Violent Islamists apparently demonstrate their civic pride by opening fire on crowds of infidels. France 24 has the details. It should be noted that French authorities were already pursuing terror cells throughout the country in the prelude to Sunday’s presidential election, the first to be held while under siege. An illuminating comment on the current state of affairs in France was made by a correspondent for the BBC, who observed that French intelligence and military forces believe there are too many Islamists-a little under 10,000 to be precise-to monitor each one individually.

Which raises the question: wouldn’t it be a more practical use of resources to prevent Islamists from settling in France in the first place? Just a thought.

h/t Pamela Hall

It’s a message which bears repeating. An inspired idea from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, these billboards point out the horrific reality behind Marxism’s edifice of lies.

Whether it’s the specter of famine in Venezuela, the terror inflicted by Maoists upon innocent Indians for decades, or the Kim dynasty’s ruthless campaign to instill fear in every one of its subjects-no matter how far removed they are from North Korea itself-collectivism has sown nothing but misery and hopelessness wherever it’s been implemented.

Communism is responsible for more deaths than suicide, World War II, and all of the civil wars which took place during the 20th century. It has left a black legacy, and continues to oppress over 20% of the globe, including the more than 1 billion people living in the People’s Republic of China. A nation where the treatment of citizens like livestock didn’t end with the Cultural Revolution.

The disease of Communism persists in Cuba, where despite the regime’s purported detente with the United States, dissidents continue to be persecuted, often until they cease to exist. Let no one ever say that Communist despots and their foot soldiers weren’t thorough.

Of European cities which have been irrevocably transformed by mass migration from the Muslim world, Paris does not rank at the top of the list. A quarter of its population isn’t Muslim, like the gang-infested, crime-ridden former port city of Marseille, nor a fifth, like the jihadist hotbed of Roubaix. However, the outraged reaction of Francois Hollande, the lame duck prime minister of France, to President Trump’s remarks at CPAC is laughable when you consider the fact that officials in Paris have had to erect an 8 ft. wall of reinforced glass in order to protect that city’s most recognizable symbol. Leaving aside the fact that Parisiens have to endure a police state that has no parallels in post-war France, a situation prompted by the threat posed by the 6 million Muslims who reside in that country-as well as the millions more who live in neighboring nations like Belgium and Germany-there is the inescapable difference between the Paris of today and the Paris of only a few decades ago.

Why would an ordinary American want to visit a city, however beautiful certain parts may be, where hundreds of Muslims are able to shut down entire blocks of pedestrian traffic-as well as local businesses-while they publicly pray? As gauche as this may be to say in the current year, people visit European capitals to discover the roots of Western civilization, not witness inter-tribal warfare or the Islamic conquest of a once great civilization. The fact that over three-quarters of the victims of terrorist attacks in France have fallen in the 21st century should give astute observers a clue as to the trajectory of that country’s future. Whatever you may think of President Trump, or the reliability of unsourced anecdotes, the notion that the Paris of today is the jewel of Europe, that the decades of unstinting Muslim migration from the third world haven’t permanently transformed France from the nation it once was, beggars belief. Perhaps undiluted multiculturalism, open borders in perpetuity, and the gradual erosion of natural rights in the name of accommodating the world’s “fastest-growing religion” is something that you favor, but don’t try to pretend that this is not what we’re witnessing.

For those of you who think erasing our national identity is the Christian-or Jewish-thing to do, you might want to read the words of Dr. Thomas Williams.

In a surprisingly contemporary passage of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas noted that the Jewish people of Old Testament times did not admit visitors from all nations equally, since those peoples closer to them were more quickly integrated into the population than those who were not as close.

It turns out that HIAS virtue-signaling and special pleading from the USCCB is both theologically and intellectually bankrupt. Go figure.

Miami-Dade is the latest city to come to the realization that Donald Trump really is President of the United States. Just like the Sheriff of Suffolk County, Carlos A. Giménez has recognized the new reality of a federal government which will actually enforce its immigration laws. The Obama cronies who were placed within the immigration bureaucracy, who used their positions to implement unconstitutional amnesties, are in the process of being purged. Of course, our own mayor has continued to insist that he will defy federal and state laws in order to ensure the safety of criminal aliens. He and other blue state partisans, as well as their accomplices in the media complex, have yet to realize that no matter how much they whine, Hillary Clinton is not President and neither is Barack Obama.

A new era is upon us.

Two recent articles are worth reading in light of the conviction of Geert Wilders for voicing uncomfortable truths. One is an interview with the EU ambassador to the United States, David O’Sullivan. It’s worth noting his final answer, which unequivocally rejects the idea that another member state will sever ties with the European Union-despite the this year’s election results in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Italy. Whether this is simply another case of wishful thinking, a la Jean-Claude Juncker, remains to be seen. However, the idea that what was once inconceivable will remain so indefinitely is a particularly bad mental tic cherished by our ruling class-something my friend Todd Seavey has refuted using several concrete examples, the most prominent among them being the unanticipated and rapid dissolution of the heretofore indestructible Soviet Empire.

Another worthwhile piece is Eugene Volokh’s blog entry questioning the assumptions of anti-Trump, open borders  critics. As loathe as I am to post a link to the Washington Post, the fake news paper of record, Professor Volokh’s observations are always worth noting. Not only does he reject the oft-repeated liberal canard that a proscription on Muslim immigration would violate the Establishment Clause, he raises the intriguing question of whether Muslim immigration in general is a wise idea. The conviction of Geert Wilders, the exile of Oriana Fallaci and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, and the persecution of countless European dissidents who run afoul of current year thinking, illustrate how consequential the decision to welcome millions of Muslim immigrants into our nations can be.

This is a choice that will have far-reaching consequences for all of us, and one of the most important results will be the delimitation of what we can and cannot say. We are surrendering our freedoms without even getting a vote on whether we should relinquish them. The problem isn’t so much Islam as the totalitarian thought police who exercise power at every level of our civilization and want to suppress dissent, however muted, to their grand project. Salman Rushdie was the canary in the coal mine, but we are now witnessing what our refusal to defend free expression, and to reject illiberal, undemocratic immigration policies, back then has sown.

Update: Kraut and Tea explains how Austria got here, and offers another possible explanation for Hofer’s loss. 

Renzi resigns. 

Landslide rejection. You can view the live results here. 

Exit polls, for what they’re worth, suggest the Italian constitutional referendum is headed towards defeat. 

In a depressing sign for the future, women voted for the Van der Bellen to the tune of 60%. 

Norbert Hofer has conceded defeat. It looks like Austria will be led, nominally, at least, by the far-left Green Party. 

The people of Italy, as well as their Austrian neighbors, make a momentous decision this week which will impact the future of Europe. While Italian voters will decide whether to invest their unelected, Europhile president with even more power, Austrians will decide whether they should elect someone who wants to preserve their heritage. Like the forces arrayed against Brexit and Donald Trump, those opposing the sovereignty of European nations are pouring everything they have into cementing the status quo.

To understand why these battles are so important, you need only look at some of the latest headlines to come out of Europe. One news story, in particular, is worth examining. The brutal rape and murder of an EU official’s daughter-who also helped care for displaced migrants-illustrates the extreme form of masochism embraced by the current European ruling class. The people who control Europe are willing to let their own children be sacrificed in order to maintain their increasingly untenable ideology.

This young woman’s death was a direct result of Europe’s failed experiment in multiculturalism, and she is far from the only victim. In fact, she’s not even the first idealistic European refugee worker to be murdered by one of these desperate migrants. This is a story that we will have to read over and over again unless and until Europeans assert their sovereignty and reclaim their birthright. It’s not the white man’s burden to save the third world any more than it’s his burden to intervene in endless sectarian conflicts in the Middle East which cause this unwanted exodus.

Update: Brilliant pre-debate analysis by James Taranto. 

Josh Marshall makes a salient point, re: Trump’s greatest handicap entering tonight’s debate. Personally, I tend to agree with Derb. Most voters will overlook an ignorance of policy details-see Aleppogate-if they have confidence in a candidate’s leadership abilities. That said, Trump does have to exhibit some minimal command of the issues, if only to dispel pre-existing negative impressions. 

After months of anticipation, later tonight we’ll finally be able to watch the two presidential frontrunners square off on national television. Despite portraying their candidate as an intellectual juggernaut-and her opponent as nothing short of a gibbering dolt-Clinton surrogates are intent upon working the refs, and the refs seem more than happy to oblige. Whether or not this influences the course of the debate remains to be seen. Expecting professional journalists to fulfill their duties is a bit of an ask, admittedly.

Personally, I think Trump supporters expecting Hillary to publicly humiliate herself are somewhat delusional. Although she’s an historically bad candidate-and arguably the worst Democratic nominee in recent memory-she has spent nearly 2 decades questing after the Oval Office. The idea that she’ll embarrass herself in a one-on-one format as she stands on the precipice of that goal borders on the absurd. On the other hand, Trump has one ace in the hole, which is the insatiable lust for power which animates his rival.

Mrs. Clinton will do or say anything in order to secure more votes, i.e. inch closer to her ultimate goal, even if doing so reveals her deep mendacity or makes herself appear preposterous. Trump needs to take a page from the playbook of Chris Dodd and expose this proclivity in real-time. Per Pat Buchanan, the aim of Donald Trump shouldn’t be to win this debate. Even if he ran rings around Hillary, and bowled over both the TV audience and those watching the candidates in person, the media-driven narrative wouldn’t reflect the outcome. Trump should simply do what he does best, i.e. use his opponent’s greatness weakness against her. Exploit her vulnerabilities and ensure that his audience is aware, even if only on a subconscious level, of precisely what he is doing.

Whether or not he’ll accomplish this-or even attempt it-is something we’ll discover later tonight. Those of you who’d like to follow my reaction(s) to the debate as it’s happening can check out my Twitter account, from which I’ll be posting my thoughts intermittently-at least, until my cell phone battery dies.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Charlotte riots-and despite media social conditioning, that’s precisely what they are-is how unsurprising this reaction is. Whether it’s a clear cut case of police brutality/excessive force against an innocent civilian, or an example of a law enforcement officer defending his life in the face of lethal aggression, this is what we as a society have come to expect after every police shooting. Regardless of the race of the officer, what quickly ensues is an anti-white pogrom, as well as press justifications for this atavistic savagery, despite reporters being targeted by the same individuals, sometimes on live television.

We’ve just come to accept the notion that rampaging across your city, targeting anyone and everyone who is non-white, even those reporters who’ve served as apologists for this sort of mindless destruction and racial hatred of white people, is an acceptable response to perceived political or social grievances. In fact, this sort of unreasoned wide scale violence is probably our fault, at least according to the former First Lady and current Democratic nominee for President.

I wouldn’t even call this the soft bigotry of low expectations-as the presenter in the video above describes it-because it presumes there exists a scale where these explosively violent criminal outbursts, which have already taken lives, is balanced against normative, lawful behavior. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. The national and local press corps have shaped a meta-narrative which posits that the African American community-at least, that part which feels that sowing terror and fear among their neighbors is a valid expression of political dissent-have no agency.  This even in places which-as the video above alludes to-have black police commissioners and where half of the city council is African American.

Just take a look at who is leading the central civil rights movement of this era, i.e. Black Lives Matter. A consortium of criminals and hucksters, whose crimes range from impersonating those whom they claim to despise, to the human trafficking of underage girls, to protecting your inalienable right to engage in petty theft.  This is a movement whose founder publicly touts the ethics of looting, when he’s not celebrating the riots his rhetoric and actions have inspired. These are individuals with absolutely no moral compass, yet they are lecturing us poor, benighted whites on how they can combat their inherent racism.

This is what is so remarkable about our current national dialogue on race. Whereas the pre-Black Power Civil Rights Movement, regardless of what some Americans thought of its goals, was led by people with honor and integrity, Black Lives Matter and its offshoots are directed by people who can only be described as degenerates. Whatever you thought of the politics espoused by Ella Baker, James Farmer Jr., Bayard Rustin, or their contemporaries in the Civil Rights Movement, you could not dispute their impeccable personal character. Watching interviews of Dorothy Height, you’re reminded of the little, old church lady who belongs to your grandmother’s sewing circle, albeit one of especially fierce eloquence.

Contrast that with the current leaders of America’s most prominent civil rights movement, which is known primarily for attracting individuals who like to go polar bear hunting, which, for the uninitiated, means specifically targeting defenseless white people for violent physical abuse. Kind of like what occurred in Stockton, California the other day. These are not aberrations, they are the norm. We are increasingly living in a society which resembles the dystopian world sketched out by Mike Judge in Idiocracy, which seemingly no one in the ruling class wishes to acknowledge.