Archive for January 24, 2016

It’s About Domination: Rape (and Other Sex) Attacks Across Europe

January 24, 2016

It’s About Domination: Rape (and Other Sex) Attacks Across Europe, Clarion Project, Meira Svirsky, January 24, 2016

(The Muslims involved are not ignorant of European culture; they despise it and seek to show that Islam is superior and that it will dominate by getting away with their antics. Will the apparent desire of a few other refugees to integrate into German society change things? That seems quite unlikely.  — DM)

Germany-Sex-Mob-Scandel-Has-a-Background-IPProtests against the Cologne attacks in Germany. The sign reads “The sex-mob attacks have a background.” (Photo: © Reuters)

Disturbing news out of Germany and Austria reads like a sick advert for a porn movie. “Report: Locals Fled Pool After Migrants Masturbated Into Jacuzzi, Defecated Into Kid’s Pool, Invaded Girls Changing Rooms.” The report continues, saying that when challenged by the pool staff, the men laughed “in the face of pool staff.”

The obscene actions were caught on film by a security camera. After being  thrown out by lifeguards, the men came back, “jeering” and taking selfies in the polluted hot tub.

Many other pools have reported similar incidences, including a series of sexual assaults on bathers as young as a three-year-old boy at the pool with his mother and 11-year-old girls targeted at water slides by gangs of migrants.

After the New Year’s Eve attacks in Germany, where coordinated, organized gangs of migrant men in Cologne and other cities surrounded German women and proceeded to grope, rape and rob them as their helpless boyfriends and police watched (who were themselves surrounded and harassed), the gloves supposedly came off the politically-correct Germany media.

Still, there has been only a trickle of reports. (And disturbingly, included in the reports is the fact that, in one particular sexual-assault incident, the men were detained by police, only to be later released.)

Shamed into reporting the Cologne attacks after a full four days of media silence, the discussion unfortunately centered on victim blaming (by none other than the mayor of Cologne herself — as well as skewed takes on the incidents by feminists ready to sacrifice their sisters to the greater cause of anti-“racism”).

In the cases of gang harassment at pools, officials have taken a similar tack, saying migrant men must be schooled in Europeans values and norms. Pools that refused to allow in migrants in the wake of these incidents have been either shamed or forced into reopening their doors to them, with explanatory posters of improper behavior posted prominently at their doors.

Which completely misses the point.

Yes, a culture of pederasty exists in Afghanistan, where pre-pubescent boys are taken by powerful officials to be “played with” at will.

Yes, women in Middle Eastern and some African countries dress more modestly than their European counterparts, leading some Middle Eastern men to assume European women are “fair meat.”

That doesn’t explain coordinated attacks in at least 12 German states, according to a leaked report of the federal criminal police, nor does it explain leering gangs taking selfies in post-polluted hot tubs.

The New York Times reports Alice Schwarzer, described as a leading “second-wave” German feminist, “became a lightning rod for feminist and anti-racist anger after New Year’s Eve when she condemned the Cologne attacks as a “gang bang” designed to terrorize women.

Although Schwarzer clarified  “she never sought to ignore the fact that there is ‘a problem with epidemic, structural violence against women in Germany, as anywhere in the world,’” she was one of the few to name the reality of what is happening in Europe today.

“Violence is always the dark core of domination, whether it is between ethnic groups, or between different peoples or between the sexes,” Schwarzer said.

Europeans, who expected the migrants to receive their outpouring of largess graciously, have awakened to the latest manifestation of Islamist terror, whose goal is to control and dominate foreign cultures until they submit to the imposition of sharia-compliant Islam.

Apparently, as we have seen with brutalities of the Islamic State and with the above deviant behaviors in Europe, anything goes in order to achieve this goal.

Barring the rise of the extreme right as a counter force, which will result in a violent, full-scale war with Europe’s new populations – taking many innocents along with it — if there is to be light at the end of this ideological tunnel, it must come from within the Muslim populations. Liberal Europe, it seems, has no stomach for it.

In Germany, one small flicker of that light was seen over the weekend as thousands of Syrian refuges holding signs saying “No to Sexism, No to Racism,” “We respect the values of German society” and “We are all Cologne” demonstrated across Germany against the Cologne attacks.

Many more such demonstrations and subsequent actions will be needed to propel Europe to rid itself of its newly imported fifth column.

Off Topic | Trump, Conservative Ideolgues and Populists

January 24, 2016

Trump, Conservative Ideolgues and Populists, Dan Miller’s Blog, January 24, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Conservative ideologues want to keep things essentially as they are, making only marginal and generally ineffective changes. Populists want to change things to be more consistent with what “we the people” want. Often, what we the people want is better than what our “leaders” want or try to provide. Under these definitions, Trump is a populist, not a conservative ideologue. That’s good.

According to Dictionary. com, these are attributes of “conservatives:”

Disposed to preserve existing conditions, restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

According to the same source, “populism” means:

Any of various, often anti-establishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.

Grass-roots democracy; working class activism; egalitarianism.

National Review recently published an entire special edition devoted to attacking Trump on the ground that he is insufficiently conservative. Whom did National Review support in 2008 and 2012? Guess or go to the link. He did not win.

NR - Trump

Writing at PJ Media about National Review’s special issue, Roger L. Simon argued that 

Many of their arguments revolve around whether Trump is a “true conservative.” Instead of wading into the definitional weeds on that one — as they say on the Internet, YMMV [Your Milleage May Vary] — allow me to address the macro question of what the purpose of ideology actually is. For me, it is to provide a theoretical basis on which to act, a set of principles. But that’s all it is. It’s not a religion, although it can be mistaken for one (communism). [Insert and Emphasis added.]

Ideology should function as a guide, not a faith, because in the real world you may have to violate it, when the rubber meets the road, as they say. For those of us in the punditocracy, the rubber rarely if ever meets the road.  All we have is our theories. They are the road for us. If we’re lucky, we’re paid for them.  In that case, we hardly ever vary them. It would be bad for business.

Trump’s perspective was the reverse. The rubber was constantly meeting the road. In fact, it rarely did anything else. He always had to change and adjust. Ideological principles were just background noise, barely audible sounds above the jack hammers. [Emphasis added.]

When National Review takes up arms against Trump, it is men and women of theory against a man of action. The public, if we are to believe the polls, prefers the action. It’s not hard to see why. The theory has failed and become increasingly disconnected from the people. It doesn’t go anywhere and hasn’t for years. I’m guilty of it too. (Our current president is 150% a man of theory.) Too many people — left and right — are drunk on ideology. [Emphasis added.]

Were the “old White men” who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence, and those who fought for the colonies in the Revolutionary War, conservative ideologues? Did they want to preserve existing conditions under the King of England, his governors and military? Or were they pragmatic populists, as well as men of action, who opposed the King’s establishment and offered unorthodox solutions appealing to the “common” people? It took a lot of pushing from such revolutionaries as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, but the pragmatic populists won.

I don’t want to suggest that Donald Trump is this generation’s George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin. Times are now sufficiently different that doing so would be frivolous. Among other differences, there should be no need to go to war now because we still have an electoral process, flawed though it may be. Nor are we ruled by an unelected, hereditary king; we are ruled by an elected president who considers Himself a king, ignores or twists the Constitution to fit His needs, often ideological, and acts by royal executive decree when the Congress declines to do His bidding or goes about it too slowly to suit Him.

Be that as it may, what’s wrong with the populist notion encouraging members of the governed class — the “vulgarians” — to have greater voices in how they are governed than those who govern them, often to their own benefit, while mocking those whom they govern? Sometimes we the people make mistakes and sometimes we get it right. Ditto our dear leaders. Why not give us a chance for a change?

Into which category — conservative ideologue or populist — if either, does Donald Trump fit, do we need him now and, if so, why?

Here’s the 2012 video Whittle referred to in the video above:

Which of the current Republican candidates has taken, or is the most likely to take, positions comparable to those suggested in the above video?

In September of last year, I wrote an article titled To bring America back we need to break some stuff. There, I quoted Daniel Greenfield for the following proposition:

What we have now is not a movement because we have not defined what it is we hope to win. We have built reactive movements to stave off despair. We must do better than that. We must not settle for striving to restore some idealized lost world. Instead we must dream big. We must think of the nation we want and of the civilization we want to live in and what it will take to build it. [Emphasis added.]

Our enemies have set out big goals. We must set out bigger ones. We must become more than conservatives. If we remain conservatives, then all we will have is the America we live in now. And even if our children and grandchildren become conservatives, that is the culture and nation they will fight to conserve. We must become revolutionaries. [Emphasis added.]

I also suggested that if we don’t seek real — even revolutionary — change we might as well try to join the European Union. That would keep things pretty much as they now are and would, therefore, be more the “conservative” than the populist thing to do.

Our unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy could merge with that of the EU and our Congress could merge with the impotent EU Parliament.

Here’s a new Trifecta video about a proposal by the Governor of Texas to amend the Constitution which, he contends, has been broken by those who have improperly increased the power of the Federal Government while diminishing that of the states.

The Constitution is not broken. It’s just been poorly interpreted, twisted and otherwise ignored. In recent years Obama — who claims to be a “constitutional scholar” — has done more to ignore, twist and misinterpret it than any other president I can remember. Depending on what amendments might be adopted and ratified, an Obama clone (Hillary Clinton?) might well do the same; perhaps even worse. A president can personally stop that process by not doing it. A president can halt poor judicial interpretations only by nominating judges unlikely to make them.

Conclusions

Trump is not perfect; nobody is. However, he says what he thinks rather than spew multiculturally correct pablum. Few are sufficiently thick-skinned to do that. A “vulgarian,” he is not politically correct. Others are because they don’t want to offend. Trump recognizes that Islam is the religion of war, death and oppression and does not want the further Islamisation of America, which is already proceeding apace. Few leaders of either party are willing to take that position, mean it and act on it effectively if elected.

We are mad, not insane. We want to give we the people a bigger and stronger voice in how and by whom we are governed. If, by voting to make Trump our President, we make a big mistake so be it. Worse candidates with fewer qualifications have been elected and reelected. During His first and second term as President, Obama has gone far in His quest to transform America fundamentally and in the wrong directions. If Trump does not come sufficiently close to correcting course to meet our expectations during his first term, we won’t vote to reelect him. In the meantime,

Opps. I almost forgot this

US-Russian marines set up bridgehead in E. Libya for campaign against ISIS

January 24, 2016

US-Russian marines set up bridgehead in E. Libya for campaign against ISIS, DEBKAfile, January 23, 2016

1 (1)

President Barack Obama resolved earlier this month, much to the surprise of Washington insiders, to open a third anti-terror front in Libya to eradicate the Islamic Front’s tightening grip on the country.

This top-secret decision was first revealed by DEBKA Weekly 692 on Jan. 1.

While collaborating with Russia in the Syrian arena, and with the Iranians and the Iraqi army and Sunnis in Iraq, Obama took his close aides by surprise by another decision – to lead the Libya campaign again in conjunction with Russia, as well as with concerned Western Europe allies.

The first step in this campaign took place this weekend: A group of US, Russian, French and Italian Special Forces quietly landed at a point south of Tobruk near the Libyan-Egyptian frontier. Standing by after preparing the ground were some 1,000 British SAS troops.

The landing area is located some 144 kilometers from Darnah, the main bastion of extremist Libyan Islamic groups linked to Al Qaeda or ISIS, of which the ultra-violent Ansar al Sharia is the most powerful.

The joint US-Russian war offensive building up in Libya, the first such collaboration in many decades, may be seen as an extension of their expanding military partnership in Syria, DEBKAfile’s military sources report.
Preparations for the campaign were assigned to two special operational commands set up at the Pentagon and at the US Central Command, CENTCOM, in Tampa, Florida.

According to the scenario sketched in advance by DEBKA Weekly, large-scale US air, naval and ground units are to spearhead the new coalition’s combined assault on the main Libyan redoubts of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia and other radical Islamist organizations. Cruise missiles strikes will blast them from US, British, French and Italian warships on the Mediterranean.

At the peak of the assault, large-scale US, British and French marines will land on shore for an operation first billed as the largest allied war landing since the 1952 Korean War. The attachment of Russian forces was negotiated later.

According to this scenario, one group will be dropped ashore from the Gulf of Sidra (see attached map) to seize the town of Sirte, a city of 50,000, where ISIS has located its central military command center in Libya.

This group will then split up into two task forces.

One will head south to take over Tripoli and its oil fields 370 kilometers away and reinstate Libya’s central government, which had been exiled to Tobruk, at its seat in the capital.

On its way to Tripoli, the force will take control of three renegade towns: Misrata, Zliten and Khoms.

The second task force will head north to capture the eastern Libyan capital of Benghazi, seizing Ras Lanuf, 200 kilometers east of Sirte, en route. A second marine force will meanwhile land in eastern Libya to capture the radical Islamist stronghold of Darnah, a port city with 150,000 inhabitants.

The Obama administration will therefore be going into Libya for the second time in four years – only this time up front and on the ground – for three objectives:

1. Control of Libya’s oil and gas fields.

2. Stripping ISIS of its jumping-off base for terrorizing Europe, especially Italy, from across the Mediterranean.

3. Saving Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco from the noose ISIS and Al Qaeda are pulling around them from their back yard.

The scenario was first published in DEBKA Weekly 692 (for subscribers) on Jan. 1, 2016