“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Monday, June 05, 2017

They still don't get it.

Our history has made Britons nice. Terror means we must learn to be nasty

Britain is a soft target for terrorism because we Britons are too nice. This isn’t a criticism: it’s what makes the country such a wonderful place to live. But we are culturally ill-equipped to deal with conspiracies and extremists. The problem is that the only way to beat terrorists is to change our way of life – but that is exactly what the buggers want. So, we do as little as possible. And being British, we regard doing as little as possible as a sort of victory.

Of course, we shouldn’t downplay what governments have done to fight jihadism. Since 2000 we’ve bombed the Middle East and averaged one new anti-terror law every two years.

But the first job of the state is to protect us, and the failure of the state is plain to see: five dead in Westminster, 22 dead in Manchester, seven dead in London Bridge. Worse: time after time after time it is discovered that the killers were known to the authorities. One of the London Bridge terrorists, Khuram Butt, appeared in a Channel 4 documentary about extremism; he prayed as a jihadi-style flag was unfurled in Regent’s Park.

I saw that documentary. I remember the scene. I assumed that some of the people involved would get a call from the police – just as I assumed everyone who was ever caught on camera calling for the death of British soldiers or who fought in Syria would face the consequences. Instead, we are told by the security services that there are 23,000 subjects of interest walking our streets – a figure that was released to show us how complicated the problem is but which leaves me, in these days of blood and anger, wondering why the Hell they’re neither rotting in a prison cell nor on a one-way flight to Syria.
Why not? Because this is Britain. Our legal system, for starters, forbids it. We have due process: people have a right to know the charge and to face a judge. The state has no right to take away our citizenship. Here we practise the presumption of innocence. We are tried by our peers.

Blame Magna Carta
There is a liberal school of thought that it is laws that define a country, and that since Magna Carta we’ve seen a slow balancing of power away from the state and towards the individual. The debate about arming the police, for instance, goes back to the 19th century, when they were first given blue uniforms so as not to look like soldiers – and had to wear them even off duty, to allay fears that they were spying on the public.

Culture defines our response to religious extremism, too. Liberal Britain does not like women covering their faces, but nor will it tell a woman what to wear. And you won’t struggle to find a vicar willing to defend conservative Islam. For the type of Christianity we practise in Britain might be our greatest glory and our greatest weakness. Yes, Christianity has a history of violence and intolerance.
But since at least the 19th century, Christians have reconciled themselves to science, secularism and tolerance – and this has shaped our society, even if atheists refuse to believe it. Our heroes in modern Britain are cops and medics, not killers. We are kind even to dangerous prisoners. When zookeepers shoot an ape to protect a child, half the public takes the side of the ape.

More seriously, the British operate an immigration policy dictated by the heart, not the head. At Catholic Mass a couple of weeks ago, I read the election letter by the bishops of England and Wales that advised us to consider which parties have a migration policy that is “respectful of the unity of marriage and family life”. That’s a decent, Christian notion your Excellencies. But it’s also naive.

The right to a family life has permitted thousands of conservative Muslims to migrate to Britain via marriage, to a country that requires little integration. There have been fraudulent unions, too. Ask the East European girls of Govanhill, Glasgow, forced into sham marriages with men, mainly from Pakistan, who want residency here.

I am not saying, as some do, that the problem begins and ends with Islam. On the contrary, there’s so much we Christians can learn from Muslims about family, charity, hard work and having some fixed notion of who we really are. Christians, by contrast, have talked ourselves out of our own convictions. We cannot tell newcomers how to be British because we’re not 100 per cent sure what being British means anymore. Although the liberal establishment is damn sure it doesn’t involve telling other people to be British.

Well, maybe that has to change. Just as, maybe, we’ll have to arrest a lot more people. The West has faced a terror wave before, from the late Sixties to the early Nineties. The good news is that we won. The bad news is that the state did accrue power, the innocent were spied on, we did betray our liberal traditions.

The Troubles ended not because, as Jeremy Corbyn suggests, we sat down to tea with the IRA but because the British state suppressed it – and with methods that defy our cosy assumption that Britishness is ultimately about leaving others be. No one wants to go through that again. But you don’t fight a war without the expectation that your way of life will change. If we want to win, it must.


  1. Muslim Pakistani men raping women and children all over England, and almost all the victims are white.

    HALF of all rape and murder suspects in some parts of Britain are foreigners,( Muslims) new figures show. An investigation found that across the country almost a fifth of those believed responsible for the worst crimes last year were born outside the UK.

  2. In areas largely unaffected by immigration, such as Cumbria and North Wales, no one charged with rape or murder was born overseas.

    1. Jamaicans, Nigerians, Portuguese , Romanians and Somalians Are high on the list in the areas where they are concentrated. The victims are overwhelmingly white.

    2. From figures compiled by the Sun, migrants commit about 220,000 crimes a yea in Britainr.

  3. London Mayor Sadiq Khan is calling on the British government to cancel a state visit from President Trump after Trump criticized his response to this weekend’s terror attacks in London.


    Khan has previously called for Trump to be denied a state visit in Britain. He pointed to Trump’s executive order barring refugees and people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. as his reason, calling the order “cruel.”

    “In those circumstances, we shouldn't be rolling out the red carpet," he said.

  4. April 2017, The crime rate among migrants in Germany rose by more than 50 per cent last year, according to new figures that have raised concerns the populist far-Right may seize on the issue in the run-up to September’s elections.

    The number of suspected crimes by refugees, asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants rose to 174,438 in 2016 — an increase of 52.7 per cent, according to the interior ministry.

    1. German authorities are more worried about election issues than they are about the war being being waged on their own people. That is progressivism.

    2. Islamist-inspired crime rose by 13.7 per cent, according to the German figures.

    3. No, I was wrong. Here is what Germany frets about. A headline for Der Spiegel:


      A Turning Point in History

      U.S. President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris climate accord marks an epochal shift. With the America no longer reliable, it is time for Chancellor Angela Merkel to look for new partners.

    4. Merkel can partner with China and try to get them to reduce their coal fired emissions.

      Sounds like a good waste of her time.

  5. Jihadist terrorists, however, are not trying to divide us, destroy our values or stop the general election. They are trying to kill us and conquer us.

    If it is to defend itself, a liberal society may need to adopt illiberal measures. If we don’t do so now, we’ll be forced to eventually.

    The only question is how many will have to die before that happens.

    Islam Needs Reform

  6. Whatever folks say about The Donald, he does have a grip on the muzzie problem. I can't think of anyone in government who is more up front about it.

    I wouldn't count him out just yet.

    A few more muzzie attacks in the USA and people may be looking to him as a shining beacon in a rough sea.

    1. I'd love to know Dr. Sennels' opinion of the man.

      He might approve.

  7. I don't think much of Prime Minister May but she's is better than the Labour guy Jeremy Corbyn and I hope she wins on Thursday.

    Nigel Farage would make a good Prime Minister.

  8. That Ariana Grande who I'd never heard of before isn't a bad performer.

    1. Them is my opinions from here.

    2. How Will the London Attacks Affect the U.K. Elections?

      Both Prime Minister Theresa May and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have been accused of politicizing recent attacks.

      Peter Nicholls / Reuters

      Probably will help May a little.

    3. Both Prime Minister Theresa May and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have been accused of politicizing recent attacks.

      What the hell else is a politician in England supposed to do after some terrorist attacks with an election coming up but express opinions about them in a manner designed to benefit oneself ?

      It's the way of the world.

    4. The terrorism advice of that asshole Mayor of London Sadiq Khan was, basically, get used to it.

      If he isn't a wolf in sheep's clothing I don't know what he might be.


      After London Bridge, The World Is Sick Of Politicians Downplaying Terrorism

      Our political leaders are basically telling us that this kind of terrorism, random and deadly, is the price we have to pay for their policies of multiculturalism and political correctness.

      Megan G. Oprea By Megan G. Oprea
      JUNE 5, 2017

      As if on cue, in the wake of Saturday’s terrorist attack in London political leaders are trotting out the usual treacly lines that have become so rote. But the words they pretend will provide comfort to anyone but the most naïve are borderline worthless. Worse, they’re an insult to the families who have had to experience the shocking pain of the sudden loss of a family member or friend at the hands of a terrorist.

      Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, called Saturday’s attack “deliberate and cowardly,” and asked “all Londoners to remain calm and vigilant today and in the days ahead.” Most notably, he said: “You will see an increased police presence today, including armed officers and uniformed officers. There is no reason to be alarmed by this. We are the safest global city in the world.”

      What a thing to say at a time like this. Shouldn’t Britons be alarmed? Isn’t Saturday’s attack in London, coming as it did on the heels of the Manchester bombing, deeply disturbing? Why isn’t Khan more concerned about the threats that are so obviously at the doorstep, or better put, in Britain’s streets? Does anyone really take comfort from being told about swift police response times after yet another terrorist attack?

      Our Politicians Can’t Handle the Truth

      The sad truth, and getting sadder with every attack, is that the political class has little interest in doing what would really be necessary to combat Islamist terrorism, let alone talk about it. They don’t want to talk about how Britain’s lax immigration policies over decades led to hundreds of thousands of immigrants entering the country with varying degrees of willingness to assimilate and adopt Western values. They don’t want to openly criticize the blatant problems with the multiculturalism the UK has pursued for years and the obvious impact it has had on the immigrant population.

      Oh no. This would cost them too much. It would shatter the façade of political correctness that’s been constructed over our “civilized” western world, and destroy the illusion, so vital to the political class, that Western values are universal.

      The politicians are only willing to give speeches about how united we are and how terrorists cannot tear us apart. But the truth—so clear and obvious—is that with every attack the West becomes more and more divided. We are not united, not by a long shot. Before the bodies of the poor souls who were killed Saturday by radical Islamists were even identified, the Left and Right were at one another’s throats. On that score, the terrorists emerge victorious every time.

    6. Yes, there are beautiful and touching scenes of strangers helping one another, opening their homes, offering free rides. This is a reminder of the goodness that still exists as part of our shared humanity. But such gestures don’t, ultimately, unite us. Neither do candlelight vigils and marches through the streets of Paris—or tearful pop concerts in Manchester.

      The Intellectually Weak Attack Anyone More Courageous

      There’s little to no tolerance in polite society for the kind of honesty for which many in the West are hungry. The Washington Post ran a headline Sunday that read, “World Leaders Call For Unity After London Attack. Trump tweets the complete opposite.” The article chastises President Trump for not joining in the fake condolences and platitudes of the political elite, and praises those elites for their messages of hope. But what, exactly, are they saying we should be hopeful for?

      Trump, who is often wrong, was correct in tweeting Sunday that, “We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people.” A growing number of those people are scared, and sick of turning on the news to hear of yet another heartbreaking attack then hearing the same meaningless bromides from their leaders.

      They want a leader who doesn’t just try to inure them to this kind of random violence but stands up and says that we’re not going to take it, that this isn’t an acceptable status quo. Whether Trump is that leader is highly debatable, but at least he’s making a nod toward it....

  9. I went one day to the grand Jordanian parliament building to meet Abdullah Obeidat, a leading member of parliament and chairman of one of the parliament’s policy committees.

    Displaying full Arab courtesy, he met me on the steps of parliament. He and I and a retinue of officials strolled into the official meeting room where we sat in grand sofas and were served sweets and tea.


    In a venerable office overlooking the ancient Medina of Rabat, I had a long discussion with Ahmed Abbadi, secretary-general of the Rabita Mohammedia al-Ulema, or Council of Religious Scholars.

    Most of our discussion dealt with why Morocco, at official and popular level, has been able to generate such a strong mainstream Islam resistant to extremism.


    But there is a kind of dialogue in the Islamic world today between the grievances and the dark fantasies of the Abdullah Obeidats, and the poetry and vision and common sense of the Ahmed Abbadis.

    Islamist Delusions

  10. After 1400 years of this horse shit I have trouble distinguishing between Islam and Islamism.

    I keep thinking of 80,000,000 Hindu dead and the saying:

    First we'll show the Poles then everybody else

    1. One in one out policy ?

      I suggest One in two out policy.

    2. Maybe a Two Hindus in Two muzzies out policy.

      Rapes would plummet, suicide bombings and car attacks drop off, higher education degrees would skyrocket....

  11. QuirkLand, Michigan -

    Michigan: America’s FIRST Muslim Majority City Council “erupts in screaming, swearing, and little else” #Hamtramck
    By Pamela Geller - on June 5, 2017


    America’s future.

    The Islamization of Hamtramck and Dearborn continues apace. This should be a warning to all of us.

    At this rate, they will be bloody brawls in the House and Senate, just like we see in Muslim countries.

    New Muslim Majority City Council in Michigan Warns, “Today we show the [non-Muslims] and everybody else….”

    ((***The quote is, as I recall, "First we show the Poles, then everybody else"**** Bob))

    Hamtramck, Michigan is 1st American city to elect MUSLIM MAJORITY CITY COUNCIL

    Residents Complain ‘Call to Prayer’ is Too Loud in 1st American City with Muslim Majority City Council

    by Michael Jackman May 12, 2017:

    Congratulations, Warren: Your city council looks a lot better, relatively speaking, this Friday afternoon.

    But it’s only by comparison, and courtesy of the Hamtramck City Council.

    That body met for an emergency meeting today, and, depending on who’s talking, the reasons may differ. (Luckily, a series of videos — 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 — are posted online so you can draw your own conclusions.)

    Essentially, a block of four councilmembers were prepared to let the city manager’s contract expire and to initiate a search for a new city manager.

    It’s no secret that relations between Councilman Anam Miah and city manager Katrina Powell have been strained. But in politics, you sometimes work with people because larger things are at stake. In this case, for instance, it’s a $2 million loan from the state of Michigan lent on condition that the little city keep a city manager on staff.

    Hence the importance of working with Powell, lest the city’s Receivership Transition Advisory Board — the body keeping an eye on the city in the wake of its stint under emergency management — call in the loan, which the city probably could cover, but not by a whole lot.

    However, as the crowd filtered into the council chambers, it became clear that plenty of the city’s most engaged residents were opposed to letting Powell go, thereby incurring the wrath of the RTAB. (It may not look that crowded in the video, but the chambers only fill up like that when the council is discussing marijuana or the regulation of ice cream trucks.)

    As the videos show, various people on Hamtramck City Council can be utterly dysfunctional — especially when Mayor Majewski is away visiting her mother.

    In the end, after all that rancor, nothing binding was passed at the emergency meeting. After the block of councilmen voted unanimously to let Powell’s contract expire, the city lawyer was able to tell everybody, after much shouting, that the body needed five votes to terminate a contract.


    June 5, 2017
    Watch fake news created by CNN to confirm narrative of 'good Muslims'
    By Thomas Lifson

    Whenever Muslims act out the violence against infidels that Islamic scripture requires, the left-wing media swing into action to create and reinforce a contrasting narrative: that most Muslims condemn and fight such attacks. Never mind that the terrorists could not unleash their violence if the Muslim communities in which they live agreed with the media narrative. They would be spotted and turned in to authorities by their co-religionists if the fantasy narrative of "good Muslims" rejecting violence and insisting that their "great religion" is truly beneficent for the world, including its non-Muslim majority.

    Because the actual facts on the ground do not support the benign view of Muslims as overwhelmingly hostile to terrorists and committed to peaceful coexistence, it is necessary to create (not simply report) events that confirm the media narrative. CNN has just been caught creating a fake news event to support its narrative, and its efforts were rewarded with pick-ups by the BBC and the AP, among others.

    In this two-minute video, CNN puts together a handful of people, carrying pre-printed signs (no spontaneity involved), and arranges them before the camera to look like a substantial crowd. The elevated stage is a nice touch, confirming the professional expertise brought to bear in prepping this scene for the cameras.


    If you don't have time to watch, Sundance of Conservative Treehouse explains what you would see:

    [Y]ou see British Media, together with CNNi correspondent Becky Anderson, with full support from British Law Enforcement, carefully staging a backdrop for media broadcast in the aftermath of the latest terrorist attack in London. The intent of the scripted propaganda is clearly to create a counter storyline and reduce backlash against the political policies of the British government. CNNi taking the lead creating a false narrative for domestic consumption by the UK media audience.

    The production staff go above and beyond by carefully positioning a group of women and children they call "Muslim Mothers" complete with signs showing Muslim support for the UK electorate. Additionally, the staff place flowers and teddy bears at the feet of the women to create the best optics for the broadcast.

    The broadcast journalist then begins introducing the "discovery" by describing what they "found" as a "poignant scene" etc. "What we want to show you now viewers, is a wonderful scene. These are Muslim Mums…"

    You really must watch how the manufactured scene is described. A few of those who watched the entire creating of the media production begin to laugh in the background.

    Here is the broadcast report of the CNN correspondent, Becky Anderson (hat tip: Gateway Pundit):


    It appears that the fraud was spotted by Mark Dice, who was on scene. Below, he narrates a discussion of this video:


    He also tweeted out that as part of the staging, white police officers were removed and replaced by "Asians" (which is a British euphemism to avoid the words "Pakistani" and "Bangladeshi"), who then left once the filming was done. He also noted that the BBC was there, but it was unclear if they showed any footage. It turns out they did, and Katie Hopkins is on the case:

    The Associated Press also signed on to the fake news project and added some colorful verbiage about "brings out the best" – which actually implies that without media puppeteers, the rest of us would be left with the actual reality of the Muslims in London, which would not be demonstrations like this.

    This famous scene from Seinfeld is oddly appropriate:


    Ho ho ho Seinfeld was great.

    1. A little longer Seinfeld video -

  13. Europe needs a Second Amendment


    Video: Club-wielding migrants attacking French citizen. Luckily for him, he was a plainclothes police officer, and therefore armed.

    Europeans should be allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves.

    After the horrible jihad attack in Paris on November 13, 2015, in which more than a hundred people were killed, Donald J. Trump – the future president of the USA – said:

    “You can say what you want, but our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry it would’ve been a much, much different situation.”

    And of course, Trump was right.
    To bloodthirsty jihadis, Europe is a heavenly slaughterhouse full of unarmed infidels. At the music club Bataclan in Paris, people had to watch their friends and partners suffer unspeakable horrors. The jihadis tortured people with knives, men and women had their genitals stabbed, and some victims had their bellies cut open and their intestines pulled out before they were executed. The unarmed citizens were powerless against the jihadis.

    During the jihad attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi in 2013, the jihadis “removed balls, eyes, ears, nose. They get your hand and sharpen it like a pencil then they tell you to write your name with the blood. They drive knives inside a child’s body.” Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble warned after the attack:

    “Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem. One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that.”

    Armed citizens in Europe?

    Here is what the head of the Swiss army, Lieutenant-General André Blattmann, thinks:

    “The threat of terror is rising, hybrid wars are being fought around the globe … migration flows of displaced persons and refugees have assumed unforeseen dimensions,” Blattmann says as he advises people to arm themselves: “those not already armed as part of the Swiss Army reserve [should] take steps to arm themselves.”

    After a string of terror attacks during the summer of 2016, Czech president Miloš Zeman said:

    “I really think that citizens should arm themselves against terrorists. And I honestly admit that I changed my mind, because previously I was against [citizens] having too many weapons. After these attacks, I don’t think so [anymore]”.

    Zeman points to Israel’s gun laws as an example. Being surrounded by Islamic countries and being Jewish, Israel has more experience with fighting Islamic terrorism than any other country. One successful lifesaving strategy is to allow trained citizens to carry firearms. For this reason, terror attacks are regularly stopped by civilians before too many innocents are hurt. Compared with Denmark, which has some of the toughest laws on weapons (you are not even allowed to own a pepper spray), Israel has three times fewer deadly accidents with firearms. And three times fewer gun related deaths than France, Finland and Austria – all countries where civilians are not allowed to carry in public.

    We should start by allowing our officers and soldiers to bear their guns in their free time. They are professionals, and by allowing them to be armed when off duty, we would instantly multiply our societies’ protective force.

    But even that will not be enough. The Islamic State has just issued a new order: faithful Muslims must attack the infidels in the only place where all families should feel safe – in our own homes. The police cannot be everywhere, and people must be able to stand their ground.

    The Europeans need a Second Amendment. The only question is, how many innocent unarmed people will be slaughtered before lawmakers will be forced to allow people to defend themselves against this deadly menace that has been allowed into our countries by ignorant politicians, the anti-national EU, and the Islamic-dominated UN, all aided by a cowardly press that so willingly hid the inconvenient truths until it was too late?


  14. One more -

    June 6, 2017
    London Mayor Demands Travel Ban -- Against Donald Trump
    By Daren Jonescu

    Many readers on this site are probably aware that I am not a fan of Donald Trump. On the other hand, I think I can say with certainty that if thousands of religious fanatics were planning, funding, or sympathizing with murderous attacks against my fellow citizens, my gut response would not be to recommend an immediate travel ban against the president of the United States.

    The one area in which I have been most understanding of Trump's appeal from the get-go is his blunt rhetoric about Muslim extremism. Though the issue is complicated, I have even expressed sympathy with his campaign position of a moratorium on all travel to the U.S. from Muslim nations. Whether practical or not, the idea has an undeniable emotional resonance for anyone who is not burying his head in the sand with regard to the nature and goals of Islamic fanaticism.

    The logic of a ban on Muslim immigration and travel was spelled out in a syllogism of blood yet again on June 3, as England was hit with its second major terrorist attack in two weeks. And yet part of that nation's tough-talking capitulation to the global caliphate in the face of the latest attack consisted of the mayor of London demanding that a travel ban be issued -- no, not against people with ties to Islamic radicals, but against Donald Trump.

    "I don’t think we should roll out the red carpet to the president of the USA in the circumstances where his policies go against everything we stand for," said Sunni Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan, in a statement that left some ambiguity about whom he meant by "we." Was he speaking primarily as mayor of London, or as a prominent British Muslim? The last time I checked, Great Britain did not (yet) officially "stand for" the Islamic radicalization of its youth, the precipitous alteration of its demography in favor of Islam as the majority religious practice, or the passive acceptance of semi-regular religious-motivated mass killings in the names of "diversity" and "tolerance."

    For what it's worth, genuine tolerance is indeed a modern pluralistic political virtue, and a necessary one. But when Milton and Locke were making their cases for religious tolerance, their precise intention was to quell or moderate religious fanaticism, not to aggrandize and protect it. Tolerance, as a social good, means specifically the refusal to accept violent hatred spewed in the name of faith, within the context of a modern political community.

    1. England's government, and by implication the majority of its voting public, has shifted to a very different, almost diametrically opposed, understanding of tolerance, according to which tolerance means "learning to live with" a certain amount of violent religious fanaticism in one's midst, in the names of progressivism, multiculturalism, and kumbaya.

      And so, even after his own city has been assailed by sincere and fanatical representatives of his own faith, Mayor Khan's instinct is not to condemn the fanatical strain of his faith, or to express shame on behalf of the moderate practitioners of his faith, but rather to demand that the American president be officially branded intolerant for his condemnation of the killers and their religious ilk.

      In the face of yet another reminder of the suicidal results of his city's and nation's distorted tolerance of, and apologies for, fanaticism in their mosques, their neighborhoods, and their popular "culture," the mayor does not call for harsh action against radicalizing imams who sell their intolerant, anti-Western root rot in London on a daily basis, but rather wishes to ban a popular critic of such radicalism from setting foot in his country.

      The sinking of a once very noble ship of state continues with no sign of rescue in sight.

      Daren Jonescu writes about politics, philosophy, education, and the decline of civilization at