For those of you under the misimpression that this weekend’s thwarted terror attack in France is an anomaly, Breitbart London has some sobering news. In a single 18 month span, over 230 people were murdered in jihadist attacks upon that country. And while most of us are aware of the horrors perpetrated in the Bataclan and the offices of Charlie Hebdo, few recall the many acts of terrorism which were prevented by well-trained security forces.

Perhaps, like Londoners, residents of cities like Toulouse, Marseilles, and Paris will just have to adapt to the new normal…if you can call it that.

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.

On the eve of the first town hall presidential debate, it’s worth noting that the executive editor of the New York Times probably suborned a federal crime. Keep in mind, this is the same man who did not think the cartoons which inspired the Charlie Hebdo massacre were worth publishing in the newspaper of record. Regardless of what you think of the merits of a Donald Trump presidency, it’s hard to argue that the demise of the MSM can’t come soon enough.

To paraphrase the late Joe Sobran, hate speech is any speech liberals hate. Now that leading Web giants and the EU superstate have cemented a pact to target this pernicious threat to civilization, we’ll all have a better understanding of what exactly the egalitarian left considers to be hateful. The question remains, what do we to in order to make our voices heard in the face of an open conspiracy to silence them? The first step is refusing to be cowed into submission. A perfect response, which utilizes Twitter’s platform in order to expose the cowardice and hypocrisy of this campaign, is the I Stand With Hate Speech hashtag.

Aside from leveraging media attention to highlight our perspective, it also rejects the central premise of our ideological opponents. Namely, that we can be shamed into not expressing opinions which dissent from the culturally Marxist weltanschauung. One of the most powerful tools in the regressive left’s arsenal is its willingness to declare widely held, factually based beliefs off-limits. To delegitimize perfectly acceptable thoughts through a campaign of intellectual intimidation-a campaign aided by the cowardice and lack of will displayed by its opponents. We can’t defeat the left without disarming social progressives of one of their chief weapons, and the only way to do that is by refusing to be shamed.

Per Gavin McInnes, these people feed upon admissions of guilt from their enemies. They refuse to debate the actual issues because their arguments are meritless, which is why they focus upon extracting confessions from those who hold heretical opinions, a la the medieval Roman Catholic Church. Truckling to their demands does not make them more conciliatory or open to dialogue. To the contrary, it only emboldens them, as liberal college professors and presidents throughout the country have discovered through their encounters with the Black Lives Matter mob. These people do not want to entertain a rational discussion, they want a pound-or several pounds-of flesh from their enemies.

The only proper response to this jihad against free thought and expression is…fuck you. We won’t apologize for or minimize our beliefs because they are correct-and held by one of the most enlightened human beings on the planet, BTW. Imbecilic buzzwords like “xenophobe” and “racist” should have no impact on someone who realizes their intent, which is simply to bully you into submission. We all need to shed our fear of ostracism, like Pax Dickinson, which is paralyzing and inimical to the preservation of Western civilization. Regardless of one’s feelings about Donald Trump, and I’m the first to concede that he’s a deeply flawed candidate, he must be praised for being the first national conservative to confront the social justice warriors and their media enablers on their own terms.

The specter of a man who simply refuses to be shamed into obeisance, who rejects the cultural shibboleths of the institutional left, has sent the media into a tailspin and forced social progressives to reexamine their entire political strategy. After all, what do you do when the only weapon in your rhetorical arsenal, i.e. condemning your opponents for their non-bien pensant views, is a dud?

There are a number of strategies the right can and should implement as its ability to broadcast its political philosophy becomes increasingly circumscribed. Leveraging new media against one another is one such possibility. Creating our own platforms, professional and compelling ones, to disseminate our views is essential. But so is using existing platforms which are committed to the free exchange of ideas, even those ideas which challenge the prevailing kultursmog. One of the most heartening recent developments is the proliferation of Bitcoin, which gives ordinary individuals a decentralized alternative to the existing government-created and administered fiscal institutions.

Even so, I think what we need to keep in mind while pursuing all of these paths is the need to internalize a rejection of the left in its entirety. Not simply the principles of the left, but its primary mode of discourse, which includes a refusal to accede to any of its premises-including their demand that you apologize or modify what you believe because it’s “racist,” “sexist,” or “xenophobic.” We need to follow the lead of the late Andrew Breitbart, as well as men like Mark Steyn, Gavin McInnes, and Ezra Levant, and tell our enemies that they don’t get to dictate the terms of debate. They don’t get to force us to voluntarily give them our scalps as a sign of contrition for having transgressed leftist norms.

Our enemies need to be crushed, and the first step to doing so is refusing to bend the knee to their soul-enervating, culturally destructive, idiotic beliefs. Just as the soldiers of Allah gain strength through the cowardice of their enemies, the left is likewise empowered by any sign of weakness or contrition. The only solution to this problem is to be bold and proudly declare your beliefs, regardless of the consequences. It’s not only a risk dispersal strategy but a sound philosophy of life. Don’t allow your enemies to choose the field of battle, it’s a sure-fire way to be defeated, which is something we cannot afford as a civilization. It’s time we stopped being penitents and started being aggressors.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, the value of a moving image is incalculable. That’s why the impact of a website like Youtube should never be underestimated. Although often marginalized as an endless repository for cat videos and dwindling supply of unlicensed songs and films, the truth is that Youtube, especially since its takeover by the Internet hydra known as Google, exercises a profound influence upon how we view the world. It’s why the people behind that website devote enormous resources to sponsor presidential debates, interview the President, and generally influence the tenor of political debate within this country. Which makes its record of discrimination against unfashionable points of view all the more troubling to those of us among the non-leftist untermenschen.

Although the nature of its reporting system lends itself to abuse, especially by adherents to the Religion of Grievance, it can no longer be denied that Youtube has gone out of its way to make itself inhospitable to heterodoxy. The temporary ban of a channel documenting ISIS atrocities can be explained away as an overzealous reaction to graphic images, but it’s harder to intellectually justify the removal of a video which satirizes jihadists. Or, for that matter, videos which use fragments of news footage in order to illustrate the gravity of the refugee crisis engulfing Europe.

It’s certainly true that many right wing Youtube channels, even those critical of mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islam, still exist. That said, many others, whose foci range from the right to bear arms to Christian ministry,  have been temporarily or permanently banned. If you really want to incur the wrath of YT though, you should probably explore the less than positive aspects of open borders-particularly as it relates to the hijra which Europe is currently undergoing. An inventory of my own favorited videos exploring these subjects revealed that nearly 70% of them had been removed. Gee, I wonder how that happened.

Pat Condell, whose video critiquing Saudi Arabia-otherwise known as ISIS 1.0-was removed for unspecified reasons is a perfect illustration of the selective censorship exercised by Youtube. However, he is far from alone. While a cursory search would reveal hundreds of pro-Islamist and even explicitly jihadist videos, the mere existence of channels critical of this planet’s most destructive ideology is too jarring for those in charge. It cannot stand. Just ask MEMRI TV, or Palestinian Media Watch, or many, many others who have run afoul of that website’s peculiar interpretation of its own terms and conditions. I marvel at the continued existence of SyeTenAtheist, even as I delight in his channel, although perhaps I should temper my enthusiasm, given the history of both Youtube and its parent company.

Even if you could shrug off all of the aforementioned incidents as unpersuasive anecdotal evidence, how do you explain the fact that in any given year none of the official Youtube channels represent conservative points of view, even as a vociferous denier of the Armenian genocide has earned the company’s seal of approval? Is that merely coincidence, or is it perhaps part of a pattern? Don’t expect an answer from Youtube HQ, or anyone working for Youtube or Google for that matter, because that’s just not what they do.

It’s their world, we just live in it.

For those of you still laboring under the impression that Islam is not at war with the West-including the presumptive Democratic nominee for President-I have some shocking news. It turns out that the followers of Mohammed have other ideas. The plan to assassinate free speech, counterjihad activist Pamela Geller-which was, thankfully, thwarted through the work of the FBI and a tactically placed drone strike-was simply one of many plots devised by jihadist networks which have agents inside of the United States. Networks that have yet to be penetrated by American human intelligence and which now have a steady supply of recruits thanks to horrifically misguided immigration policies.

What should continue to infuriate those of you who have been paying attention is the way this issue is being framed by willfully ignorant and/or malicious hacks within the enemedia. A typical example of journalistic malpractice can be found in the Daily Mail, which-as Robert Spencer points out-has the strange distinction of being the newspaper most preoccupied with the Islamification of Europe while simultaneously denying that Islam itself is a problem. Apparently, the target of at least 2 known assassination plots provoked her would-be murderers by publicly dissenting from the dogma promulgated by the Fourth Estate’s favorite religion. A religion which is unique in enjoying blanket immunity from criticism.

Perhaps that has something to do with how adherents to the Religion of Peace deal with legitimate critiques of their faith. A pattern of violence and coercion that can be traced back to the founder of this religion, who himself didn’t countenance rational criticism. This campaign of brutality and intolerance has been so successful that it has silenced all but a few courageous voices in the West, which in turn makes it that much easier for jihadists to hunt down its intended targets, a reality which hasn’t been lost on Mark Steyn. It has also turned the mainstream media, ranging from commercial and public broadcasting networks-both radio and television-cable news, national and regional newspapers, and incredibly powerful websites into mouthpieces for the most retrograde, illiberal ideology known to man.

One wonders if the people asserting that Pamela Geller “provoked” these Islamic bombs-duds, fortunately, in this case-feel the same way about Gerard O’Neill and Dick Lehr. Did they provoke mobster James Bulger Jr. through their critical investigative reporting into his murderous criminal empire? What about controversial author and radio host Howie Carr? Was the grizzled Irish mobster nicknamed Whitey justified in his attempt to eliminate Carr for his insolence? Employing the logic used by the regressive left to slander Geller and her allies in the counter-jihad movement, one would come to that ineluctable conclusion.

What’s perplexing  is the implicit assumption that by blackening the name of  notorious “Islamophobes” and trying to preempt any public debate on the nature of Islam these journalists are assuring their own safety, which could not be further from the truth. The idea that you can somehow preserve the institutions of Western civilization  for yourself while eroding them for your perceived enemies-who actually believe in and exercise those values, unlike your reactionary Islamist allies-is a staggering form of cognitive dissonance. The brutal, globally shared execution of non-right wing, non-Islamophobic journalist Steven Sotloff should have demonstrated this, if the murder of dozens of other journalists, NGO workers, and even an Israel-hating, Italian Marxist did not. Somehow, the rather elementary notion that you can’t compromise with people who demand your complete and utter submission-up to and including your own death-hasn’t penetrated the minds of those who man North American and European news desks.

The collective amnesia these individuals must suffer from is astounding to contemplate. I would recommend reading The Camp of the Saints, a grim portrait of the future of the West, but I doubt it would change their minds, which seem predetermined to ignore any portions of reality which conflict with their surreal conception of human nature. Then again, there’s always the chance that some will come to their senses. If so, perhaps Pamela Geller won’t be our Cassandra. If not, we have a bleak future, and many regrets, ahead of us.

A little over a week after the civilized world remembered the assassinations which took place at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, as well as the Porte de Vincennes siege, another global atrocity has been committed in the name of Islam. You can read live updates of the ongoing terrorist attack in Burkina Faso here. The background behind the 2 jihadist networks claiming responsibility for this massacre can be found here. 

One of the most frustrating aspects of news coverage of the latest jihadist massacre on French soil is its repetitive quality. Just as with the Charlie Hebdo assassinations and Porte de Vincennes siege, along with other Islamic blood-lettings within Europe, the multicultural messaging service has gone to extraordinary lengths to obscure the rather obvious reasons why this horrific act of war took place.  The Daily Beast is an archetypal example of this species of journalism, ascribing blame to the socio-economic difficulties faced by Muslim immigrants and questioning the efficacy of Belgian intelligence-gathering methods. The cognitive dissonance at work is exemplified by media outlets which have referred to the Muslim invaders who perpetrated this atrocity as Frenchmen, rather than more appropriate terminology, such as invaders. 

While the facts on the ground reporting is valuable-you can find a live blog of the Paris attacks and their aftermath by going to The Guardian website-the analysis of this unprecedented bloodshed by Islamic terrorists on French soil is woefully lacking. Even as milksop, Chamber of Commerce lackeys such as Rick Snyder recognize the inherent danger in welcoming thousands of unverified Syrians to the United States, the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge the elephant-or in this case, jackal-in the room. Just today, I’ve listened to no less than 3 reports lamenting the impact this latest jihadist massacre will have on Europe’s Muslim population, including a segment on what is arguably the most insipid NPR program in existence, The Takeaway, where the interviewee praised Germany’s Dr, Kevorkian, Angela Merkel, for her open door policy, vis-a-vis Middle Eastern and North African refugees.

There are, of course, rational appraisals of what’s currently happening overseas, but you have to scour the Internet in order to find these alternative voices. One of them is David P. Goldman, who accurately evaluates what France should expect-and how its government will respond-in light of these ruthless attacks on its citizens. Contrary to Prime Minister Hollande’s bold declarations in the wake of this unspeakable atrocity, Spengler believes that the ruling class in that country will not have the fortitude to do what is necessary to weed out what is now a domestic base of terror. Of course, there are many men and women in France who yearn to resist the tide of anti-civilization that has encroached upon their nation without their consent, and they are probably going to support Marie Le Pen in the upcoming election.

The fact that millions of voters are willing to defy the consensus of bien-pensant opinion in order to help preserve and maintain what remains of a culture that can only be destroyed but certainly not replicated by the parasites who are living upon its fruits demonstrates that the lights haven’t yet gone out in the West. It’s a welcome and hopeful sign of a future that isn’t shaped by the forces of darkness, where we do not have to repeat the mistakes of the past. A future where the City of Light is not extinguished.

Update: The incomparable Mark Steyn has returned with a brilliant column laying out the stakes. 

At the risk of self-plagiarism, I’ll repeat a status update I posted the other day to my Facebook profile in relation to the attempted massacre of innocent Americans taking part in a Constitutionally protected assembly earlier this week in Garland, Texas. I think it encapsulates the feelings of many towards the Fourth Estate as it’s currently constituted.

I really can’t think of a more undeservedly self-satisfied, useless collection of human beings than contemporary journalists. If this were Golgrafrincham, they would be sent out into the void of space on the B ark, along with parking enforcement agents and professional landscapers.

If anything, I think I’m underestimating the cravenness and solipsism of a class of people who have bastardized their vocation to the point where it not only refuses to perform its assumed role-namely, provide an accurate and reliable account of news events-but has actually mutated into a vehicle for the mass diffusion of blatant lies. Incapable of actually reporting the news, these ostensible reporters have now decided to craft narratives that exonerate themselves from their failures of duty and nerve. The apogee of cowardice, naturally, took the form of an editorial in the New York Times, a publication whose pusillanimity and rigid devotion to multiculturalist dogma has evolved beyond parody by this point.

To get a broader, if not comprehensive, look at how this country’s intrepid journalists treated a domestic terror assault against our nation’s first freedom, I would recommend reading James Taranto’s brilliant fisking of the news media’s treatment of the abortive Garland massacre in his Best of the Web column. These moral and intellectual eunuchs expose themselves with each public word, but we still need to call them to account and point out just how despicable their actions are. How inimical they are to their chosen profession, and how at odds their warped world view is with this nation’s legal and political cornerstones. For that, Mr. Taranto deserves our gratitude.

Last month the intrepid Pamela Geller spoke at my alma mater, delineating the reasons why our freedoms have become captive to an alien, totalitarian ideology-most recently manifested in the attempted jihadist massacre in Garland, Texas. Unlike the bien pensant Chekists condemning PEN for honoring the bravery, honesty and integrity, along with all the other virtues our cultural guardians abhor, of Charlie Hebdo, Pam Geller actually understands the value of standing up for Western civilization and the values it represents. If that civilization is to endure, it’s going to be because of men and women like her and Robert Spencer, not the craven supplicants and toadies who run publications like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Watch the entire speech for yourself and understand what this struggle is about and why we must prevail.