Germany recently marked an ignominious anniversary, one which future generations of Germans-assuming there are any-will look back upon with shame and regret. I’m speaking, of course, about Angela Merkel’s decision to welcome over a million settlers from the Islamic world into the bosom of her country. The horrific consequences of this monumental decision have been documented on an hourly basis for those who care to look. The fact that a majority of the German population no longer believes she’s fit to serve as Chancellor, and that over two-thirds believe her decision to deconstruct their nation was a bad idea is not nearly as shocking as the significant minority of Germans who still want to proceed along this suicidal path.

Fortunately, there are rumblings of an internal rift within the party she relies upon to maintain power. Whether or not this amounts to anything, the need to dethrone Angela Merkel is clear to anyone who cares about the future of Western civilization. Even if Germany retook control of its borders tomorrow, a pre-existing demographic tidal wave threatens to permanently efface German culture as we’ve known it for millennia. However, if nothing is done to reverse the catastrophic policies pursued by current European leaders, Europe as a continent is going to collapse. The fact that Mama Merkel herself is complaining about the reluctance her Czech, Hungarian, and Polish counterparts have shown in embracing vibrant diversity is telling.

If these migrants, i.e. invaders, are so wonderful, then why would the Mother of Refugees want to “redistribute” them? Think about this for a minute. If the CEO of an extremely lucrative firm were to offer you thousands of stock options in his or her thriving company, would you be filled with resentment? Would you avail yourself of every opportunity to unload those stocks on neighbors and friends? Why is the woman who is singularly responsible for the disaster unfolding across the European continent reluctant to accept more of the men who she has repeatedly assured us constitute an unparalleled boon for the Germany economy and culture? Could it be that she has been deceiving the German public all this time? Might there be some very legitimate reasons why ordinary Germans don’t desire millions more unskilled, virtually unemployable refugees who are responsible for an unprecedented increase in criminal activity? Might vetting future army recruits for ISIS membership not be the most efficacious use of state resources?

These are all rhetorical questions, but they point to the necessity of politically removing the main source of Germany’s-and to a lesser extent, Europe’s-current misery. Regardless of who replaces Merkel, the fact that she needs to go is beyond dispute to any rational observer who wants to prevent Europe from descending into yet another Dark Age. Germany might not survive another year of their Chancellor’s glorious experiment.

For those of you who had been laboring under the impression that the only Western leaders committed to stamping out problematic free expression reside in Europe-exemplified by Frau Merkel’s Stasi-directed campaign against anti-Islamic thoughtcrime-I have some troubling news. Australia, a country once known for its insouciant attitude towards political correctness and multiculturalism, has become the latest nation to embrace dhimmitude.

I don’t know what part of this video-as an aside, do visit Computing Forever’s Youtube channel, you’ll find many more distressing, fascinating stories there-is most disturbing. Is it the fact that in the 21st century Western nations are imposing what are essentially blasphemy laws? That these laws are being done at the behest of a violent, intolerant minority which has no historical connection to the countries they are now leading by the nose? Or is it simply the Orwellian euphemism, anti-discrimination, which is being used to rip the guts out of our  civilization?

I’ll let our readers decide, but until then, it’s worth pondering what attacks on our political and civil rights our rancid political class has in the hopper.

Update: Yes, I realize that this image macro has a typo, but there’s only so much proper grammar you can expect from people on the Internet. 

One of the more  arresting scenes in Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s memoir takes place when she visits her dying father in a London hospital. A man that despised the West, who tried to force his daughter into an arranged marriage which would have enslaved her to purdah for the rest of her natural life, yet exploited its generosity and technological prowess in order to prolong his existence, the dialogue between father and daughter vividly illustrates the problem of Muslim integration.

An even starker, more immediate contrast between these two irreconcilable civilizations occurred earlier in that chapter, when Ayaan was walking towards her father’s deathbed and came across a group of women-presumably-enshrouded in niqabs. Women who proudly  embraced a symbol of 7th century Arab-Muslim hegemony and hatred of Western values were now defiantly walking through Europe’s commercial capital. The shock evinced by Ayaan, who was born into the Hawiye tribe in the Horn of Africa, merely served to demonstrate the journey-not only in distance, but in mentality-which she had made over the 4 decades of her life, and the emotional and intellectual stagnancy so many others who came there remain mired in.

I was reminded of these scenes while reading about the latest atrocity perpetrated by a Somali refugee, or a Norwegian-Somali, in the bizarre parlance of the UK press, on the streets of London. It’s difficult to say whether the political leaders who have brought this dystopian hell-scape to our shores fully understand the implications of what they’re doing, or if they even care. As others have pointed out, the woman who once (correctly) branded multiculturalism a failure has now come around to the conclusion that the people who she rules need to fuck off. It’s entirely possible that our current political class simply believes that the periodic bloodlettings of infidels, systemic rape and sexual dehumanization of Western women, and psychic terror inflicted upon the indigenous population is the cost for vibrant diversity. The enormous powers they’ve accumulated in the process, including encroachments upon the speech and free assembly of their most prominent critics, simply being a fringe benefit.

However, it’s worth contemplating what the end game of these catastrophically stupid politicians looks like. After all, it’s hard to see how you preserve your cherished modern nostrums of LGBTQ rights whilst importing millions of people who would like nothing more than to throw gay men and gender non-conformists off of the highest rooftop. Just ask the residents of Europe’s former gay Mecca, Amsterdam, if  you can catch them when they’re not fleeing from their country’s newest additions. Enlightened liberals rightly condemn the shameful treatment of scientific visionary Alan Turing, yet the fact is that he would have probably been hung from a crane if he lived in a nation whose cultural peculiarities these same progressives demand we understand and even accept.

But what if the nastier byproducts of Islamic, third world immigration, e.g. honor killings, Taharrush, and attempting to assassinate people who draw things, could be magically eliminated before these folks crossed customs? Wouldn’t the ineluctable pull of diversity convince you to embrace the importation of millions from Somalia, Bangladesh, and the like? Well, no, I don’t think it would. Even if I were to accept the somewhat implausible story that the latest murder spree in the heart of Europe had nothing to do with Islamic dogma, I’m still not certain how this is a justification for completely effacing the historic American nation and European continent.

Perhaps this truly was an instance of a mentally unstable young man going postal, and not a carefully plotted jihadist plot. But even if that’s the case, I fail to find that reassuring. As numerous international bodies have documented over the past 3 decades, the rate of untreated mental illness in Somalia is astronomical. I described a case of one such disturbed young woman several years ago, but that portrait is by no means an aberration. The idea that we’re helping mentally unbalanced individuals by transporting them into a wholly alien culture, putting them on the dole, and asking them to integrate-much less enhancing the quality of life in our nations-is so absurd as a proposition that it could only be accepted by someone completely divorced from reality.

We’re being asked to accept the notion that the deracination of millions from the third world, who have a completely different value system and religious ethic than the people they’ll be forced to interact with for the rest of their lives, is somehow a brilliant idea. This is why cultural Marxism is a mental illness.

The biggest news of the RNC thus far has been, without question, Ted Cruz’s magnanimous endorsement of Ted Cruz. It’s too early to predict whether using a national platform to demean the choice of 14 million Republican voters is a wise political strategy going forward, but one thing we can say is that it’s a very Cruzian maneuver, as former Bush spokesmen Ari Fleischer pointed out. Whatever you might think of the Bushes-and I’ve made it very clear that I feel their beliefs have been ultimately destructive to both the Republican Party and the country-they have a certain ethic. As dreadful as I believe Jeb’s policies would have been, he at least has the integrity not to pretend that he shares the same values with Donald Trump.

Last night’s performance encapsulates why so many people dislike Ted Cruz, even many of those who grudgingly voted for him during the Republican primaries. It was an unforced error on the part of the Trump campaign, but it was also an insight into the strange reasoning of the man he defeated. Someone who believes dissimulation is an honorable tactic and promises have an expiration date. It’s difficult to make Mitt Romney look like a straight shooter, but remarkably, that is something Senator Cruz accomplished last night.

Those of you who’d like to watch Donald Trump’s acceptance speech, as well as the national debut of Gawker’s bête noire, Peter Thiel, can view the proceedings live on Right Side Broadcasting’s Youtube channel.

Some initial thoughts:

-Without being able to peer into the mind of Donald Trump, it’s hard to discern what prompted him to pick Governor Pence. If we take his words at face value, party unity was one of the primary motivating factors. That undoubtedly played a role, although I doubt it will sway Republicans in the Dump Trump camp, whose obsession borders on the pathological and will undoubtedly persist through Cleveland. My take is that this choice is a bid to boost the perceived statesmanship of the GOP going into November. The gravitas deficit, a la Dick Cheney and Gaffes Biden, who was at one point inexplicably believed to add stature to a presidential ticket, is something HRC’s media lapdogs have tried to play up throughout this campaign. Keep in mind, Donald Trump’s opponent is a woman who owes her political career to the slanders she professed in defense of a man who used the Oval Office as a brothel, but this is the world we live in.

-While some analysts have already mocked Pence’s pronounced lack of charisma, the truth is that this is one area in which the Republican ticket needs no artificial enhancement. If Republicans had nominated another sacrificial lamb like Mitt Romney, a man who can be emasculated by the likes of Candy Crowley in front of a national television audience, then perhaps a fire-eater would be in order. However, Donald Trump is an individual who is not only capable of eviscerating his Democratic opponent and her myrmidons in the press, but relishes the opportunity. As Michael Malice has pointed out, Trump has already neutralized nearly the entire playbook the Democratic Party has used to great effect in previous campaigns. He has the rhetorical equivalent of a Predator drone at his disposal, while Hillary will be bringing a pistol whose cartridges are mostly blank. The need for Pence to assume the traditional attack dog role of a presidential running mate has not only been lessened, it’s been virtually eliminated.

-The ideological reservations expressed by Trump supporters is a more serious matter. Although I don’t share Ann Coulter’s revulsion, I do appreciate the sentiment, especially as a staunch advocate for lower immigration levels and more stringent immigration enforcement. There’s no getting around the fact that Mike Pence was-even if he’s not currently-a supporter of amnesty. Or, as some have dubbed it, amnesty lite. Even more disturbing is the reaction of the Club For Growth, which can only be described as jubilant. If you want a barometer for terrible immigration policy, then the CFG is your 501(c)(4). To compound matters, Pence is also an enthusiastic supporter of the TPP, a trade agreement that repulses both protectionists and genuine advocates of free trade but which is lauded by globalist, managed trade political consensus, i.e. Hillary’s base. That being said, even philosophically Pence is not a complete loss, as a predictably tendentious New York Times profile reminds us. Opposing both the fiscally calamitous-and potentially catastrophic-prescription drug benefit AND federalization of education bequeathed to us by an unholy alliance between Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush? The horror!

-So, we’ve established that Pence does have some conservative principles, although not nearly as many as conservative voters and Trump supporters would like. In my view, the above analysis is pretty superfluous at the end of the day because Vice-Presidents do not mean very much, an opinion shared by at least one former VP. The Trump candidacy will rise and fall based upon what is done by, and how the electorate responds to, Donald Trump. The same holds true for any theoretical presidency. With the exception of Vice-President Cheney, it’s hard to think of a VP in recent memory who exercised a significant influence over White House domestic or foreign policy and I don’t see why Mike Pence would be the exception to that rule. For all the sturm und drang over this pick-which is, admittedly, the most important personnel decision Trump has made so far-it doesn’t really matter. This election will be determined by how voters feel about Donald Trump and his opponent, a politician who is truly frightening.

So many have opined on Black Lives Matter over the past 3 years that it’s difficult to imagine anything novel being said or written about this organization. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to add my 2 cents, if for no other reason than the fact that I’ve never tackled this subject before on this website and my readers are entitled to know what I believe.

There are a number of characteristics that distinguish BLM and its supporters from previous civil rights movements and which identify it as part of the current wave of millennial, leftist political activism, the most prominent being its imperiousness. Like the strident social justice and feminist activism flourishing within this country’s most expensive hug boxes, Black Lives Matter refuses to countenance the idea that the opinions of its critics-or even those who disagree with some of its policy prescriptions-matter. They exist to dictate terms of submission, not debate.

A perfect illustration of this is the spectacle which unfolded at Toronto’s annual gay pride parade, an event effectively shut down while its organizers acquiesced to the incoherent demands of virulent racists. Leaving aside the tactical problem of a culture that comprises less than 3 percent of a country demanding recognition from a governing majority which it insists is systemically bigoted against black Canadians, there’s the question of why they believe this approach will be strategically successful. Based upon an interview with one of BLM’s co-founders north of the border, they seem to believe that if their movement can successfully manipulate language, effectively shaping how we speak, then they will be able to implement their goals-however nebulous they may be-without opposition.

This is not a completely baseless assumption, as the hijacking-to use a triggering word-of language has been essential to the left’s subversion of most cultural and political institutions in the West. In fact, manipulating language, distorting the way we communicate, is at the heart of critical theory, arguably the most destructive intellectual development of the past half-century. Just as past totalitarian ideologies sought to control and wield words in their quest to crush human autonomy-exemplified by the Communist corruption of language-contemporary cultural Marxists recognize how essential this tool is to achieve their political objectives.

It’s not simply a matter of language though. BLM and its advocates seem to inhabit an alternate reality where their perceived enemies don’t have any independent beliefs or philosophies of their own. These activists are not interested in any dialogue, much less debate, but instead want the uniform enforcement of a list of racial diktats they have devised. My only engagement with a white supporter of this movement is emblematic of the problems one encounters whenever he attempts to broach thoughtful critiques of Black Lives Matters.

Even when I explained that black people are not the victims of disproportionate violence at the hand of law enforcement-as Kevin Jackson has pointed out, Native Americans are much more likely to be killed during encounters with the police, to say nothing of whites-he refused to acknowledge this enormous hole in the BLM narrative, after which he chose to block me from his Twitter account. This is a typical response to anyone who tries to challenge blanket statements and irrelevant anecdotal evidence with statistical evidence and concrete, verifiable data.

The idea that rogue police officers might be acting out of a sense of impunity rather than a systemic hatred of black people, or that white people have also been victimized by cops is not even entertained by BLM demagogues. While you can probably recount the names of most black civilians killed by police officers, whether unarmed or armed, peaceful bystanders or aggressive criminals, how many of you remember the names  Zachary Hammond or Jeremy Mardis, an autistic 6 year-old white boy killed by a black police officer in Georgia?

The question answers itself, the reason being that academe, the media, and our cultural gatekeepers are intent upon perpetuating the concept of black Americans being the apex victim within our society. While there are occasionally thoughtful, nuanced national discussions of this subject, they are dwarfed by the institutionalized propaganda portraying minorities, but particularly black men, as eternal victims who are perpetually denied justice. Keep in mind, the previous and current Attorney General, as well as the man ostensibly charged with upholding the Constitution, are African-Americans. Correspondingly, white men are seen as super-predators in this country, continually oppressing their non-white prey through their ubiquitous racism. This meme suffuses American society and popular culture and has been a feature of daily life for at least the past 2 decades. Like the  doctrine of total hereditary depravity, white people are inculcated with the belief that their very existence is contaminated from birth. Their original sin is being born to race which is currently disfavored by our political and social elites.

The idea that there are no practical consequences to this institutionalized bigotry is absurd. When one race is persistently demonized by academe, the news media and within popular culture, and another is imbued with the sense that it is being exploited at the hands of that racial group, you are creating a toxic society. Beyond the mentally deranged who will exact violent, lethal revenge upon the people who they believe are responsible for their oppression, there are scores of people who aren’t sociopaths that will use the racial narrative they’ve absorbed to inform their daily lives. You need look no further than public opinion polls to discover the depth of this country’s racial divide and ask yourself, who or what is contributing to this philosophical chasm?

It’s ironic the same sort of people who acknowledge the damage false racial narratives inflicted upon black Americans and American society in the past, and even warn us about the danger they pose in the future, gleefully demonize the race they believe threatens their hold on power. The dysfunction that decades of cultural conditioning has created can be seen not only in the supremely narcissistic, myopic BLM but at virtually every liberal arts university in the country, as Jonathan Haidt and Sam Harris have explored far more eloquently than I could ever hope to. Black Lives Matter and its peers in similar affinity groups simply demonstrate the triumph of untethered emotion over reason.  The question is how do you reason with people who don’t recognize the value of reason? We must find an answer before the entire country finds itself living out the screenplays to The Wire.

Update: Jill Stein, Green Party standard-bearer, drops a pipe bomb. 

The plot thickens. 

A Clinton supporter explains what’s wrong with this decision. 

A less than enthusiastic appraisal of Hillary’s problems by a liberal columnist in D.C. 

Spic ‘n’ Span. 

He said, she said. 

Relevant.

One of the most remarkable admissions during this press conference was that Hillary Clinton was not being punished because she is Hillary Clinton. The final point of Patrick Howley’s analysis is worth committing to memory and bringing up the next time someone starts rhapsodizing about the equal application of the law we have in the United States. 

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy’s reaction to today’s events is worth reading. 

I’m loathe to link to Red State, but this seems like a pretty accurate summation of what occurred a few hours ago. 

In unrelated news. 

A foretaste of what another Clinton presidency will look like. 

 Justice is not blind, evidently. 

Dissenting voices.

14 damning revelations from the Comey presser. 

What just happened, in black and white. The scale of Hillary’s non-negligence is staggering. 

Read Comey’s statement in full at the FBI’s website.

It looks like Judge Mukasey’s instincts were wrong. Watch Director James Comey’s press conference as it happens. Apparently, it’s good to have low friends in high places.

The Benghazi Report has finally been published, you can read it in its entirety here, which means we’ve been treated to some predictable political reactions, including this illuminating headline from the New York Times. Leaving aside the predictable spin from Hillary boosters in the fourth estate, one of my main problems with the national debate over Benghazi is its tunnel vision, especially as it relates to the former First Lady’s shortcomings as a political leader and decision-maker.

The intentionally deceptive narrative crafted by this administration in the aftermath of the Benghazi assault is simply one of many outrages to stem from this unprecedented attack upon one of our country’s diplomatic outposts. Leaving aside the despicable treatment of the survivors by then Secretary of State Clinton, the private and public treatment of this disaster by the Obama administration demonstrates their policy preferences clearly. Namely, to exculpate Islam from blame for any and all atrocities it’s responsible for, even if the link between the two is undeniable to any rational observer.

Beyond the Orwellian whitewashing of the world’s most violent ideology, the baleful consequences of the invasion which preceded the 2012 sack of America’s Libyan compound continue to be downplayed by its unintended authors. Both by this administration and its supporters, as well as neoconservative intellectuals and politicians who would have us believe that a foreign policy disaster was a brilliant geopolitical move. The fact that a global Sunni jihadist network was given yet another base of operations from which to operate, however attenuated, seems to have made no impression upon the people who charted this catastrophic path. The fact that the invasion of Libya led directly to ISIS atrocities within the heart of Europe, as well as permanently altering the very nature of European civilization, seems to have had no discernible impact on the very people who are responsible for these horrific outcomes.

To the contrary, Hillary Clinton has made the importation of tens of thousands of Muslim refugees from the Middle East-the same sort of refugees responsible for the rape pandemic enveloping Europe-a cornerstone of her campaign. Even as she seeks to displace blame for the fiascos in Syria and Libya onto her former boss, she continues to fully embrace the idiotic policies which have wrought havoc across the Middle East and threaten to devour the continent of Europe-to say nothing of the threat posed to American citizens. The grand policy of invade the world, invite the world will be continued under another Clinton administration, which threatens to make the horrific events currently unfolding around us pale by comparison.

The victims of the Benghazi stretch beyond Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty-and even their bereaved families-all the way across the globe. Anointing Hillary Clinton as the next Commander-in-Chief will not only be an insult to the memories of those victims, it will be an invitation for more chaos, bloodshed, and disasters which we cannot even envision at this point in time. Pandora’s box cannot be closed, but that doesn’t mean we should go searching for new demons and inviting them into our homes.

A few additional notes regarding George Hawley’s fascinating look at dissent within the right:

Notwithstanding the Trump Ascendancy, his belief that moderate libertarianism-or conservatarianism, as some have dubbed it-will exert the greatest influence over mainstream conservatism in the years ahead holds some merit. The disdain the modern conservative movement has for genuinely libertarian ideas is reflected in the figure of Jonah Goldberg, someone whom every group described in Professor Hawley’s book would view with contempt, at best. The fact that his publication has gone out of its way to publish writers who present a watered-down, libertarian lite perspective merely demonstrates the resonance of certain libertarian ideas within the broader conservative public.

Much like William F. Buckley’s attempts to modulate and co-opt organic conservatism years ago, the editors of National Review are now attempting to channel popular discontent on the right, this time manifesting itself in the form of libertarian activism, for their own purposes. Personally, I think these efforts will be as successful as NR’s Against Trump broadside. That said, I do believe that the Republican Party will continue to trend in the direction of Rand Paul and Justin Amash as the deep unpopularity of its current Chamber of Commerce/K Street-dominated policy platform becomes inescapable to even the most tone-deaf politician. 

While paleoconservatism, per Paul Gottfried, as an organized political philosophy may well be dead, many of the strands which animated its brief hold upon the public consciousness remain intact. Shorn of useless nostalgia for a bygone era and esoteric, internecine conflicts, its central tenets remain appealing to a broad minority of the electorate. Despite the increasing secularization of this country, there remains a huge portion of the population deeply committed to their faith. With the state’s increasing attack upon their core values, it’s possible that they might make common cause with anarcho-capitalists, i.e. libertarians who actually believe in freedom of association. Although the grip of neoconservatives upon the Republican Party has been permanently broken, they still have a multi-billion dollar intellectual infrastructure and-in the form of Hillary Clinton-an enormous potential influence over future White House foreign policy. Those who considered themselves paleocons still have an important role to play in militating against disastrous foreign policy decisions which further dilute and weaken the Western world. 

Likewise, the millions of Americans who feel burdened by multigenerational chain migration and our government’s open borders mania will not simply remain on the sidelines of history as their country and their cultural heritage is effaced. These patriotic individuals must form the core of any future right wing movement which intends to replace the desiccated conservative establishment. 

One of my only reservations about Professor Hawley’s exceptional work is his classification of Third Positionists as a distinctively right wing political movement. While it’s indisputable that white nationalists don’t believe in equality as the highest good, obviously, and thus would not be considered aligned with the left under Hawley’s thesis, I think it would be a mistake to assume they automatically belong on the right. Even as they militantly oppose multiculturalism, they espouse a racial collectivism which I believe conflicts with the defining feature of right wing thought shared by minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, Objectivists, and even Kirkian conservatives. Namely, the diminution of power exercised by the state in favor of individual autonomy and freedom exercised by non-state institutions, e.g. family, churches, and private entrepreneurs. 

A good example illustrating the division between these 2 philosophies can be found in the writing of one of the men profiled by the author, Samuel Francis. Someone who did not oppose the managerial state per se, but only the structure which opposed the interests of his race. Similarly, Richard Spencer-whose work is described in the chapter Voices of the Radical Right-vehemently opposed Brexit, the single greatest policy victory of the right in recent memory, because he believes in a European super-state, albeit one which is mono-racial. To make an historical comparison, while Otto Von Bismarck is generally thought of as a conservative figure, it’s difficult to reconcile that label with his creation of the first modern welfare state and eradication of local autonomy among German peoples. 

Putting that quibble aside, I can’t recommend George Hawley’s work highly enough. It accurately and objectively examines the contemporary conservative movement’s founding myths while also exploring what might happen when that movement ultimately collapses. I would urge anyone interested in 20th century American history, the history of conservatism as an ideology, or political science in general to read it. As the intellectual architecture of mainstream conservatism slowly but inevitably erodes, it’s worth understanding how exactly we got here. Professor Hawley has provided a coherent, lucid and engrossing answer. 

Update: Madame Hillary weighs in. 

The President still has no plans for his administration to actually enforce the law. What a relief! 

If you didn’t realize how important this presidential election is, the Supreme Court reminded you earlier today with 2 immensely consequential decisions. The first upholds Judge Hanen’s injunction against Barack Obama’s patently unconstitutional amnesty known as DAPA. The second rejected a challenge to a policy of racial discrimination in college admissions by the University of Texas brought by Abigail Fisher.

This is also a reminder of why holding a hearing for Merrick Garland is such a monumentally bad idea.