What Constitutes a Constitution?
“They had these long knives and started shouting about Allah. Then it was, ‘Islam, Islam, Islam’ Like an idiot I shouted back at them. I thought, ‘I need to take the piss out of these bastards’. I took a few steps towards them and said, ‘Fuck you, I’m Millwall’."--Roy Larner, from his hospital bed
"The Flight 93 Election", Publius Decius Mus: "So what do we have to lose by fighting back? ...Among the many things the “Right” still doesn’t understand is that the Left has concluded that this particular show need no longer go on. They don’t think they need a foil anymore and would rather dispense with the whole bother of staging these phony contests in which each side ostensibly has a shot.
If you haven’t noticed, our side has been losing consistently since 1988. We can win midterms, but we do nothing with them.
Because the deck is stacked overwhelmingly against us. I will mention but three ways. First, the opinion-making elements—the universities and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on “cis-genderism”—formerly known as “nature”—and on the supposed “white privilege” of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn’t been abundantly clear for the last 50 years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia—including all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda—is overwhelmingly partisan and biased. Against this onslaught, “conservative” media is a nullity, barely a whisper. It cannot be heard above the blaring of what has been aptly called “The Megaphone.”
Second, our Washington Generals self-handicap and self-censor to an absurd degree. Lenin is supposed to have said that “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” But with an opposition like ours, why bother? Our “leaders” and “dissenters” bend over backward to play by the self-sabotaging rules the Left sets for them. Fearful, beaten dogs have more thymos.
Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties.
Because they are.".......
"“My view is that we are no longer facing random acts of terrorism,” says Frank Gaffney, a terror expert who is president of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy. “We have reached a tipping point. This is now an insurgency. The Muslim terrorist population in Britain and Europe no longer feels constrained to live by stealth,” Gaffney says. “They have built an infrastructure, they have put it in place, and now they are moving up to the next level.” Gaffney calls the new phenomenon “Sharia Supremacism.” And he warns that the United States is on the same trajectory.
He’s right." --John Moody
Wretchard: "Civility, like anything else, requires resources. U.S. troops in WWII generally did not have to loot to avoid starvation, often had enough manpower to guard POWs, and could afford a training mechanism that instilled and maintained discipline in the ranks. This made it feasible for them to observe a higher standard of humane behavior than most armies, inasmuch as such things are possible in war.
"The thing is, you don’t get Hitler because of Hitler — there are always potential Hitlers out there. You get Hitler because of Weimar, and you get Weimar because the liberals are too corrupt and incompetent to maintain a liberal polity."--Glenn Reynolds
Mark Steyn: "The reality of what is happening in Britain and Europe is that this problem was imported and that, until you stop importing it, you're going to have more of it.
The cynical strategy of British and Continental leaders is to get their citizens used to this. For that to work, it's not helpful for new attacks to follow so swiftly on the last attacks. After Manchester, Mrs May raised the official "Threat Level" from Mildly Perturbed to Somewhat Disturbed or whatever it was, and in order further to reassure the public put soldiers on London's streets.
Meanwhile, even as the politicians trot out the rote response that these attacks "won't change us", everything changes: more armed police, more soldiers, more bollards, more security checks - and smaller lives, fewer liberties, less free speech. London Bridge still stands, but everything else is falling down, in Britain and Europe.
One of the Saturday-night killers was not just a "known wolf" but had appeared in a Channel 4 national TV show about "extremism". He was an Emmy nominee for Best Jihadist in a British Extremism Documentary.".......
Samizdat Revolt: "You Ain't No Muslim, Bruv"
"We now find ourselves in the absurd situation where non-Muslim onlookers shout out "you're not a Muslim!" at Muslim terrorists whilst they're in the middle of killing people. The guy responsible for shouting this inanity was apparently just acting on "instinct", which goes to show how far the masses have internalized the view that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and feel emotionally compelled to profess it. Even when they're being attacked.
Now that's a level of propagandist brainwashing even the USSR could not achieve. And the mainstream media are only too happy to peddle it.
So when exactly did Muhyadin Mire, the attacker, stop being a Muslim? After all, his brother reportedly said:
Perish the thought! It would appear that the very moment Muhyadin stopped being a Muslim in the eyes of the media was when he decided to do something bad, and hack infidels with a machete.
So they trotted out their default No True Scotsman fallacy. Because Muslims cannot do anything bad. If they do, they're not a Muslim.".......
"But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams, letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798
 |
| The Man who Fought Back |
"The Flight 93 Election", Publius Decius Mus: "So what do we have to lose by fighting back? ...Among the many things the “Right” still doesn’t understand is that the Left has concluded that this particular show need no longer go on. They don’t think they need a foil anymore and would rather dispense with the whole bother of staging these phony contests in which each side ostensibly has a shot.
If you haven’t noticed, our side has been losing consistently since 1988. We can win midterms, but we do nothing with them.
Because the deck is stacked overwhelmingly against us. I will mention but three ways. First, the opinion-making elements—the universities and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence. (What else are the wars on “cis-genderism”—formerly known as “nature”—and on the supposed “white privilege” of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn’t been abundantly clear for the last 50 years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia—including all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda—is overwhelmingly partisan and biased. Against this onslaught, “conservative” media is a nullity, barely a whisper. It cannot be heard above the blaring of what has been aptly called “The Megaphone.”
Second, our Washington Generals self-handicap and self-censor to an absurd degree. Lenin is supposed to have said that “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” But with an opposition like ours, why bother? Our “leaders” and “dissenters” bend over backward to play by the self-sabotaging rules the Left sets for them. Fearful, beaten dogs have more thymos.
Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties.
Because they are.".......
"“My view is that we are no longer facing random acts of terrorism,” says Frank Gaffney, a terror expert who is president of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy. “We have reached a tipping point. This is now an insurgency. The Muslim terrorist population in Britain and Europe no longer feels constrained to live by stealth,” Gaffney says. “They have built an infrastructure, they have put it in place, and now they are moving up to the next level.” Gaffney calls the new phenomenon “Sharia Supremacism.” And he warns that the United States is on the same trajectory.
He’s right." --John Moody
Wretchard: "Civility, like anything else, requires resources. U.S. troops in WWII generally did not have to loot to avoid starvation, often had enough manpower to guard POWs, and could afford a training mechanism that instilled and maintained discipline in the ranks. This made it feasible for them to observe a higher standard of humane behavior than most armies, inasmuch as such things are possible in war.
But kindness is a luxury on the battlefield, where survival takes priority over everything else, and first to be jettisoned in resource starvation.
The UK is running low on counter-terror resources. The British police simply don't have enough men to watch an insurgent army of this size [23,000 jihadis], and have had to cancel famous public events like the Changing of the Guard to release police from duties like crowd security or road closures. "The sad truth about the Government’s decision to deploy up to 5,000 troops on British streets is that it is an admission of failure," wrote Robert Verkaik. In particular, it is a failure to anticipate the threat and to provide enough resources to maintain the required superiority which makes the civilities possible. Not surprisingly, tolerance has become the first casualty of the new correlation of forces.
The Lone Wolves -- emboldened by success -- are forming a pack, and the lurkers are coming out of the woods to pull down their larger but helpless victim. When that happens, it's No More Mr. Nice Guy. May's plan to regulate the Internet has the advantage of being easier to implement than watching 23,000 jihadis. Europe is beginning to admit it has doesn't have enough hard force to deal with the new threats. Hence the reliance on candles, tweets, dimmed lights. It's not virtue, it's necessity. But when the candles stop working they will be forced to Plan B.
Feckless politicians have let things get to the point where all the remaining options are bad. By allowing the margin of superiority to slip, they are making the descent from the Marquess of Queensberry Rules to street fighting inevitable.
The old and the new stand frozen in time, captured by that image. The cabbie, prepared to use his two-ton vehicle as a weapon, represents the sad new. The bobbies "running towards [terrorists] with their batons drawn" as the cab driver incredulously watches represent the gallant old. It has all the pathos of a First World War cavalry charge against a line of entrenchments on the Western front, of a kindly old order vainly struggling against extinction by a harsh, Terminator-type world of cold repression that governments by slow degrees will be forced to implement. How long before the taxi-ram, not the baton, becomes the new normal?
Yet we brought it on ourselves. An unsustainable program of political correctness killed the very thing it swore to protect.".......
"The thing is, you don’t get Hitler because of Hitler — there are always potential Hitlers out there. You get Hitler because of Weimar, and you get Weimar because the liberals are too corrupt and incompetent to maintain a liberal polity."--Glenn Reynolds
Mark Steyn: "The reality of what is happening in Britain and Europe is that this problem was imported and that, until you stop importing it, you're going to have more of it.
The cynical strategy of British and Continental leaders is to get their citizens used to this. For that to work, it's not helpful for new attacks to follow so swiftly on the last attacks. After Manchester, Mrs May raised the official "Threat Level" from Mildly Perturbed to Somewhat Disturbed or whatever it was, and in order further to reassure the public put soldiers on London's streets.
Meanwhile, even as the politicians trot out the rote response that these attacks "won't change us", everything changes: more armed police, more soldiers, more bollards, more security checks - and smaller lives, fewer liberties, less free speech. London Bridge still stands, but everything else is falling down, in Britain and Europe.
One of the Saturday-night killers was not just a "known wolf" but had appeared in a Channel 4 national TV show about "extremism". He was an Emmy nominee for Best Jihadist in a British Extremism Documentary.".......
Samizdat Revolt: "You Ain't No Muslim, Bruv"
"We now find ourselves in the absurd situation where non-Muslim onlookers shout out "you're not a Muslim!" at Muslim terrorists whilst they're in the middle of killing people. The guy responsible for shouting this inanity was apparently just acting on "instinct", which goes to show how far the masses have internalized the view that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and feel emotionally compelled to profess it. Even when they're being attacked.
Now that's a level of propagandist brainwashing even the USSR could not achieve. And the mainstream media are only too happy to peddle it.
So when exactly did Muhyadin Mire, the attacker, stop being a Muslim? After all, his brother reportedly said:
"No one was influencing him. He was praying five times a day. He loved to read the Koran."Is it possible that one of the passages that really stuck was "When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks" - Quran 47:4?
Perish the thought! It would appear that the very moment Muhyadin stopped being a Muslim in the eyes of the media was when he decided to do something bad, and hack infidels with a machete.
So they trotted out their default No True Scotsman fallacy. Because Muslims cannot do anything bad. If they do, they're not a Muslim.".......
"But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams, letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798
John Adams wasn't telling you to go to church and eat your vegetables.
He was describing exactly what Great Britain and the West are going through today; the problem of guaranteeing constitutional rights of privacy, free association, travel, communication and even bearing arms to subversives, criminals, terrorists, revolutionaries and former presidents.
And the Framers understood all this, having experience with the Islamist Musulmen Barbary Pirates, the guillotine-soaked proto-Communist French Jacobins and the organized crime cartels of the Caribbean pirates.
And the Framers understood all this, having experience with the Islamist Musulmen Barbary Pirates, the guillotine-soaked proto-Communist French Jacobins and the organized crime cartels of the Caribbean pirates.
Western constitutions were made to enshrine the God-given rights of decent citizens. They can tolerate a certain level of criminality and subversion in the populace, but not an unlimited amount.
Franklin described pure democracy as mob rule: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
But you don't have to get to a majority level of subversives before you have a big problem. I don't know what the exact percentage is, but when terrorist attacks are as common as George Clooney's ex-girlfriends, you're probably there. Even if Great Britain has "only" an insurgent army of 23,000 jihadis, they operate within a much larger community of Muslim sympathizers. Not to mention Leftist politicians and Uni-Party hacks.
As Robert Spencer explains, there are plenty of moderate Muslims--but no moderate Islam. But even accepting King Abdullah of Jordan's formulation of a civil war being fought within Islam, there are some big issues.
First, the guy in the train station who exclaimed "You Ain't No Muslim, Bruv!" (and every politician from Cameron to Obama who echoed him) are saying King Abdullah is wrong. Because if the jihadi not a Muslim, then there is no civil war within Islam, is there?
In our Civil War, it was American vs. American. Same here. I trust a King of Jordan to have a better insight on Islam than any Western lefties.
There are two sides of the civil war within Islam--and we have been letting both sides immigrate into the West.
But unlike our Civil War, where the Federals and Confederates confined their hostilities to each other, the jihadists in Islam's civil war want to kill or conquer everyone else on the planet, not just moderate Muslims. And the first impulse of the culpable politicians in dealing with this unnecessary multi-cultural security threat that they brought upon their own countries will be, not to curtail Muslim immigration, but to curtail the historic rights previously enjoyed by native citizens.
Screw that.
President Trump's temporary pause on visas for six failed states and one spectacularly successful enemy state (Iran) is a good start, completely sensible and perfectly legal. (I say 'spectacularly successful' because the placement of an Iranian agent in the Oval Office rescued the regime from the students' democracy movement, gave them billions of dollars, provided political cover to secure their nuke program, and allowed Russia to give them uranium and defensive missiles to guard their weapons facilities. Obama even blinded our investigators on behalf of Iran. That is a spectacular success by any measurement. By comparison, Great Britain's minor success in recruiting Benedict Arnold pales into insignificance).
Every time there is another attack, I think of the Soros-funded mobs at the airports howling "Let Them In! Let Them In!!" That means I think of them a lot.
They believe that everyone on the planet has a Constitutional Right to come to America this afternoon. They don't want to change the law--they believe that already is the law. They might as well be chanting "Make Us Slaves! Make Us Slaves!" Funny how they don't show up at the airport after each new terrorist attack to chant "Let Them In!".
They--and their scofflaw judges--think that any restrictions on Muslim immigration--or any immigration--amount to unconstitutional bigotry. If Islam were just a matter of personal conviction, they might be point--although no one, NO ONE, has a Right to come here unless we say so.. But traditional Islam is not just about the individual conscience of the believer.
Traditional Islam teaches the establishment of a theocracy, the suppression of free speech, the violent subjugation of infidels and the taxation of non-believers--all of which are in direct opposition to our Constitution.
Under Sharia, Muslim men are the only first-class citizens.
Muslim women are second-class citizens. Infidel men are third-class citizens. Infidel women are fourth-class citizens. Jews are fifth-class citizens. And Gays are lower than dogs--who they don't like either.
Other religions are suppressed. Free Speech is quashed. Religious taxes are imposed. Violence, deception, conquest and subjugation of others are all clearly advocated, acceptable and even mandatory.
Clearly, many Muslims choose not to practice or support those concepts. But too many do. Way too many. If there is indeed a civil war within Islam, it needs to be fought and won by the good guys before we import any more of it into the West.
Recently, a Saudi immigrant showed up at a South Dakota Christian conference on jihadism. He was proclaiming his Second Amendment rights while trying to intimidate other peoples' Speech rights. He was making threats and waving an arsenal around, probably while high on meth.
Is that what our Constitution was meant to protect? Hardly. When John Adams said that Western Constitution(s)* were made only for 'a moral and religious people', he did not mean Abdul of the Badlands here. Or the London Train Station-Stabbers.
The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact even if some idiot leftists are hell-bent on committing Cultural Suicide.
In the recent London attack, the "moral and religious people" John Adams spoke of turn out to be, implausibly enough, a foul-mouthed, working class, beer-drinking, bar patronizing Millwall Soccer fan who finally said what his Government wouldn't: "Enough!"
Our Constitutions were made for Roy Larner after all. That's perfect.
Enough, bruv, enough.
What's in Your Constitution?
(*Not to conflate the British and American Constitutions, but all Western democracies face this issue of guaranteeing rights to subversives. The difference between British and American Constitutions? The Brits' is unwritten and ignored by politicians; Ours is written and ignored by politicians.)
Franklin described pure democracy as mob rule: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
But you don't have to get to a majority level of subversives before you have a big problem. I don't know what the exact percentage is, but when terrorist attacks are as common as George Clooney's ex-girlfriends, you're probably there. Even if Great Britain has "only" an insurgent army of 23,000 jihadis, they operate within a much larger community of Muslim sympathizers. Not to mention Leftist politicians and Uni-Party hacks.
As Robert Spencer explains, there are plenty of moderate Muslims--but no moderate Islam. But even accepting King Abdullah of Jordan's formulation of a civil war being fought within Islam, there are some big issues.
First, the guy in the train station who exclaimed "You Ain't No Muslim, Bruv!" (and every politician from Cameron to Obama who echoed him) are saying King Abdullah is wrong. Because if the jihadi not a Muslim, then there is no civil war within Islam, is there?
In our Civil War, it was American vs. American. Same here. I trust a King of Jordan to have a better insight on Islam than any Western lefties.
There are two sides of the civil war within Islam--and we have been letting both sides immigrate into the West.
But unlike our Civil War, where the Federals and Confederates confined their hostilities to each other, the jihadists in Islam's civil war want to kill or conquer everyone else on the planet, not just moderate Muslims. And the first impulse of the culpable politicians in dealing with this unnecessary multi-cultural security threat that they brought upon their own countries will be, not to curtail Muslim immigration, but to curtail the historic rights previously enjoyed by native citizens.
Screw that.
President Trump's temporary pause on visas for six failed states and one spectacularly successful enemy state (Iran) is a good start, completely sensible and perfectly legal. (I say 'spectacularly successful' because the placement of an Iranian agent in the Oval Office rescued the regime from the students' democracy movement, gave them billions of dollars, provided political cover to secure their nuke program, and allowed Russia to give them uranium and defensive missiles to guard their weapons facilities. Obama even blinded our investigators on behalf of Iran. That is a spectacular success by any measurement. By comparison, Great Britain's minor success in recruiting Benedict Arnold pales into insignificance).
Every time there is another attack, I think of the Soros-funded mobs at the airports howling "Let Them In! Let Them In!!" That means I think of them a lot.
They believe that everyone on the planet has a Constitutional Right to come to America this afternoon. They don't want to change the law--they believe that already is the law. They might as well be chanting "Make Us Slaves! Make Us Slaves!" Funny how they don't show up at the airport after each new terrorist attack to chant "Let Them In!".
They--and their scofflaw judges--think that any restrictions on Muslim immigration--or any immigration--amount to unconstitutional bigotry. If Islam were just a matter of personal conviction, they might be point--although no one, NO ONE, has a Right to come here unless we say so.. But traditional Islam is not just about the individual conscience of the believer.
Traditional Islam teaches the establishment of a theocracy, the suppression of free speech, the violent subjugation of infidels and the taxation of non-believers--all of which are in direct opposition to our Constitution.
Under Sharia, Muslim men are the only first-class citizens.
Muslim women are second-class citizens. Infidel men are third-class citizens. Infidel women are fourth-class citizens. Jews are fifth-class citizens. And Gays are lower than dogs--who they don't like either.
Other religions are suppressed. Free Speech is quashed. Religious taxes are imposed. Violence, deception, conquest and subjugation of others are all clearly advocated, acceptable and even mandatory.
Clearly, many Muslims choose not to practice or support those concepts. But too many do. Way too many. If there is indeed a civil war within Islam, it needs to be fought and won by the good guys before we import any more of it into the West.
Recently, a Saudi immigrant showed up at a South Dakota Christian conference on jihadism. He was proclaiming his Second Amendment rights while trying to intimidate other peoples' Speech rights. He was making threats and waving an arsenal around, probably while high on meth.
Is that what our Constitution was meant to protect? Hardly. When John Adams said that Western Constitution(s)* were made only for 'a moral and religious people', he did not mean Abdul of the Badlands here. Or the London Train Station-Stabbers.
The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact even if some idiot leftists are hell-bent on committing Cultural Suicide.
In the recent London attack, the "moral and religious people" John Adams spoke of turn out to be, implausibly enough, a foul-mouthed, working class, beer-drinking, bar patronizing Millwall Soccer fan who finally said what his Government wouldn't: "Enough!"
Our Constitutions were made for Roy Larner after all. That's perfect.
Enough, bruv, enough.
What's in Your Constitution?
(*Not to conflate the British and American Constitutions, but all Western democracies face this issue of guaranteeing rights to subversives. The difference between British and American Constitutions? The Brits' is unwritten and ignored by politicians; Ours is written and ignored by politicians.)
 |
| "...and the Home of the Brave." |
No comments:
Post a Comment