Tuesday, 21 March 2017
In his blog, Loonwatch's Torbjörn Jerlerup describes himself as a “liberal” and adds that he's also a “member of the [Swedish] Social Democrats”.
Jerlerup seems to be the only writer for of Loonwatch who uses both his real name and allows the website to publish a picture of him. Darios and Garibaldi (Tell Mama's endlessly vicious, supercilious and smug Nathan Lean?) do neither of these things.
Anyway, we're expected to believe everything Jerlerup says about Sweden because he tells us, twice, that “I am from Sweden [I should know]”. (That's like saying that everything Saddam Hussein said about Iraq must have been true because he was born and bred in Iraq.)
Torbjörn Jerlerup's piece, 'Trump, Fox News and Swedish Crime Statistics', is almost an article-long non sequitur. Most his words are on crime and immigration in America, not Sweden. In other words, Jerlerup compares Sweden to the United States, and he does so in many respects.
It's almost that Jerlerup believes that there's some kind of necessary logical/causal link between the situation in America and the situation in Sweden. The most that can be said is this: as well as this article being one long non sequitur, it's also a classic case of whataboutism (as in, whataboutAmerica?). In other words, if Muslims have greatly increased the rate of rape and crime in Sweden, then surely what's happening in the United States is largely ir/relevant.
Importantly, Jerlerup fuses all immigrants together in his piece. At the same time as that, he also pretends that all right-wingers or conservatives do exactly the same thing. Yet conservatives or right-wingers (rather than National Socialists and fascists) have never been against all immigrants. They're in favour of productive and skilled immigrants and against, for example, illegal immigrants and (in the Trump era) Muslims from certain countries.
Donald Trump's Comments
This article itself is largely a response to Donald Trump's reference to Sweden some weeks time ago (February 21st). This article must have been written after left-wingers had finally realised that Trump hadn't actually referred to a terrorist act in Sweden; as they, at first, claimed. Instead, according to Jerlerup, Trump “talked about the U.S. Migration Ban and justified it by mentioning an 'incident' in Sweden”. He goes on to say:
“But nothing remarkable happened in Sweden that Friday (I am from Sweden). It is more probable that Trump was talking about a TV segment that aired Friday evening on Tucker Carlson (Fox) about 'Muslim Migration' to Sweden and alleged exploding 'crime rates' in Sweden.”
Despite all that, there were indeed riots in Sweden just one day after Trump's tweet. Nonetheless, according to Jerlerup, all Trump's words were designed to “scaremonger” and “fool people to view immigration as something negative and dangerous”.
Jerlerup does deign to admit that “Sweden surely has problems”. (That's nice of him.) However, in classic Marxist manner, these problems are apparently all due to “[u]nemployment and alienation among immigrants”. In other words, they have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam and Islamic supremacism. Indeed, in the entire article, Jerlerup mentions Muslims only once; which is to miss the point big time. Instead Jerlerup fuses all immigrants together; which I thought was something the “far Right” and “conservatives” were meant to do. Indeed, precisely because Jerlerup fuses all immigrants together, and in parallel with that fails to tackle the situation with Swedish Muslims, that enables Jerlerup to make many of the claims he does make. That mental block about Islam and Muslim immigrants makes his words seem almost acceptable... on the surface.
Murder in the United States: Murder in Sweden
As I said, about half (or more) of this piece deals with Swedish-American comparisons. Jerlerup, for example, tells us that “Sweden has about 1-1.3 murders per 100,000 inhabitants and the USA has about 5”.
Jerlerup then says that “there are no No Go Zones in Sweden where police cannot even enter”. On the other hand, “real 'No Go Zones' are the ones found in the USA”. Apparently, only “RACISTS” (his capitals) refer to “No Go Zones”. Jerlerup even cites two American no-go zones: “Philadelphia and Baltimore”. Compared to these American no-go zones, “the Swedish suburbs are VERY calm and peaceful”.
Again, how does the American (no-go-zone) reality influence - or logically entail - the Swedish (no-go-zone) reality? It doesn't. This is another of Jerlerup's whataboutisms.
Jerlerup again dilutes the issue by talking about how different countries define “rape” in different ways. He tells us, for example, that “Sweden has tough laws against rape reports and therefore has many reported cases of rapes in its statistics”. What Jerlerup doesn't tell us is that these stricter Swedish definitions of rape were brought in precisely because of the immigrant-induced rape crisis that country was facing at the time.
The other thing is that Jerlerup seems to hint that some “rape reports” (in Sweden) aren't really about rapes.
Here again we face yet another Jerlerup whataboutism aimed at the United States. According to Jerlerup,
“a lot of rapes are reported in Sweden: 63,5 rape incidents per 100,000 citizens. The USA with 300 million people has 27”.
Jerlerup's upshot is that there are more “rape reports” in Sweden than other countries; but not necessarily more rapes! And because of this anomaly, this “would lead you to think that the numbers of rapes are skyrocketing [in Sweden] but then you look at the figures”. Again, rape reports, according to Jerlerup, are not the same as rapes. Indeed the “Swedish law considers lots of acts as sexual assault and rape that other countries don’t”.
(Doesn't Jerlerup's position go directly against decades of feminist doctrine on the subject of rape? That is, that if the woman says she's been raped, then she has been raped?)
Jerlerup really puts the icing on the cake when he has the audacity to say that in order to “lower crime rates the U.S.A.”, Americans “should INCREASE immigration”! Yes, you heard that correctly. Jerlerup goes on to say that if Donald Trump “wants to decrease the rates of criminality in the USA”, then “he should open the borders and bring in more immigrants”.
Once we – again! - realise that Jerlerup has fused all immigrants together, one can see how he's trying to pull off his various sleights of hand.
Jerlerup quotes the New York Times also fusing all immigrants together. The NYT tells us that “'immigrants are far more law-abiding than natives, regardless of race, class or education'”. Which immigrants? Islamists? Mexican drug-runners? Somalian rapists? Muslims from certain countries? If Jerlerup and the NYT are instead talking about Indian doctors and mathematicians, or Russian neuroscientists, we can all agree. But they're not! They're both talking about all immigrants lumped together in a conveniently large Leftist/Liberal pile. This, again, is what they accuse the Right of doing. Yet here is Jerlerup doing the same thing in order to score various political points.
So when Jerlerup quotes Ruben Rumbaut (a sociologist) as saying that “'immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born'”, we can ask, again, which immigrants? Quite simply, the stats about one group of immigrants can be massively at odds with another group of immigrants. And Jerlerup must know that! In addition, is Jerlerup talking about new or second-generation immigrants?
The other point is that right-wingers or conservatives would never deny that the U.S. has a problem with crime. However, in terms of murder, the rates are so high primarily because of black-on-black killings. In addition to that, crime and murder rates are high primarily due to the decades of Democrat/socialist infantilization of certain American communities; though we can't go into that here.
Finally, since Loonwatch's Torbjörn Jerlerup backed up his position with a long quote from the New York Times, I'll do the same with the Gatestone Institute ('Sweden: Rape Capital of the West'). In the following, we have an alternative take on the statistics; as well as alternative statistics. And, interestingly enough, both writers (Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard) are, like Jerlerup, Swedish. Thus:
“In 1975, the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the former homogeneous Sweden into a multicultural country. Forty years later the dramatic consequences of this experiment emerge: violent crime has increased by 300%.
“If one looks at the number of rapes, however, the increase is even worse. In 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%.
“Sweden is now number two on the global list of rape countries. According to a survey from 2010, Sweden, with 53.2 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants, is surpassed only by tiny Lesotho in Southern Africa, with 91.6 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants...”
Wednesday, 15 March 2017
“ONE in three terror suspects arrested in Britain last year were [sic] white, figures show.
“They totalled 91 out of 260 individuals – 35 per cent – of those held on terrorism-related offences, according to the Home Office.
“It was the only ethnic group to show a rise, up from 25 per cent in 2015.
“The sharpest fall was for those of Asian ethnic appearance, down 24 to 125.” - (Metro, paper edition, March 10th, 2017.)
Now, what conclusions do readers come to after reading the above? Give yourselves a minute before reading on...
As for what I think, the above is an example one of two possible things. 1) A piece of logical imbecility. Or 2) A piece of crude propaganda.
As for the words above: this is a complete news item from the free British newspaper Metro. I wouldn't have commented on it until I saw the exact same thing in a few other newspapers. This lead me to conclude that it had been fed to the press either by the Home Office or directly by the police. Either way, it's still either a piece of logical inanity or an example of political Islamophilia.
To be more concrete: the piece above is meant to tell the British public that it has just as much to fear from “white” terrorism than it does from “Asian” (i.e., Islamic) terrorism. Sure, that message is between the lines; though it's still blatantly there.
So let's take these politically-correct and moronic figures apart.
Firstly, the piece tells us that “ONE in three terror suspects arrested in Britain last year were [sic] white”. Does that mean that we have a problem with white terrorism in the U.K.? Absolutely not! Whites make up 81.9% of the British population. That means that the one-in-three statistic (i.e., 33/34 white terror suspects out of a 100 suspects) tells us that the number of whites arrested for terrorist-related offences is extremely small relative to the total population of whites in the UK. If anything, it should be two-in-three arrests of white people. (Some of the Islamic terrorists might have been white too and some, the African converts from Christianity, were 'black' – where is this accounted for in the statistics? It isn't.)
But let's put this same stat in a different way.
Two-in-three terror suspects were non-white despite being only 19% of the U.K. population. What's more, virtually all non-white terror suspects would have been Muslim; not “Asian” or black/brown.
So what's the percentage of the U.K. population which is Muslim? Officially, the U.K. is 4.5% Muslim. Two-in-three of terror suspects come from 4.5% of the U.K. population. That shows that stating these facts in terms of ratios (i.e., “one-in-three” or 1/3) is very unhelpful. What's more, a statistician will tell you that this was a deliberate ploy on the part of the writers of this drivel.
Since Muslims are only 4.5% of the British population, it's hard to take the stat that whites “totalled 91 out of 260 individuals – 35 per cent – of those held on terrorism-related offences, according to the Home Office” positively (from a multiculturalist point of view). As we've seen, whites should represent around 81.9% of terror suspects. Yet they only make up only 35%. In other words, whites are massively under-represented when it comes to terror arrests. (Isn't this what left-wingers and liberals have been saying for years?)
Thus when Metro (care-of the Home Office or the police) tells us that whites were “the only ethnic group to show a rise, up from 25 per cent in 2015”, how are we supposed to take that? Well, from the way this piece and the stats therein are constructed, this is meant to instil a fear of white terrorism in the readers. Yet, on analysis, it should do the opposite!
There's one political (i.e., not statistical) conclusion we can make from the line that whites were “the only ethnic group to show a rise”. And that's that the police and/or the Home Office have obediently responded to Muslim and Leftist claims that too many Muslims were being arrested for terrorism-related offences (i.e., relative to the arrests of white Brits). Thus, because the Home Office and/or police couldn't invent the figures, they instead attempted to hoodwink people by using the fraction “one-in-three” instead of percentages. Indeed, as I've said, the entire piece is designed specifically to give the impression that the arrests of Muslims (or “Asians”) has fallen in parallel to the rise of white people being arrested. (Hence the sentence: “The sharpest fall was for those of Asian ethnic appearance, down 24 to 125.”) Yet, again, an actual analysis of the data shows the opposite.
Finally, if this piece of statistical crap is designed to appease Muslims and Leftists, then perhaps we should also bear in mind how the Home Office and/or police define the word “terrorism”. If the figures are being manipulated to assuage the feelings of Muslims and left-wingers, then perhaps the police and/or Home Office have also started to play games with the definition of the word “terrorism”. In other words, is leaving a pig's head outside a mosque (or even just pieces of bacon) now considered an act of terrorism? Is pulling the hijab off a Muslim woman (which has very rarely happened) classed as terrorism? If that's the case, then leaving a pig's head outside of a mosque is seen as being equivalent to planning to bomb a building which is full of civilians.
What follows is the British Government's own definition of the word “terrorism”. I'll leave readers to make their own conclusions. Thus:
(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where...
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system...” - (Terrorism Act, 2000.)
Friday, 10 March 2017
The following piece covers both the FBI definition of the word “terrorism”; as well as the statistics or percentages which flow from such a definition.
As for the title above: it was stolen from the Loonwatch website; though the same statistics have been cited by all sorts of other outlets (including CNN and Duke University). Indeed Loonwatch has another piece entitled 'Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t', which deals with Europe, rather than the United States.
The thing about an expert's citations of stats/percentages is that another expert - or even another twenty experts - could quite easily come along with just as many stats which work directly against all the positions and causes he's advancing. That's the thing about statistics – they can be made to say just about anything.
The fact is that Loonwatch, and to a lesser extent the FBI, are clearly using stats and definitions politically/ideologically. What I mean by that is that one can start off with a set of ideological/political positions (e.g., on Islamic terrorism, immigration, racism, employment, poverty, etc.), and then apply stats/percentages to them. The ideology/politics comes first and then the stats follow - they dress up or justify the political position.
This isn't an argument to the effect that “all statistics lie” or even that there's no place for statistics in political debate. It's just an argument for being sceptical about stats.
It's certainly convenient to Loonwatch, Tell Mama, the Southern Poverty Law Center, CAIR, etc. that, according to the FBI, "[t]here is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism”. That way, the figures for “white”, “nationalist”, “Latino”, etc. terrorism can easily be notched up to equal - and then surpass – that of Islamic terrorism. Such is the neatness and usefulness of definitions... and statistics. Thus leaving a pig's head outside a mosque, for example, can be - and has been - classed as “terrorism” (in the UK at least). We can go further: verbal abuse could be classed as “terrorism”.
The upshot of the above is twofold:
i) The problem of Islamophobia can be exaggerated.
ii) The stats for non-Islamic terrorism can be increased.
Whatever the case may be, here's the FBI on the definition of terrorism:
"There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as 'the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives'.”
Prima facie, the FBI's “definition of terrorism” is fantastically wide, as we've seen. Firstly, if “the unlawful use of force.... against... property” is included, then arson is terrorism. Not only arson, graffiti, smashed windows, etc. are also examples of terrorism.
Then there's “unlawful force” against “persons”. This too could include a single punch, spitting, etc. Perhaps even verbal abuse comes under this category.
The FBI is well aware - even if only implicitly - that its catch-all definition of terrorism isn't very helpful. Not only that: it fuses the mass killings of civilians with, say, smashed windows or arson.
This means that, according to the FBI, “acts committed by these extremists” (which “typically... targeted materials and facilities”) are included under the banner of “terrorism”. (Most of these attacks were committed by “animal rights and environmental movements”; as well as “Latinos”.)
Thus the Boston Marathon, the Bataclan, Nice and Hebdo are classed together with acts of arson and even window-smashing!
The FBI also mentions terrorism carried out under the banner of “right-wing extremism”. This includes “disruptions to plotting by individuals involved with the militia, white supremacist, constitutionalist and tax protestor, and anti-abortion movements”.
Yet, despite all the above, the FBI freely admits - again implicitly - that Islamic terrorism is often - or always! - very different to that which is carried out by non-Islamic groups and individuals.
Stats About Fatalities, Not Attacks
We could of course use stats about fatalities rather than terrorist attacks.
In that case, on the figures covered by both the FBI and Loonwatch, nearly all fatalities were from Islamic terrorism. Most people wounded were also wounded by Islamic terrorists.
On the other hand, there were 50 attacks by the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front. Those attacks resulted in no deaths and no injuries.
Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, deliberately target civilians. Separatist groups (such as ETA in Spain and France), for example, blow their bombs up at night. In addition, ETA's bombs are meant for government buildings, not for civilian areas/places.
The important thing to bear in mind is that these particular FBI reports (the ones cited by Loonwatch, CNN and others) cover the periods from 1980 to 2000 and from 2002 to 2005. In addition, they only deal with terrorism in the United States. (Though the FBI mentions other places which have suffered attacks.) Thus, if we come bang up to date, the reader will note the growing preponderance of Islam-related crimes. The following, for example, is from the FBI's website:
02.24.2017 — Eleven Individuals Including Two Miami-Dade County Residents and One Company Charged with Exporting Prohibited Articles to Syria
02.21.2017 — Columbia Man Charged with Attempting to Aid Terrorists [i.e., Islamic terrorists].
02.17.2017 — Man Sentenced for Attempting to Provide Material Support to ISIL
02.17.2017 — Madison Man Sentenced to 10 Years for Attempting to Provide Material Support to ISIL
02.16.2017 — Inmate Charged with Mailing Threats, Powder to Federal Officials
02.15.2017 — Everett Man Alleged to Support ISIL Charged with Additional Charge of Obstructing Justice
02.14.2017 — Enrique Marquez Jr. Agrees to Plead Guilty to Plotting Violent Attacks and Buying Firearms for Shooter [Syed Rizwan Farook] in San Bernardino Terrorist Attack
02.10.2017 — Two New York City Residents [both Muslims] Plead Guilty to All Charges in Terrorism Case.”
And even if we accept both the FBI definition of terrorism and the figures which flow from it, we still need to bear in mind that that Muslims make up only 1.8% of the United States population, and yet they are responsible for 6% of the terrorism in that country. (That's if we accept Loonwatch's figure in the first place!)
On a broader, less stats-based, perspective, we also need to decide whether or not Islamic terrorists are currently a “clear and present danger”. When Loonwatch goes back to 1980 for stats, it is doing so to deliberately mislead its readers. Thus when Loonwatch also pens a piece entitled 'Is Sweden Invaded by “Muslim Rapists?”' (as it did just over a month ago), we know exactly what kind of dissimulations to expect.
Islam is peace and stats never lie...
See also: 'Loonwatch's Loons, Wackos, and Sociopaths' and 'Loonwatch: 'The mooslims! They're here!', both @ American Thinker.
Wednesday, 1 February 2017
Get ready for Leftist many demos. Prepare yourself for much Leftist violence.
It seems that, because the law, universities, churches, etc. have been taken over by the Left, we most prepare for violence. I don't have a fetish for violence myself, as many International Socialists and National socialists do. I've simply realised that violence – “by any means necessary” - will be used against Trump.
Is it the case that because the democratically-elected Trump has faced so much lawfare, and his supporters so much violence on the streets, that we really need to realise what actions and attitudes are needed to counteract the fascist Left.
The Liberal-Left will fight against every Trump action and against the voter. Against ever word that Trump utters. Although the Left is elite, they can make a lot of noise precisely because making a lot of noise is what such Leftists do.
What are we going to do about this Leftist authoritarianism? For a start, we need to secure democracy from the violent Left. Above that, we need to realise that the Left wants total control no matter what.
In other words, we have to do what Nazi and Soviet dissidents did. Can we do that?
Lawyers have control and power which is way beyond many voters' knowledge and control. Indeed they've a political independence from politicians too.
The division of power is a good idea if the judiciary, lawyers, etc. form a broad spectrum. However, what if they're all Left-Liberals who're intent on thwarting democracy and thereby establishing a liberal/leftist society and state?
Lawyers almost constitute a state which is parallel to a government (in Trump's case). Put simply, no one votes for lawyers. They gain their jobs primarily because professional expertise and, more often than not, because of their strong political biases.
Take Sally Yates.
She's the just-sacked US Attorney General. She's said that female lawyers are becoming “the new heroes” in the Leftist war against Donald Trump’s travel ban. Yet over 61 million people voted for this ban and policies like it. Thus Leftist middle-class lawyers are rubbing the faces of voters in the dirt.
Trump's order placed a 90-day travel ban on people from seven countries, preventing citizens from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from being accepted for visas to enter the US.
Lawyers are vain creatures.
Leftist lawyers also bathe in their unelected political power. Lisa Bloom, for example, said that “lawyers are the new heroes, particularly female lawyers”. Who the hell is Lisa Bloom? Good question. She's not a politician, which means that not a soul has ever voted for her. Instead, she runs The Bloom Firm in Los Angeles. Lisa Bloom is explicit about her political intentions. She said:
“We take on very powerful people who violate the civil rights of ordinary Americans. We do sex discrimination cases, race discrimination cases and police misconduct cases every day.”
Ms Bloom, as a Liberal/Leftist lawyer, is keen on political activism, especially political activism which thwarts the will of the people. And that's why she, along with other lawyers, travelled to Los Angeles International Airport. Why did she do that? To offer services to possible terrorists and those being detained as a result of Trump's travel ban.
Lisa Bloom also managed to add a feminist angle to her political activism, which I'm sure Muslim immigrants and pretend refugees will much appreciate. She said:
“There were a lot of lawyers there, which is wonderful. We stand ready and able and willing to help in any way that we can.
Then she mentioned the Women's March, which I'm sure gladdened the hearts of the feminist Muslim Brotherhood and those Syrians who simply adore feminism. She said:
“The women’s march which I attended in Washington DC was such a powerful march. I think women are rising up.”
Here she explicitly articulated the power of Leftist lawfare. Yes, she believes that the travel ban is “unlikely to hold”. Then she gave her Marxist interpretation of the travel ban by saying that it's “a violation of all of the laws that we have against racial and religious discrimination”.
The White House, which is now fully aware of the power of the ideology of international socialism amongst lawyers, made the following statement about the decision to remove Ms Yates from her position:
“The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.
“Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.
“It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.
Is such Leftism a minority sport?
It seemed otherwise when one saw the recent demonstrations. But Leftists have always been into demos and other kinds of “direct action”.
Take the UK's Trotskyist Stop the War Coalition, which managed to get over a million people to demonstrate against the Iraq War in 2003. I say that the Stop the War Coalition is Trotskyist, which isn't also to say that all supporters and demonstrators are Trotskyists. What matters is who controls, runs and organises these demos, not the personal details of every demonstrator.
The Left will always take to the streets. Will always use violence against opponents. And will also believe in closing down free speech. Don't be swayed by the many automatons who go on these demos. For every one of these middle-class Leftists on a demo there are hundreds of patriots at home or at work trying to live their lives.
Tuesday, 31 January 2017
There have been numerous calls for the assassination of Donald Trump from anti-Trump activists recently. Almost every day there is a Leftist call to violence. However, have these anti-Trump activists actually thought this through? -
i) I assume that Mike Pence would take Trump's place.
ii) There'd be massive and unparalleled anger and frustration from the 61 million and more who voted for Trump.
If an assassination had happened before the inauguration, some said that the Presidency would've been Obama's again! Of course, the Left would like that in the sense that when democracy goes the way they want it to go, then they're happy with democracy. When it doesn't, well...
In any case, would anti-Trump bigots be happy with Mike Pence taking over? In many respects, Pence is more evil that Trump. After all, the hatred and bigotry of the Left isn't that discriminating. In other words, they hate Pence more than they hate Trump. Yes, the ultra-violent Left has called for Pence's assassination too! (What next, a Gulag for all Trump supporters?) The Left has also called for the death of Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Tommy Robinson, etc. And, historically, Pim Fortune (in 2002) and Theo van Gogh (in 2004) were assassinated, in Holland, by a Leftist and Muslim respectively.
Perhaps if Trump were assassinated, there would be reciprocal assassinations or other killings from the Right. Although the Republican Right doesn't riot (or try to bypass democracy), an assassination of a much-loved leader is a different thing entirely. Perhaps those filled with deep anger would blow-up, say, Leftist universities or the offices of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The are many potential targets on the Left. Now would these sallow Leftist proponents of violence be able to take their own medicine?
Clearly, if the Left calls for the murder of Trump (as well as for bannings galore, censorship, etc.), then the rule of law, effectively, no longer exists. And when the rule of law no longer exists, the Right can fight back like-for-like. Madonna, Rosie MacDonald, etc. are calling for political violence. And that violence, in the end, will work both ways.
In any case, the Left – Hollywood stars an' all – are dicing with death here. No one can forecast the repercussions of an assassination of Donald Trump, who's one of the most popular Republicans of recent history.
Anti-Trump activists seem to have a thing for violence, whether that's punching and beating-up Trump supporters or murdering the American President. All this is a very Khmer Rouge (or perhaps a Red Guards) kind-of-a-thing.
The Left is taking democracy away from us - “by any means necessary” (a soundbite they're very keen on). And we aren't just talking about the “anti-fash” Antifa here, with their fetishisation of violence (which seems to appeal to legions of skinny 21-year-old-men dressed in black and wearing hoodies). We're also talking about the Marxist prophets of violence who teach at some of the best know American and British universities. You know, the beer-bellied middle-aged Leftist professors who try to have sex with gullible students.
And what about Brexit?
Say that Brexit was ultimately unsuccessful - as the petulant and spoilt Remainers demand. Are the seventeen-and-a-half million people who voted for Brexit going to lie down and take this affront to democracy? Of course not! As before, the Remainers are playing a game which they will ultimately be unable to control.
What's happening here is that Leftist academics, actors, lawyers, etc. are calling for a violent revolution. So what happens when their opponents realise that this violent revolution is on the cards? Will the Right disappear or will it fight back? Do I need to answer that question?
Does the civil war start here?
What's happening here is that Leftist academics, actors, lawyers, etc. are calling for a violent revolution. So what happens when their opponents realise that this violent revolution is on the cards? Will the Right disappear or will it fight back? Do I need to answer that question?
Does the civil war start here?
Monday, 30 January 2017
One thing that should always be kept in mind is that the Left puts its entire soul into demonstrations and believes, as a matter of faith, in “political activism”. That's why they can raise large numbers for any demo that's in fashion at the time. Conservatives, and those on the Right, on the other hand, believing in running their shops, keeping their businesses going, having a life, etc.
The result of this activism- or demo-fixation is that the Left always seems stronger than it actually is. You have groups like the Stop the War Coalition, the People's Assembly (all run by Trotskyist ex-SWP), Black Lives Matter, etc. run by a tiny minority of Leftists who're managing to tap into the guilt of white middle-class Leftists.
When students go to university, they recall films and documentaries they've seen of student political activism in the 1960s. All loudhailers and brainless soundbites. Thus the young middle-class think to themselves: I want a bit of that.
This is the Leftist right-of-passage that can be expected from the University Left. Lots of people who dress the same, think the same, and even act the same. Revolution is a product. It's a right-of-passage which numerous left-wing middle-class whites indulge in every year in every British and American university. It is utter conformity, whether in dress or ideas. Indeed many young “revolutionaries” are the children of parent revolutionaries who did exactly the same thing in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s.
Leftism has taken over the universities. You now have herds of people who look the same and think the same. Now how healthy is that?