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.

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.

One image taken from the pro-Hamas rally held by Al-Awda NY, among other anti-Israel organizations, in Times Square this weekend. I wish I could say that it was anomalous in some way, but the inexorable truth is that the physically and intellectually etiolated creature you see above was probably as representative of the spirit of this demonstration as any of the participants. That a decrepit red diaper baby extolled the Marxist, Latin American despot Hugo Chavez  is not surprising, although neither should be his admiration for Chavez’s staunch ally Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A man who shares with his equally anti-Semitic friend a history of manipulating election results.

The domestic alliance between socialist and communist true believers and obscurantist, apocalyptic Islam is mirrored to a large degree in the Gaza Strip itself, where rejectionist strands of the PLO, such as the Marxist-Leninist PFLP, join forces with the Al-Qassam Brigades in shelling Israeli civilians. I’m not sure what end game the Trotskyites in the Spartacist League have in mind, but I have the nagging suspicion it doesn’t quite sync with the ultimate goals of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or the Al Qaeda-inspired salafists currently vying for control of the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

While useful idiots are pivotal to the success of any totalitarian revolution, once the despised tyrant is dethroned, they are more often than not treated to a dose of revolutionary justice. Perhaps some of these reactionary leftists should have a conversation with MEK exiles in order to learn about the pitfalls of yoking your cause to an ideology which relentlessly persecutes atheists, at its best.

Granted, it’s possible that militant Stalinists and those who want to eradicate any remnant of Judaism from the Jewish State might be able to co-exist, but it seems like those who would want to kill for the Al Aqsa Mosque might be of a different hue than those who would kill for dialectical materialism.

Although I doubt such discussions would prove fruitful, as the inclination for affinity groups and Marxist ideologues to view Arab-Muslims, particularly those living on the outskirts of Israel, as perpetually downtrodden and oppressed-the eternal underdog-is impenetrable to reason and empirical evidence. A sign of this enduring myth is the Puerto Rican flag seen above, probably held aloft by an independentista, who’ll no doubt have more time to demonize Israel in a few years, once that island’s ambiguous political status is permanently resolved.

One of the incongruities of this particular anti-Israel demonstration-although it must be said, leftists and their allies have never been known for their philosophical integrity or ideological coherency-was the strange, ritualistic incantations against “hate” followed immediately thereafter by the most noxious expressions of hatred and contempt.  For example, the repeated chant “Stop the violence, stop the hate,” which was quickly followed on the down beat by “Israel is a terrorist state!”

Pardon my impertinence, but isn’t categorizing a nation of nearly eight million distinct individuals as racist a bit hateful, not to mention insinuating that this country is perpetrating genocide? The latter charge is especially curious, considering the fact that casualties from Israeli weaponry-including the deaths of confirmed terrorists-during this conflict number fewer than the toll of Palestinians Hamas murdered during the 2007 putsch which resulted in its seizure of power from Fatah.

What’s more, the Palestinians killed during this conflict number less than a tenth of those “collaborators” murdered without trial during the first intifada.

Unfortunately, as you can see, this unique interpretation of justice is still avidly practiced by those in charge of the Gaza Strip.

If the concern trolls who detest Israel so much really want to see a state that perpetrates genocide, perhaps they should cast their eyes north.

It’s reassuring to imagine that a certain cognitive dissonance is at play when the most demagogic critics of Israel regurgitate their talking points and deploy some of their more eye-catching imagery-such as that seen on the placard above. Unfortunately, I don’t think they recognize the inherent disconnect between accusing Israel of slaughtering children while simultaneously standing behind a group which indoctrinates Palestinian children from the time they can walk into a culture of jihadist, exterminatory violence. To say nothing of the cynical exploitation of Palestinian women and children as human shields for terrorist leaders.

The sincerity of their denunciations of Israeli “hate” were called into question again when the mixed Palestinian fanatic/desiccated Marxist crowd began to shout “Yassin, Yassin, do not cry; Palestine will never die!” While it’s possible that they were referring to a controversial military engagement that occurred during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the fact that this was a pro-Hamas rally leads one to the ineluctable conclusion that they were celebrating the life of a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israelis and Palestinians, including those who have died as a result of the current bloodshed.

As odd as it might seem, the most ideologically coherent contingent, aside from the keffiyeh and hijab-clad Palestinians echoing the historical demand that Israelis be pushed into the sea, was the cultish faction of Neturei Karta seen in the photograph above. Whether meeting with Holocaust enthusiast Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or breaking bread with Yasser Arafat, a protege of Adolf Hitler’s Middle Eastern Reichsführer, NK has made it abundantly clear that it despises the state of Israel as it currently exists.

Of course, this is a free country. You’re entitled to express your opinion, however loathsome, so long as it doesn’t trespass against the life and safety of another individual or group of citizens. That said, I have to say the pretense that most of the people gathered in Times Square care about the lives of ordinary Muslim women and children living in the Gaza Strip is hard to digest.

It’s especially difficult to conceive of a scenario where they would bemoan the fate of these particular Muslims if their suffering bore no relation to Israel. You need look no further than a perpetrator of actual genocide, the Baathist Assad dynasty, in order to apprehend this concept. More than three times as many Palestinians have been killed in Syria during its civil war than have perished in the current conflict, yet you see no comparable sense of outrage among these indignant, alleged supporters of the Palestinian cause.

Apparently, their lives are not worth as much as the ones inserted into a meta-narrative designed by Hamas to manipulate international news media. In our next post, we’ll look at the other side of the coin.

One of the biggest challenges to the future of Europe is the continued balkanization occurring as a result of massive immigration from predominantly Arab and Islamic nations, coupled with the inability and/or unwillingness of host countries to assimilate these men and women to Western culture. Even though the systemic problems associated with this phenomenon are most often associated with large, EU member states like France and Germany, it is a continental problem, as a recent post on Pajamas media illustrates. 

While the  parents ofAlgerians who burn down Parisian banlieues and the Moroccan and Turkish Al Qaeda cells  that hatch terror plots within Germany were invited into Europe for unique historical reasons-in the former case because of war, in the latter due to a failed guest worker program-the self-segregating Islamists living in Norway were taken in for humanitarian purposes. In this respect, Oslo serves as a stark warning for the United States, which also allows in thousands of Arab-Muslim refugees every single year. In fact, the FBI is now checking the backgrounds of over 50 thousand Iraqi refugees who have been allowed to settle in this country since the beginning of the 2003 Iraq War, at least one of whom has already been positively identified as a bomb maker who targeted American troops. If only the federal government had access to that wonderful resource known as the Internet. 

And the problem of assimilation-or lack thereof-isn’t one limited to European nations. The lack of integration among American Muslims-especially second and third generation families-is so pronounced that it’s been noted by no less an authority than the Washington Post. The huge numbers of immigrants from nations wholly different from the United States, combined with the cultural amnesia that’s become an ingrained aspect of American society, has created an explosive mixture that will almost certainly come back to haunt the policymakers who instituted these short-sighted immigration policies, if it hasn’t already.

Oslo today, Ohio tomorrow. 

Yet another illustration of the danger of open borders revealed itself the other day, when 13 illegal aliens in California were arrested wearing United States Marine Corps uniforms. The worst part, however, is that two American citizens were arrested with them and charged with alien smuggling.

These are most likely individuals tied to criminal organizations, of which there are many in Mexico. It’s bad enough that these drug cartels have been using Mexican military uniforms, but the possibility that these same ruthless, violent paramilitary drug gangs would try to pass themselves off as America’s most indispensable line of defense against foreign aggression is unfathomable.

I can’t think of a better way of demonstrating the necessity and utility of strong border security than this case of illegal alien criminals being detained by agents of the American government. In an age of terrorism, where would-be Islamic murderers can traverse even the most tightly-patrolled border crossings in order to inflict carnage and chaos, why would we not want to allow any laxity in our border security protocol? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.