“The Iranians are on the march,” warned John McCain Sunday. […]
See also by Dimitrios Papageorgiou: Greek Anti-Immigration Party Golden Dawn Survives Crackdown—Because It’s Rooted In Middle Class and Like It Or Not, Golden Dawn Fighting Genocide In Greece by Nicholas Stix
The electoral triumph of SYRIZA in Greece made worldwide headlines: the hard-Left party managed to get an impressive 36.3%, leaving behind the center-right New Democracy governing party, which got 27.8%. Golden Dawn, a new anti-immigration party widely denounced as neo-Nazi, came third with 6.28%. Greece, the center of a renewed European crisis, has taken a radical turn.
SYRIZA is the first hard-Left party to take power in Europe since the collapse of the Soviet Union. (The name is an acronym, in Greek, for Coalition of the Radical Left.)
In order to understand the importance of this, we must look at what SYRIZA is. Greek electoral law gives a bonus of 50 seats in parliament to the party that achieves the highest popular vote. But it will not give this much-needed bonus to a coalition of parties. Until recently—just a couple of years ago—SYRIZA was such a coalition, of many leftist parties of various tendencies including Maoist, Trotskyist, Leninist and even some with anarchist leanings. All those, with the addition of voters abandoning the failing socialist party PASOK, have merged nominally into one party, but still fiercely hold into their different views.
That means that there are several agendas that will come into play the next years: internationalist, communist, anti-military. And, of course, pro-immigrant—many of these groupuscules have been trying to make inroads into the immigrant communities in Greece
Others identify themselves with Leftist Latin American governments, notably Venezuela and Cuba. Significantly, the ambassador of Venezuela has recently been accorded celebrity status in SYRIZA's meetings.
SYRIZA will now pursue schemes like the disarmament of police units, extending voting and citizenship rights to immigrants, the building of mosques in Athens and of course harsher laws against “xenophobia” and “racism” (which includes thought crimes). But this agenda has not been widely discussed in Greece, since all debate in the election was focused on the economy.
A few years ago, SYRIZA was a small party that in every election would be in agony over whether
American Sniper, the latest film from director Clint Eastwood, is seemingly designed to enrage the Left. The film tells the story of the late Chris Kyle, a rodeo rider from Texas who became a Navy SEAL and the deadliest sniper in American history. It unapologetically portrays Kyle as a proud warrior dedicated to his country and his profession, a bracing change from the usual Hollywood treatment of American servicemen as either psychopathic killers or ashamed and broken victims.
Associated Press attributes the film’s success to conservatives flocking to the see the movie [‘Sniper’ success reveals power of conservative audience, Washington Post, January 20, 2015]. But this is a simplistic assessment of American Sniper’s appeal—it’s an unapologetically pro-American movie with a white male hero at a time when white male Americans are constantly lectured to feel guilty about their race and nationality.
That would be bad enough in the eyes of the Left, but American Sniper also came out over the Martin Luther King holiday weekend. Worse, it’s competing with the latest political hagiography dedicated to “Dr.” King: Selma. As King is less a historical figure than a modern American god, a competing film about a heroic white man has been interpreted as nothing less than a form of blasphemy.
What’s especially infuriating to the Leftist nation of “anti-America” is that American Sniper made $110 million over the Martin Luther King Day weekend and received several Oscar nominations. [Wow! “American Sniper Four Day Take Was a Whopping $110.6 million, by Roger Friedman, Showbiz 411, January 20, 2015]. In contrast, Selma is a box office flop.
The response from the cultural commissars who govern the commanding heights of American entertainment: this is a kind of national moral failing.
Film critic Scott Mendelson moans:
The sad irony of a weekend dedicated to a black man who preached non violence and created great social change through pacifism being dominated by a movie about a white guy who (at least in the movie, final ten minutes notwithstanding) is most noteworthy for his record-breaking body count on a battlefield is not lost on me. [Box Office: 'Selma' Grossed $5M On Martin Luther King Day, Forbes, January 21, 2015]
Matt Taibbi, whose anti-establishment posturing conceals his shameful retreat on immigration, threw up a lazily written blog post
The co-ordination is blatant. When I was young, I had a knowing, sophisticated view of sociopsychological factors that shape public debate—for example, what the late Joe Sobran used to call “The Hive“, explaining why Leftists everywhere suddenly start saying the same thing. But as I get older, I lean increasingly to the view that it`s all a matter of goldarned conspiracies, cabals and corruption. In the immortal words of Spencer Ackerman to his fellow Leftists on the notorious Journolist secret ListServe group during the Jeremiah Wright scandals,
[f]ind a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear…[t]ake one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.
This tactic is exactly what the MSM tried to pull this week after King tweeted to protest the Obamas’ inviting an illegal alien, Ana Zamora, who has benefitted the illegal 2012 DACA Administrative Amnesty:
As one, the MSM reacted as if “deportable” was an obscenity—but in fact an obscenity would not have provoked this reaction:
- Steve King calls Obama’s SOTU guest a ‘deportable’, by Aliyah Frumn, MSNBC.com, January 20, 2015
- State of The Union Has Already Given 2016 Republicans a Headache, by Ryan Teague Beckwith, Time.com, Jan 20, 2015. (“Republican presidential candidates…should expect to be asked about the phrase ‘a deportable’ when they arrive in Iowa.”)
- Steve King blasts Obamas for inviting “deportable” to State of the Union| Tea Party congressman sinks to a new low in attacking DREAMer Ana Zamora, by Luke Brinker, Salon, January 20, 2015
But the simple fact is that, of course, Ms. Zamora is a “deportable”—she is an illegal alien whose status, even after Obama’s DACA decree, is provisional and could be revoked. Obama’s arrogant flaunting of her was treason and he should be impeached.
And as King himself has said crushingly of his use of the term “deportable”: “I would just direct people that have any question about that to AUSC 1227, which is the section in the U.S. Code that is titled this: ‘Deportable Aliens’…I mean, it is a legal term.” (Steve King and his role as an Iowa kingmaker in the early presidential sweepstakes, by Jeff Zeleny and Jordyn Phelps, Yahoo/ABC News, January 23, 2015).
This bullying attempt to anathematize the term “deportable” is just like the Left’s long war against the term “illegal alien,” which recently resulted in vandalism against a Santa Barbara newspaper (no arrests, needless to say, and therefore no strategic deportations). It’s another example of the Left owning the Megaphone and using it to impose its own version of reality.
Similarly, King was demonstrably right to say in 2013 that there were more drug smugglers than valedictorians among illegal alien minors (and subsequently was further vindicated by a spectacular case of illegal alien minor drug smuggling). Yet the Megaphone blares only that King said illegals develop muscles like cantaloupes (a reference to their immense loads, the 12-year old boy in the subsequent illegal smuggling case was carrying 80 pounds of marijuana) and that he compared once immigrants to dogs (wrong).
Of course, it actually doesn’t matter what King may or may not have said. There is an agenda here, pretty well summarized by neoconservative immigration enthusiast enforcer Jennifer Rubin:
…candidates who attend [the Iowa Freedom Summit] are enabling King to hold court, thereby setting themselves and the party up to be slammed
Picture from: How the French [sic] terrorists were connected to al Qaeda, ISIS, by Bob Orr, CBS News, January 9, 2015.
It didn’t take long for our President to blame the French people for the Islamic terrorist attacks that shocked the world. Barack Obama told the Europeans that they must do more to integrate Muslims and avoid “respond[ing] with a hammer.” [Europe needs to better integrate Muslim communities: Obama, AFP, January 16, 2015] In fact, of course, contemporary Europeans would do very well to remember the example of Charles Martel, “Hammer of the Franks,” who saved Europe from Islam at the Battle of Tours.
But Obama is right that the Islamic question in Europe won’t be solved simply through law enforcement or military action. What he would never admit: it must be solved by action on immigration—and repatriation.
Why would any country in its right mind want Muslim immigration, or immigration from predominantly Muslim countries? It really shouldn’t take dead bodies to shock people into thinking clearly about immigration. But c'est la vie, as the French would say.
The French terrorists were a diversity twofer—both racially and religiously “diverse” in that they weren’t of either European or Christian stock. Though they were born in France, they couldn’t be considered “French” except in a technical legal sense. They owed greater allegiance to an increasing Islamic diaspora community than to the French nation.
Therefore the ultimate question, which absolutely no mainstream American commentators have raised; how can we, lawfully and humanely, reduce the number of Muslims in the West and so reduce the source of the problem?
The late Lawrence Auster, editor of View From The Right, pointed towards a constructive policy in two speeches, at an Act for America meeting in New York (January 25, 2010)
Muslims in large numbers do not belong in any Western society. It was a mistake to let them in, and now we have to recognize that mistake and find ways to start reversing that immigration.
[Islam and the West…Can They Co-Exist, The "silent" majority no more! (blog), January 28, 2010]
But how do we “reverse” any form of immigration? The very mention of reversing immigration would require political courage unseen in America.
Or would it? There are actually laws
When President Obama declares something a “success story,” you know […]
But what is France fighting for in this war on terror? For terrorism is simply a tactic, and arguably the most effective tactic of the national liberation movements of the 20th century.
Terrorism was used by the Irgun to drive the British out of Palestine and by the Mau Mau to run them out of Kenya. Terrorism, blowing up movie theaters and cafes, was the tactic the FLN used to drive the French out of Algeria.
The FALN tried to assassinate Harry Truman in 1950 at Blair House, shot up the House of Representatives in 1954, and, in 1975, blew up Fraunces Tavern in New York where Washington had bid his officers farewell. The FALN goal: Independence from a United States that had annexed Puerto Rico as the spoils of war in its victory over Spain.
What did the FLN, FALN, Mau Mau, Irgun and Mandela's ANC have in common? All sought the expulsion
No, this is not Birmingham, Alabama I’ve been pondering: not the Birmingham from whose jail Martin Luther King—I beg your pardon: The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—wrote a famous letter in 1963, and whose subsequent decline has been chronicled in a VDARE.com article and a book by our own correspondent Paul Kersey
No, the Birmingham on my mind is the English Birmingham, a big old industrial city in the West Midlands.
(The central trunk of England is, in the imagination of the English, divided into North, Midlands, and South. The West Midlands stretches from the Welsh border eastwards to Rugby. East of that is of course the East Midlands, where I was born and raised. East of that is East Anglia, a flat, damp, and dreary region best known for Puritans, opium addiction, and singing mailmen.)
So what’s been going on in Birmingham? First the political.
On January 10th, the Saturday following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, terrorism expert and author Steve Emerson was on the Fox News program Justice with Judge Jeanine. Discussing the situation of Muslims in Europe, Emerson said the following thing:
In Britain, it’s not just no-go zones. There are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.
That was an unfortunately absurd thing to say. In the 2011 national census 22 percent of Birmingham’s inhabitants identified as Muslim, 46 percent as Christian, 32 percent as other religions or none.
Birmingham is Britain’s second most populous city at 1.1 million. The municipal boundaries encompass 103 square miles, putting Birmingham midway in size between Sacramento and Salt Lake City—but in, of course, a much smaller country. For non-Muslims to be excluded from a place that size would be astounding.
The worst of it, from a VDARE.com point of view, was that Emerson’s clumsy remark was a gift to the multiculturalists, transnationalists, and Muslim supremacists, who were soon hooting and shrieking all over the internet.
Fox and Emerson issued separate apologies, and Emerson made a £500 ($750) donation to Birmingham Children’s Hospital.[ Fox News 'terror expert': Listening back to my comments on Birmingham is like 'waterboarding' By Leon Siciliano, Telegraph (UK), January 15, 2015]
Next up was Louisiana Governor and GOP Great Brown Hope Bobby Jindal. Addressing the neocon think tank Henry Jackson Society on a visit to London, Jindal offered a milder version of Emerson’s remarks about no-go areas in Europe:
In a speech prepared for delivery at a British think tank, Jindal said some immigrants are seeking “to colonize Western countries
On Monday night, for example, Rachel ran a news clip from President Reagan's 1983 Martin Luther King Day signing ceremony:
"Chris Wallace, NBC Reporter (by miraculous coincidence, currently a Fox News anchor): 'There was an air of celebration in the Rose Garden and an underlying tension. White House officials wrestled for days how to usher in a holiday the president opposed. They finally decided to embrace it. ... Maybe that's what today was about, that blacks have the power to make politicians do things.'"
End tape, cut to Rachel, taking notes, muttering with disgust: "The blacks now have the power ..."
Except Wallace didn't say "the blacks." Refer to the tape. By adding the simple article "the," Rachel turned Chris Wallace from a garden-variety 1980s news reporter into Archie Bunker. It takes a special kind of zealotry to play a tape of someone and then immediately lie about what viewers just heard him say.
Rachel's rewrite of Wallace (again, a Fox News host) was astonishingly similar to her misquote of Republican Senate candidate—now senator—Joni Ernst just before the November elections. Maddow inserted the word "the" into Ernst's statement, entirely changing her meaning.
Ernst had said—as anyone could hear from the tape helpfully played by Rachel: "I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family—whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from a government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important."
The very next line in the transcript has Rachel sneering—as if repeating Ernst's line: "I believe in my right to defend myself from the government with my beautiful little Smith & Wesson, 9 millimeter." She then riffed on her own rewrite of Ernst's statement, warning that a Senate candidate "is threatening to turn to armed violence against the government if she doesn't get what she wants ..."
Obviously, there's a pretty big difference between a Second Amendment right to defend yourself from "a government" and "the government." One is theoretical—referring to some future tyrannical government or even
COLORADO SPRINGS—From the liberal media’s coverage of my beautiful adopted […]