I suffer: someone is to blame.”

I would also think no little part of the murderous activities among migrant communities comes from their inability to achieve positions of status within the communities in which they or their parents have come. The cause is their inability to adapt and join in on the productive side of our very open economies, but are unable to understand why. Their desire for revenge burns deep.

The denizens of Gaza, who look into the productive and generally prosperous state of Israel, have that same resentment, fuelled in no small part by their massive envy of the Israelis in company with an absolute rejection of any recognition that the Israelis are merely superior in their organisational and perhaps more general cultural abilities.