-We begin today’s rattle with an interesting story about an Indian-or Muslim, depending upon PR needs of the open borders squad-athlete who was ushered into this country by our very own Senator Chuck Schumer. Unfortunately, this gifted sportsman is also a sex offender. Perhaps this isn’t quite as bad as having an alien interning for your office who is also a registered sex offender, but it does make you question the collective wisdom of our Democratic friends in Congress. Maybe we shouldn’t be taking their advice, vis-a-vis, controversial immigration decisions made by the Executive branch.

-In a reminder that there are actually rational people living in The People’s Republic of Vermont, the voters of Rutland have just turned out their incumbent mayor, Chris Louras, after he attempted to deluge their town with Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq. While ignoring the public’s deep discontent with our government’s refugee resettlement programs-when not imputing racism and bigotry to Americans who express reservations about these schemes-is the norm, even the alternative weekly was forced to concede the enormous political consequences of this decision.

-For those of you who were wondering whatever happened to the thousands of unaccompanied minors who were allowed to enter into this country, wonder no more. According to an in-depth backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies, our government has absolutely no clue what it’s doing. While over 80 percent of their sponsors are illegal aliens, 44 percent of the UACs in question were ordered deported. Have the vast majority of these children been deported? Of course not, silly!

-You may ask yourself, “Why is this important?” It’s a good question. After all, it’s not as if these individuals will bring brutal Central American inter-gang warfare to the placidity of our nation’s suburbs, right? Well, I have some bad news for you on that score. It turns out that Latin American gangs, including MS-13, one of the most prolific and ruthless criminal networks in the Western Hemisphere, has actually established a pretty firm beachhead in our own backyard. Naturally, almost all of these gangbangers are criminal aliens. In an ironic twist, the moniker of the man who made an abortive attempt to unify the Mara Salvatrucha within the United States is, you guessed it, Dreamer.

-For those of you who think Europe’s approach to immigration is any less self-defeating and preposterous than the United States, I give you France. A nation where municipal authorities in Calais are attempting to prevent thousands of migrants from recreating the notorious refugee camp known as The Jungle. The biggest proponents of turning The Camp of the Saints into reality are, of course, other Europeans who believe Western civilization is uniquely evil. The ostensible plight of migrants from the third world is simply a cudgel with which the Gramscian left-with the help of corporate bean counters-can beat native Europeans into submission.

-After all, what are a few dozen, or a few hundred, honor killings in the grand scheme of things? Is the systemic dehumanization and murder of girls in nations which were responsible for the idea of religious toleration and freedom of conscience too high a price to pay for erecting the beautiful mosaic? When bad whites are saying intemperate, obnoxious things about people who are off-white, doesn’t that negate their entire philosophical worldview?  Even if that perspective is confirmed multiple times every single day?

-Everyone knows that the real reason millions of Muslims across the world support ISIS, Al Qaeda, and similar jihadist networks is because there isn’t enough inclusion in Hollywood casting decisions. See, the real villain isn’t Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It’s those bastards who refused to green light an all-Muslim reboot of Star Trek!

-The cognitive dissonance at work in the mind of an an open borders leftist must be overpowering. They want to live in a high-trust, quasi-collectivist techno-utopia-along the lines of something created by Gene Roddenberry-yet simultaneously support policies which make this already far-fetched goal virtually impossible. The mentality of a social justice warrior in high dudgeon can be found in this VICE piece, which laments the role homeless shelters have been playing in the deportation of migrants. The traditional liberal concern for the working class and the poor is discarded when it conflicts with the categorical imperative, i.e. preserving diversity. The spiritual hollowness and intellectual vapidity of this type of leftist ‘thinking’ was brilliantly and caustically skewered by George Orwell nearly a century ago. It’s good to know that some things haven’t changed all that much.

-I’d like to leave you on a good note, so here’s some refreshing news to come out of Austria. 8 Iraqi men have been convicted of the gang rape of a tourist. Unlike the Middle Eastern cab driver in Halifax who was, to all intents and purposes, high-fived by a Nova Scotia judge for raping an unconscious passenger, these rapists were actually given (relatively) stiff prison sentences. What’s more, we’ve discovered that these horrific incidents actually constitute an anomaly within the Islamic immigrant community.

Migrants and refugees from other countries expressed concern that the crime will make Austrians hostile toward all newcomers.

“Eight people raping a woman — that’s honor-less! Such a thing doesn’t exist in our religion,” Burhan Akbas, a migrant from Turkey, said.

“When such people come here and screw up like that, then everybody will think that Chechens, Afghans, all refugees from war areas are all the same,” Mansur Salamou, an asylum-seeker from Chechnya, said. “But it’s not like that. For example, the majority of us — we also cause problems, commit crimes. But no rape! Only criminal assaults and robberies.”

See, Europeans?! You only have to worry about being assaulted and robbed by the millions of North African and Middle Eastern refugees and migrants making their way towards Europe. What a relief.

Rigidly defending the President’s precise formulations will always pose a problem for his supporters. I think even his staunchest backers will acknowledge that Donald Trump isn’t Churchillian in his eloquence. That said, nearly every time he is assailed by his pseudo-sophisticated, morally inverted critics in the culturally Marxist press, it turns out that he was correct.

The manufactured controversy surrounding his remarks about Sweden is simply the latest example of the media’s malicious lying and/or stupendous ignorance. No, President Trump wasn’t referring to a specific terrorist attack in Sweden, although there have been jihadist assaults in that nation, including suicide bombings, but rather to the degradation of that country-as well as others in Central and Northern Europe-occurring as a result of catastrophically wrongheaded immigration policies.

What happened last night, as well as many nights before in immigrant-heavy, Islam-friendly towns and cities in that country, is chaos. Rampant sex crime, tribal warfare, widespread rioting-some of which targets members of the liberal press which is so enamored of non-Swedes-and general lawlessness. In spite of the Swedish government’s refusal to acknowledge reality, censorship of hate facts, and systemic coverup of migrant rape of Swedes, the non-brainwashed know what is happening in Europe.

Despite forbidding the collection of statistics which would identify the ethnicity of those committing crimes in Sweden, we still have a very good idea of who is responsible for many of them. For example, 85% of those sentenced to at least 2 years in prison for rape by a Swedish court of appeals were foreign-born or second-generation immigrants. We have firsthand accounts from career law enforcement officers attesting to the culpability of foreign immigrants and refugees in the diverse array of problems Swedes currently face.

The idea that the state and its accomplices in the media can somehow indefinitely cover up the truth in a networked world, where we can read descriptions of what the multicultural boroughs of Europe are actually like, is the height of absurdity. The facts denied and buried by the mainstream media are at the fingertips of those who choose to obtain them. That is something that will not change any time in the near future, no matter how much our ruling class would like to suppress the truth.

While it seems like every major story on the planet involves the Trump administration, things have actually been rather interesting in the rest of the world. Under the leadership of former ski bum Justin Trudeau, our neighbor to the north seems to be embracing some of the values that have made Europe so inhospitable to its indigenous population.

As Barbara Kay has explained both in print and other media, the proposed law by a Muslim MP targeting Islamophobia is simply a pretext to police inconvenient thought which happens to offend the political class. Keep in mind, the country was no bastion of free speech before discussion of this non-binding resolution discussed in the House of Commons of Canada. The long prosecution of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant for dissident speech, as well as the demise of Free Dominion at the hands of inquisitor Richard Warman, attest to that.

The idea that this is simply a noble effort to protect Canada’s ruthlessly persecuted Muslim minority is belied by the robust effort that community has made to make acceptance of Islam by Canadian natives mandatory. Contrary to popular belief among the ruling class and its eager supplicants, Islamophobia is not a real issue. The terms itself is an ad hominem meant to distract from the disturbing frequency with which the adherents to Islam murder/intimidate those who are not.

If you want to experience what real fear looks like, I suggest you take a trip to Europe, where the paragons of virtue that run that continent have turned a glorious civilization into what increasingly looks like a garrison state. From the bullet-proof glass wall built around the base of the Eiffel Tower, announced in the wake of a respectful Egyptian’s jihadist machete attack at the Louvre and several thwarted Islamic terror attacks, to the fence being constructed between Latvia and Russia, to the Catholic pensioners being murdered by Saudi migrants, there are signs everywhere that Europe is under siege.

The fact that European governments are persecuting those who speak the truth about the wave of migrant crime merely serves to illustrate how warped the values which animate Europe’s ruling class are. That they continue to entrust with power, however ceremonial it may be, the same people who brought their continent to the brink of the abyss demonstrates how disconnected they are from the anger and discontent animating Europeans in France, Denmark, the Netherlands and throughout a continent being ravaged by undiluted multiculturalism, moral relativism, and perpetual open borders.

The fact that the vast majority of Europeans vehemently oppose further Muslim immigration is deemed irrelevant by those who want to transform the continent of Europe. Those who rule have made the replacement of Western peoples with Islamic settlers a priority, despite the intense suffering of the Middle East’s persecuted Christian minority, and woe to anyone who opposes this grand project. 2016 was not the end of the fight against this mentality-which has governed the West for over half a century-it was just the beginning.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the ongoing invasion of Europe is the unwillingness of those who supported this disastrous policy to admit that they were wrong. It’s not simply the men and women who ushered in his collective insanity-primarily Angela Merkel, but also the rulers of the unaccountable, unelected European Union-who refuse to accept reality, but scores of ordinary individuals that simply don’t want to admit that we are witnessing a catastrophe unfold on a continental scale. Even those far removed from the consequences of this historical mistake-perhaps especially these people-are adamant that welcoming millions of Muslim Middle Eastern and African refugees into the heart of Western civilization was a splendid idea.

I was reminded of this the other night, when an acquaintance went on an hour-long fact-free tirade celebrating the benefits of this newfound vibrant diversity. Asserting at once that the crime rate in Germany hadn’t increased as a result of these newcomers and that even if they were committing crimes, it was a small price to pay for the economic productivity they would produce. It should be noted that on other occasions, when I’ve tried to educate him about this topic-despite his seeming unwillingness to engage in civil discussion about his pet issue of open borders-he’s refused to even consider the evidence presented. Claiming that the English language reports from Germany’s most widely read, pro-refugee newspapers and journals were somehow biased against his open borders, pro-refugee ideology.

It’s not only the media regents who inveigh against “fake news” who don’t want to hear dissenting opinions or unpleasant truths. There’s a large segment of the population-particularly among libertarians-who simply filter out any information that contradicts their most cherished value, i.e. unfettered third world immigration. The inescapable truth is that this reverse colonization of Europe has led to a surge in crime, 69,000 crimes in the first 3 months of 2016 alone! Despite the fact that 90% of sex crimes committed in 2014 were not reflected in official statistics, and that government institutions have bent the law in order to cover up the link between migrants and rime, there have been scores of horrific violations of women and children throughout Central and Western Europe since the migrant crisis began. Even Politifact, the gatekeeper of acceptable opinion, was forced to admit that the crime rate among migrants increased by 79 percent in 2015.

Even these statistics, spare though they are, don’t reflect the immensity of the crisis host societies are facing. In addition to the crimes committed against Europeans, there is the intimidation and crimes visited against refugees themselves, particularly Christians, atheists, and women. Jihadists threaten non-Muslim refugees before ever attacking unsuspecting Europeans. Female refugees are raped so frequently on their journey to Europe that they have to take contraceptives before embarking, yet we are expected to believe that the sexual predators who are on those ships pose no threat to European civilization. The mental contortions required to entertain these 2 thoughts simultaneously beggars belief.

It’s time for those of you who have buried your heads in the sand up to this point to come to grips with reality. As Ayn Rand once said, “we can ignore reality, but we can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” This is something defenders of the migrant wave washing over Europe have yet to grasp.

When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. 

Do not press a desperate foe too hard.

-Sun Tzu

Those barriers are designed to prevent a repeat of the massacre that occurred this week at a Christmas market in Berlin. Thankfully, the perpetrator behind that particular atrocity has been put down by a brave Italian police officer. Unfortunately, thanks to Chancellor Merkel, there are now thousands of lovely creatures from the Maghreb who would like to repeat this event throughout Europe. As Tommy Robinson has pointed out, short of a nuclear or radiological device, open borders are the most powerful weapon we can hand to our jihadist foes. In that sense, Angela Merkel and the rulers of Europe are all accomplices to mass murder.

What’s more, they are making it impossible for Europeans without a death wish to preserve their lives in a non-violent manner. Not only must they be sacrificed to the Cult of Diversity, but they must recite its incantations, otherwise they risk being thrown into a dungeon for engaging in wrong think. There is increasingly little to distinguish the legal and societal norms of third world Islamic backwaters and Western capitals, which is why the people in prison are not those who march through the streets of London braying for the imposition of a caliphate, but those who question the ability of foreign Muslims to successfully comport themselves with Western civilization. It’s why we need to invert reality and pretend that the problem isn’t the population replacement taking place in Europe, but the xenophobic right wingers who represent the true threat to European harmony.

The truth is that the extreme right is not extreme at all, but a necessary corrective to the post-war consensus which is based on unreality. The extreme right  would not exist if the sensible mandarins who controlled Europe for the past 6 decades had not made such a hash of things. They’ve not only ruined the nations they’ve inherited, accomplishing something Adolf Hitler himself could not achieve, but are now in the process of stamping out any criticism-however muted-of their ethno-masochistic, suicidal immigration policies. Instead of building walls, deporting those who should have never been invited to settle in Europe to begin with, and acknowledging that multiculturalism and Muslim repopulation of Europe has been a catastrophic mistake, European leaders are busy finding ways to suppress healthy, constructive dissent.

Like Pat Buchanan, I believe that Europeans will fight back eventually. The tragedy is that the not-so benevolent despots who rule over them have ensured that this battle will be bloodier and more protracted than anything they could have ever imagined. They’ve  made what could have been a peaceful repatriation of foreign settlers-or invaders, if you prefer that term-almost impossible, and caused their societies to be torn asunder in order to add ballast to a profoundly stupid, destructive ideology. One which was bound to fail, and will leave millions of victims in its wake.

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.

It’s been said that hate speech is any speech leftists hate, and never has this statement been more true. In the wake of  a verdict convicting the courageous dissident Geert Wilders for “insulting” Moroccans, it’s worth remembering that  the concept of free speech did not originate in the Maghreb. Freedom of expression doesn’t come from the Sahel, or the Levant, or anywhere on the planet once or now ruled by Muslims. It is a thoroughly and implacably Western concept, which has been suppressed in every region where Islam flies its banner.

Now that this ideology has planted its flag in Europe, Australia, and North America, we are subject to the same proscriptions on speech as those living in Middle Eastern backwaters. The ruling class has used the vast pool of Muslim immigrants and refugees as an excuse to pursue its campaign to ban dissent, which the  latest decision to come out of The Netherlands demonstrates. The fact that Wilders was convicted for insulting Moroccans in Holland proves how corrupt and debased those who control Western societies are. Even as they implicitly acknowledge that these people do not belong in that country, they persecute those who explicitly state that incontestable truth.

While this decision might temporarily boost the support of the aptly named Party for Freedom, we shouldn’t be under any illusion that this is the last assault upon free thinkers in Europe and the West. It’s simply the latest salvo in an unending war against those willing to stand up in defense of their heritage and the integrity of their countries. As Geert Wilders says, The Netherlands has become a sick country, but this sickness can be treated. Let’s hope the Dutch people are willing to embrace the cure.

Breathes there a man with soul so dead, 

Who never to himself has said,

This is my own, my native land!

-Sir Walter Scott

Unfortunately for the rest of us, these men-or women, in the case of Angela Merkel-are the ones effectively controlling Western civilization, or what remains of it at any rate. From Scotland to Sweden, which is now the rape capital of the West, the people entrusted with protecting the borders of their nations view the very concept of national sovereignty with derision. Although the political class deserves the lion’s share of the blame for this state of affairs, we can’t exonerate government bankrolled religious profiteering and cultural conditioning.

On the bright side, there is a growing awareness among the public at large that this is not working. What’s more, the people in Europe, North America, and Australia are increasingly willing to voice their dissent from the multicultural, open borders consensus that’s dominated the politics of their countries for the past half-century. Even though the current crop of patriotic candidates might not succeed, they’ve laid the groundwork for future resistance to the dangerous, multi-decade experiment which has led the West to the brink of disaster. And for that, they deserve our gratitude.

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.

I think we’ve established that those who control new media, our primary means of collective communication and social interaction, share neither our beliefs nor goals. The decision by Internet behemoths to enforce draconian abrogations of speech at the behest of the European Union merely crystallizes what we’ve known for some time, i.e. Mark Zuckerberg and his colleagues are not our allies, or even politically disinterested capitalists seeking to maximize their profit margins. They are ideological enemies, although posing as neutral parties, who want to see our ideas, insofar as they  militate against egalitarianism, social democracy, open borders, multiculturalism, progressivism, feminism,  dawa, and social justice,  quarantined. If not eliminated altogether. 

We have an inkling of what the future of this cloistered Web will look like, and it’s not something I look forward to. It’s a place where a drawing of Mohammed potentially garnering thousands of dollars can be removed, albeit temporarily, from eBay, along with CSA flags-at the behest of journalists-yet paeans to the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century remain widely available. A place where peaceful critics of the mass importation of rapists and criminals from the third world have their Facebook accounts suspended, even as calls for the killing of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee remain in place.

The Internet has broken the stranglehold exercised by old media over the flow of information. It’s allowed free citizens to access and disseminate facts, even as traditional gatekeepers try to embargo information which intellectually destroys their narratives and reveals unpleasant truths. It’s leveled the playing field between us and them, which is why they repeatedly and openly attempt to seize control of this invaluable tool for global communication. While the Overton window shifts in our favor, we need to recognize and respond to this unprecedented challenge. This threat is so palpable that it’s even seeped into our popular culture, forming the basis of a plot-line to an episode of the popular Netflix series House of Cards. Naturally, reality was inverted, as it was a Republican candidate collaborating with an enormously influential website in order to acquire and retain limitless executive power.

This prompts the question, how should we respond? How do we fight NGOs, bureaucratic institutions, multinational corporations and Internet monopolies that have seemingly endless resources at their disposal, and which control the medium through which we hope to communicate? There are many proposals, but one of the more intriguing ones involves holding these new media giants to their word.  A pro-life musician sued Youtube after her incredibly popular video was removed without explanation. On a much broader scale, Professor Stephen Bainbridge has suggested that wealthy philanthropists bankroll a lawsuit against Twitter in order to put conservative proposals on its annual proxy statement. Although this tactic sounds rather innovative, it actually bears a striking resemblance to a suggestion made by Senator Jesse Helms during the mid-80s which entailed a hostile takeover of the habitually biased CBS by conservative shareholders of the network.

Another legal proposal floated by some right wing analysts concerned about this growing problem is to force the government to classify these social media giants as public utilities, thus affording access for dissenting, anti-leftist thought. There are a number of reasons why I think this path-like the shareholder revolt-would be an ultimately futile effort. Although I welcome the entrance of affluent right wingers into the cultural war-and have been heartened by the courageous actions of Peter Thiel, the right’s real-life version of Batman-I don’t believe that conservatives will be able to engineer a coup, in the best sense of the word, against Twitter. Similarly, I doubt the efficacy of any effort to compel these corporations to enforce access and equitable treatment through the judiciary.

This isn’t because I believe it would allow the left to squelch some of the few remaining outlets of public conservatism outside of the Internet-although I’m certain liberals will continue to cheerlead for the introduction of any measure that mutes non-leftist opinion. I’m of the opinion that the utility of talk radio and the Fox News Channel to the right has waned and will continue to decline in the years ahead-this election being merely  foretaste of things to come. No, I oppose this route because it relies upon a thoroughly misguided view of how our courts currently operate. Beyond the merits of this controversial idea, the notion  that jurists steeped in progressivism will rescue conservatives is absurd on its face. It’s the same misguided thinking which led many to believe that the Roberts Supreme Court would unilaterally abolish Obamacare, i.e. that an instrument of the state would begin to curtail the excesses of another branch of the state.

Another option is to create right wing analogs to existing Web-based resources. The dreary results of this experiment can be seen in QubeTV and Conservapedia, the latter a Christian fundamentalist response to Wikipedia’s perceived biases. Beyond the self-consciously limiting aspect of these projects, their creators are marginalizing a political philosophy which they  hope to spread to the widest possible audience-in effect, doing the very job of the websites they stand in opposition to. Creating a less professional, derivative, albeit conservative, version of a pre-existing Web platform is not the solution to the problems we’re facing. We’re not going to win the battle of ideas by diving into an ideological cul-de-sac. In my next essay, I’ll explore some strategies which might actually work.