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.

Update: Denied bail. 

Contents of the bond proffer, which describes the barbaric act these 4 creatures committed in detail. 

Media coverage of the prolonged anti-white brutalization of a mentally challenged boy has been despicable. From the politically correct know-nothingism of Shephard Smith, to the antiseptic-and confusing-reports from the Associated Press, to the anti-Trump non sequiturs bankrolled by Latin American Marxists, to the repugnant coverage of CNN, there has been blanket denialism from the left. The same press organs which trumpeted “news” of hate crimes which to the last turned out to be complete and utter hoaxes have decided that four sadistic barbarians kidnapping, humiliating and torturing a handicapped young man because he is white-over the course of 2 days-is a big nothing burger. Just like the torture and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were ignored by the national media because it did not dovetail with their specious racial narratives, this horrific crime is being downplayed and misrepresented by those who specialize in untruths.

Sadly, we can expect more of these “incidents” to occur in the years ahead, even as blatant lies about rising Islamophobia and Trump-inspired attacks upon racial minorities are treated as gospel. As Mark Steyn pointed out on today’s Rush Limbaugh Show, this toxic climate has been produced by decades of antipathy driven by the media, academe, and Hollywood, which has only been ramped up in the wake of Donald Trump’s election as President. I actually agree with Don Lemon’s widely condemned comment that these sociopaths had bad home training. However, the problem is that their home training-or non-training, as the case may be-is the direct result of a terrible philosophy propagated by people like Don Lemon.

The multigenerational poverty, crime, poor education outcomes, and family dysfunction is inextricably linked to the progressive shibboleths that have governed this nation’s inner cities for over half a century. The meta-narrative that these problems spring from institutional white racism has only compounded the misery endured by millions of black Americans living in urban dead zones, as well as that experienced by the occasional white victim of this intellectually suffocating mentality. The sneering dismissal which greeted Donald Trump’s pitch to African-American voters in every liberal newsroom illustrates how detached our ruling class is from reality as its lived by millions of Americans. Merely repeating a self-evident truth which doesn’t comport with their politically correct vision of the world was enough to mark him as a buffoon, notwithstanding the fact that liberal think tanks and socialist magazines invest tremendous resources into demonstrating how blacks are disproportionately the victims of ‘gun violence.’

The hypocrisy is stunning, and it needs to be pointed out whenever it rears its head, even if it means some judicious cyber-trolling. Even though the phrase hate crime is a wholly artificial construct-subject to manipulation and distortion by those with a vested interest in demonizing certain segments of the population-we need highlight the fruits of hatred which the ruling class and its weaponized cultural movements, such as Black Lives Matter, is harvesting. This was not the first, nor will it be the last, example of the media denying reality. Do not let them get away with it. Your life and the lives of others may depend upon it.

It seems like the Truck of Peace has struck yet again, adding to the nearly 21,000 lives extinguished by this most quiescent, moderate of religions. The ISIS-inspired murderer is on the loose, naturally, although the BBC will be relieved to know that the offending lorry has been taken into custody. As the Alternative for Democracy has stated, these dead can be laid at the feet of Angela Merkel, a woman responsible for more European deaths than the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri combined.  She celebrates the cultural enrichment brought by migrants-presumably including the over 100,000 crimes they’ve committed-even as German police buckle under the relentless pressure of Arab-Muslim street gangs.

She has the gall to lament the impact this Muslim-committed atrocity might have on refugees, i.e. potential jihadists, even as Berlin is still soaked in the blood of those who’ve been killed by one of her wayward children. Yet this stupidity hasn’t prevented the same host of global opinion-makers from tut-tutting the potential blowback from the German public. It’s infuriating to those of us who’ve been watching the War on Christmas unfold across Europe and North America over the past 2 decades. We’re being asked to sacrifice our lives-and the lives of our children, grandchildren, sisters, and brothers-upon the alter of multiculturalism and our culture’s demented fealty to political correctness.

Merkel needs to pay the ultimate political price for her actions, which actually are treasonous, i.e. a profound betrayal of her country. She is her nation’s Cromwell-times a hundred-and is accomplishing something even Adolf Hitler couldn’t, i.e. the destruction of Germany. Forgive me if it seems like I’m invoking Godwin’s Law with that comparison, but there’s no more appropriate analogy at this point. We are dealing with a woman who is consciously leading her nation along the path of destruction and eagerly embracing the extermination of her people.

Merkel is finished. She must be, because if she is not, then Germany certainly is. There are limits to ethno-masochism, even in Europe. Merkelism is collective suicide, and it’s time that Germans stood up and said they’re not willing to forfeit their lives on behalf of wretched specimens like Angela Merkel.

Mark Steyn puts the current presidential race into perspective:

In any society, the chief magistrate’s first duty is to uphold the law, and throughout human history his easiest temptation, once in office, has been to regard himself as above it. In this case, the American people would be electing someone who, not yet in office, is already above the law, and way beyond it. (Even her bodily fluids are above the law.) That would be an extraordinary act, and Hillary and her cronies would be entirely justified in treating such an electorate with utter contempt.

One of the more fascinating aspects of California’s transformation into the politically uniform, post-caucasian, multicultural utopia so many open borders Democrats-and their unwitting Republican allies-have worked so hard to achieve is the response of the ruling class. Most impartial observers might ask whether the hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and public debt assumed by that state have some connection to the flight of the middle class and its wholesale replacement by the underclass exported by Mexico’s political and economic elite. However, elected officials have never been plagued by intellectual curiosity, particularly those whose careers are built upon ignoring or denying self-evident truths.

So instead of considering the possibility that the rampant corruption found throughout municipalities like Bell might be a foreign import, that some of the monumental problems facing California might have been exacerbated by its laissez faire immigration policies, the wise men of that state have decided to strike out in search of demons. Whether it’s crafting a law to protect the rights of less than 0.1 percent of the population-which are not imperiled-or contemplating bills which seek to suppress the speech of individuals who disagree with noted climatologist Al Gore, the sages in Sacramento have decided the best use of their resources is combating the vast, chimerical right wing conspiracy.

Based upon the substance of her widely mocked alt-right speech, Hillary Clinton has come to the conclusion that this strategy is the key to her political success. Like the genocidal despot whom she’s modeled her campaign aesthetics and fashion choices after, Hillary will spend the remainder of her campaign-and presidency, should she be elected-persecuting people who exercise no concrete political power in the country she seeks to lead. The fact that her party, her collectivist, politically correct President, has achieved every single professed domestic policy goal-including those which are proscribed by the Constitution-and yet three-quarters of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of this country, must have some rational explanation. The unparalleled stagnancy of the nation’s economy, the erasure of the middle class due to the implementation of Barack Obama’s signature issue, and the explosion of domestic, Islamic terror attacks under his administration couldn’t possibly be the result of deliberate actions taken by the Democratic Party’s standard bearer and his underlings-including Mrs. Clinton. Therefore, another culprit must be found.

The best scapegoat, naturally, is one that’s unable to derail her political ambitions but which serves as the perfect foil in her quest for attaining power. In this case, a random assortment of Internet villains whose mere existence validates the paranoid fantasies of the social justice brigades and Hillary’s more deranged feminist supporters. So rather than focus upon the enormous money laundering operation known as the Clinton Foundation-which might very well continue into the Clinton presidency-or her mass deletion of potentially incriminating evidence, outlets like the ever-objective New York Times and Washington Post can spend the next few months dissecting tweets from obscure MRA bloggers and followers of Mencius Moldbug.

This, in addition to disclosures which have been strategically obstructed throughout the campaign, is what we have to look forward to over the next four years. An unrelenting, lavishly funded witch-hunt against witches that do not exist and who are not responsible for the monumental problems we are facing as a country. For an overview of how we arrived at this point, I would recommend this Mark Steyn piece from 2005 published right before the Trump ascendancy. It clearly delineates why the power brokers within the GOP were so unprepared to deal with Donald Trump and the challenge his supporters presented to the entrenched Republican apparatus. It also describes why the glorious future of multiculturalist uniformity will not be so glorious in reality. Elites look out for their interests, to the detriment of the public, and this election is a concrete illustration of that principle.

The peasants are angry, and for very good reason. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton’s stenographers in the press corps should start paying attention.

Although there have been numerous global jihadist assaults since my last post-including an unsuccessful attack carried out by a Somali Muslim immigrant in a Texas town forced to accept the resettlement of refugees and the beheading of a Canadian hostage taken by Abu Sayyaf-it’s worth reflecting upon the atrocity which took place at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Not simply because of the staggering toll-you can read the stories of those who were killed here-but because the post-Orlando political climate is a reflection of our bizarre national discourse at the moment.

While a courageous few are willing to speak truth to power-in the face of censorship by those who feel that the violence of Islam will evaporate once its critics are erased-our esteemed leaders continue to value their narrative of vibrant diversity over real human lives. The only way to combat this disease-which not only threatens our lives but our hard-won freedoms-is to confront it head-on. Share this video-as well that of Milo’s press conference, which begins 12 minutes in-and begin to challenge the insidious lies which ignore a mountain of corpses.

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.

I distinctly remember taking part in an online discussion several years ago where one of the interlocutors warned me what would happen if Google ever became an evil monopoly. I couldn’t help but think to myself, have you not been paying attention? Leaving aside its extensive invasions of privacy, its intense cooperation with the largest dictatorship on the planet, as well as its agreements with more benighted countries which might or might not censor blasphemous search results, there is the pervasive ideological bias which infects this corporation and periodically makes itself known through heavy-handed editorial and advertising decisions.

However,  a corporation which finds itself even more powerful than Google in terms of shaping the public debate is Facebook. Thanks to Gizmodo, we now know that the militant opposition to Donald Trump among Mark Zuckerberg and his minions was simply the tip of the iceberg, and that Facebook employees had purposefully manipulated their site’s Trending Topics feature in order to suppress conservative views.  Discrimination against non-bien pensant views-including opposition to open borders, multiculturalism, firearms abolition, and using the Constitution as a leftist version of Mad Libs-is encoded in Facebook’s DNA.

In order to grasp just how pervasive this sort of viewpoint discrimination is, one need only look at the case of Lauren Southern, who was banned from Facebook for critiquing Facebook’s tendency to delete outspoken, non-leftist accounts. It’s interesting how liberals lament epistemic closure while simultaneously overlooking the stranglehold not only old but new media exercise over acceptable public debate, restricting the Overton Window to a range of issues that appeal to a small class of opinion-makers, even as forces that are transforming Western civilization are studiously ignored by the gatekeepers of permissible discourse.

Those on the left willing to admit that this is a problem are few and far between, which shouldn’t surprise you considering the fact that even ostensible conservatives can’t wait to grovel before power. Milo, as usual, has a great write-up of the Potemkin conservatives meeting with Zuck, which I recommend reading in its entirety. This is a multi-front war, where we face enemies both internally and externally, and the only way we’re going to begin to make progress is through relentless honesty, regardless of how limited our options for dissemination of the truth might be.

Update: Neil Munro explores Speaker Paul Ryan’s bizarre Republican trinity.

I had the pleasure of attending an informal discussion held by writer/political pundit Fred Barnes recently, where the topics ranged from his biography of Jack Kemp-co-written with McLaughlin Group colleague Morton Kondracke-to his thoughts on the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. Taking place prior to the New York primary, and subsequent devastating losses by Ted Cruz to the now presumptive Republican nominee, it served as a fascinating overview of the internal divisions within the conservative establishment, which are even more pronounced now that the worst nightmare of many has come to fruition.

Even as Fred Barnes-like a handful of other Republican Party stalwarts-has maintained an anybody but Clinton posture-while delineating his many disagreements with Trump both tactically and strategically-the vast majority of thought leaders among formerly influential conservative think tanks, periodicals-as well as statesmen-seem to have taken the opposite tack. Some even going so far as to wholeheartedly embrace a woman who until relatively recently was seen as the bete noire of the establishment right. This is a process which seems to be accelerating with each day that elapses.

A  Trump critic in the audience-who nonetheless came to the conclusion that he was infinitely preferable, given the options, to Hillary Clinton-asked a compelling question. Namely, from where does this deep-seated animus-and unrelenting energy to thwart Donald Trump’s election, to limited effect thus far-stem? Granted, he breaks from  Republican orthodoxy on a number of issues, but if that’s the crux of the problem, then why were there no comparable anti-Romney or anti-McCain movements by the conservative intelligentsia?

If it’s simply a matter of the support Trump has drawn from loathsome figures, then why was there no corresponding outrage when John McCain aligned himself with virulent Mexican chauvinist Juan Hernandez? I’ve never subscribed to the association fallacy, but it’s worth noting that Donald Trump has never enlisted the help of The Daily Stormer in order to cultivate his popularity among white ethnics. Is the galvanizing issue for the anti-Trump movement his use of vulgarity? As absurd as that seems, the chief complaint voiced by the Stop Trump Pac appears to be Donald Trump’s penchant for uttering naughty words.

In reality, I think their objection-and the animating reason for the existence of the Dump Trump movement-is a deeply rooted fear of their own increasing irrelevance. The idea that the bond between conservative intellectuals and successful Republican campaigns is largely illusory is something that those in the anti-Trump faction simply can’t countenance. Especially the ones who manage magazines which have exiled the few writers on their staffs with a modicum of talent and intellectual integrity from their pages.

The Stop Trump crusade-if that word isn’t too offensive-is something to occupy the energies of writers and editors at The Federalist, Red State, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and virtually every other conservative publication of any consequence, through the remainder of this election cycle. It’s a raison d’être for those who would otherwise be preoccupied telling poor white people they need to die and explaining why you’re not a Christian because you happen to support a candidate they dislike, although I’m almost certain we’ll see similar broadsides in the months ahead from those who believe you’re an idiot is a persuasive riposte.

For the record, none of the aforesaid criticism means that Donald Trump is an ideal candidate, or that I believe sincere Trump critics are grievously mistaken for opposing his candidacy. The truth is that there are many objectionable aspects of Trump as a potential POTUS. Although I have several disagreements with him, I think his shockingly ignorant remarks about the attempted massacre of courageous American patriots-including my dear friend Pamela Geller-in Garland, Texas-which, to the best of my knowledge, he’s never retracted-raise the most important questions about his fitness for office.

However, it strains credibility to use this valid concern as an excuse for endorsing a woman who-lest we forget-fought to have a critic of Islam thrown into a dungeon after her own catastrophically bad foreign policy decisions led to the deaths of a United States ambassador, foreign service officer, and 2 CIA contractors.

The decision to enlist in Hillary Clinton’s unceasing quest to sink her talons into the White House is only explicable as a psychological exercise. Namely, as a means of salving the guilty consciences of those who had no meaningful impact in the fight against Obamacare, the successful grassroots campaign to derail legislative amnesty, or any of the myriad cultural wars which have embroiled our nation over the past 2 decades. It’s a way of ignoring the fact that the premiere conservative conference is a venue for selling snake oil rather than exploring the ideas which actual conservatives care about.

And the more true conservatives maintain that the primary concern of millions Americans is immaterial to true conservatism, the more irrelevant these high priests of conservative dogma will become. Just as real alpha females don’t need an inane listicle explaining how to be an alpha female, real conservatives don’t need a hackneyed blogger at Red State or contemptuous John Malkovich lookalike at National Review to explain to them why the unmaking of their country is less important than thwarting the political aspirations of the first Republican presidential candidate to intently listen to their plight and express their reservations about the direction in which this country is headed.

As a political and ideological ethos, Dump Trump is an empty vessel. However, as a case of deflection, it explains a hell of a lot.