Gearing up for the New Verdun

We are currently somewhat less than halfway through the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Verdun, one of the longest and costliest battles in the history of warfare.

The battle began in February 1916, when the Imperial German Army launched an offensive with the objective of capturing the system of forts and fortifications centered around the Citadel of Verdun in northeastern France. The fighting went on for ten months, until December of the same year, with gains and losses measured in terms of yards. When the battle petered out near the end of the year, the front remained more or less where it had been. Verdun was still in French hands, so the French were said to be the victors. But it was a pyrrhic victory if ever there was one: between 750,000 and a million casualties, depending on whose estimates are used, roughly half of those killed or missing. More French soldiers were killed than Germans, but the difference was not enough to make Germany believe it had gained anything resembling a victory.

Verdun has come to symbolize the madness and futility of trench warfare on the Western Front during the Great War. Most battles along the Front were of a similar nature, perhaps with fewer casualties, but always expending an enormous quantity of blood and treasure to make a line on a map move imperceptibly in one direction or another, and then return to its original position.

Like all those other battles, the ten-month offensive at Verdun devastated the landscape. Heavy artillery completely destroyed all the forests and villages in the areas adjacent to the front. Exploding shells created crater after crater, superimposed upon one another until no square yard of the terrain was left untouched. The ground was churned up and rained on and churned up again, becoming a malodorous pockmarked mire, embedded with broken-off trees, dead horses, shattered equipment, and above all human body parts from the hundreds of thousands of men who were blown to pieces trying to cross the shell holes of No Man’s Land.

The enduring legacy of the battle is the ruined terrain around Verdun. Forests have been planted over the battlefield and grown to maturity, but the area remains a maze of hillocks and holes that pond with water after every rainstorm. And the landscape is a vast open-air mausoleum, an ossuary of anonymous bone fragments still embedded in the soil a hundred years later.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The current political situation in the United States brings to mind the Battle of Verdun. Huge, well-armed forces are gathering for an offensive that will cause innumerable casualties and devastate the societal landscape, leaving the culture a sea of stinking genderized multicultural mud. The fortifications have been built and the trenches have been dug in preparation for the climactic battle scheduled to take place next November.

The failure of the analogy between the Western Front and the Culture War is this: only one side in the current war is aware that there’s a war on. The Social Marxists are armed and ready. They know exactly what they’re fighting for, and how they plan to win. The average American, on the other hand, has virtually no inkling of what’s going on. The twilight struggle of the 21st century is just the yapping of talking heads on TV, something to be ignored while he goes about his day-to-day business. He doesn’t realize that the War to End All Wars is about to turn his cultural landscape into a mass of churned-up muddy shell craters.

And the battlefield is not confined the United States. The same fortified and garrisoned front loops and twists through all the Western democracies. All along that line the gathered forces of Multicultural Progressivism stand on the parapets with their bayonets fixed, looking out across No Man’s Land towards the ranks of their enemies, who are blissfully unaware of what is about to be unleashed upon them.

Last night, while I was editing Christian Zeitz’s essay about the Austrian election, I noticed the striking similarity between what he was describing and the current presidential campaign in the USA. Just change a few proper nouns, and the verbatim descriptions could be easily applied on this side of the Atlantic.

To prove my point, I’ve taken excerpts from Mag. Zeitz’s article and adapted them to an American context. With the exception of one phrase (regarding the date of the election, now shown in square brackets), the only changes I made were these:

  • Hofer —> Trump
  • Van der Bellen —> Hillary
  • Austria —> America

That’s it — otherwise it’s the same text:

As is traditional, the in-crowd of top media and entertainment people played a special supportive and defensive role. For decades, they have been the public face of leftist activism; they set up seas of light. Light chains, protest marches against the right, commemorations and other formats which have proven to work as companion measures in securing the neo-socialist cultural transformation. A permanent task of this closed society is the “stopping of the Right”, i.e., the securing of the power and influence of the ruling elite…

…The election of Trump would endanger jobs and foreign investments, reduce international tourism in America and even endanger peace. Anyone who seeks to qualify such statements as dangerous threats is a rabble-rouser…

The aim of this massive offering of “significant personalities” from public and civic life is naturally the unmistakable communication of a simple, but effective message: Everyone with standing and reputation in the areas of culture, the economy and the intellectual world is supporting and voting for Hillary. The successful, the fashionable and the popular of this world have nothing to do with Trump and are battling against him as a risk factor and threat to the sacred order. Anyone who votes for Trump is joining the failed, the enemies of progress, the chewed up and spat out of society. So anyone who does not want to be “out” must join the elites, to become one of them.

The message is blatantly obvious. Whoever does not go with the flow is an enemy of the system and is endangering his own existence. This is not mere posturing. The complete absence of prominent Trump supporters is a reality. And yet precisely this allows for substantial conclusions about the state of the American political system. The vote for Trump [in November] will — regardless of win or loss — be abut one-half of the voters. Absent the absurd assumption that this half of Americans are part of a plebeian project, the assumption must be that the social levels of this group are not dramatically different from those of the Hillary voters. The fact that no conservative, Christian or classical-liberal chief physician, university professor, general manager, top diplomat, sports figure, artist, police official, military general, etc. has announced as voting for or supporting Trump is the result of the intense fear of the consequences. And this fear is by no means the result of a pathological phobia, but of a realistic assessment of the personal consequences for any potential supporter.

Trump supporters should reckon not only with being called populists, rightist radicals or even Nazis, and being shamed in their field. They know or have good cause to suspect that they would be hindered in their careers, curtailed in their professional or business progress, or otherwise materially or personally damaged. This assumption is based on experience and on the knowledge of the control over many of the relevant resources by public, semi-public and syndicalist sectors.

So the formally documented right of freedom of expression is, for all practical purposes, no longer guaranteed in broad swathes of American society. People who criticize the ruling system or the use of power by individual office-holders must expect to be existentially threatened, or even liquidated.

A political system which systematically and pointedly works against the exercise of the freedom of expression for the purpose of individual preference cannot be called a liberal democracy. At the very least, America has assumed pronounced characteristics of an open dictatorship. The one-sided, even exclusive, engagement of allies and celebrities for the election of Hillary is more than just an indication of that. Quod erat demonstrandum.


Evaluation of the object lesson offered by the presidential election campaign of 2016 yields a deplorable picture of the American state and American society. With the quality of an empirical study, this campaign provided in concentrated form insights into the progress and status of a historical development which can only be designated as the final qualitative disintegration of the political system. Meta-politics and the political culture have deformed the political consciousness and make grassroots consensus impossible at this time. A policy-specific esoteric language corresponds to the age of growing irrationality. Following the old principle of divide-and-conquer, a division of society along ideological lines is being accomplished. This is the basis for the replacement of the formal constitution of the democratic republic of America — which is now only a facade — by the real constitution of a new totalitarianism. Freedom of expression gives way to an open dictatorship. And a neo-syndicalist order is levering the rule of law, the separation of powers and democracy out.

The one place where the analogy wears a little thin is the assertion that Donald Trump has no prominent supporters among the cultural elite in the USA. This is not entirely true — there are a few, here and there — but America is a huge country compared with Austria. There are large pockets — whole states, even — where it is socially acceptable to be “right-wing” or a Trump supporter.

By and large, however, the description fits. We’re a little ways behind Austria, but we’re heading rapidly towards the same complete polarization of society.

After that the new totalitarian order can kick in. Those steely-eyed guys with their machine guns and field glasses peering at us from the other side of the wire — that’s what they have planned for us.

53 thoughts on “Gearing up for the New Verdun

  1. Once more I’m left with the words of Tolman echoing in my head: “totalitarian democracy”.

    Talmon’s 1952 book The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy discusses the transformation of a state in which traditional values and articles of faith shape the role of government into one in which social utility takes absolute precedence. His work is a criticism of the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a Swiss philosopher whose ideas influenced the French Revolution. In The Social Contract, Rousseau contends that the interests of the individual and the state are one and the same, and it is the state’s responsibility to implement the “general will”.

    The political neologism “messianic democracy” also derives from Talmon’s introduction to this work:

    Indeed, from the vantage point of the mid twentieth century the history of the last hundred and fifty years looks like a systematic preparation for the headlong collision between empirical and liberal democracy on the one hand, and totalitarian Messianic democracy on the other, in which the world crisis of today consists.


    totalitarian states can also approach the condition of democracy, or at least majoritarianism. Citizens of a totalitarian democratic state, even when aware of their true powerlessness, may support their government.


    [Tolman wrote smack dab in the middle of the 20th century. Carolyn Glick invoked his name to describe Norway’s obscene support of Hamas.It was a smart reference. NiceniceNorway is a leading example of “democracy” rotted at its core.]

    More than a hundred years previously de Tocqueville had finished the first volume of “Democracy in America”, warning of the ‘tyranny of the majority’. When that amazing volume was published in 1838 the world had not yet experienced the U.S. Civil War. That “unpleasantness” was merely a prequel to the two gory dramas which would follow on from it, its leaders cribbing from the lessons of the Union generals.

    It’s not over yet. Even now, Germans are fleeing to Hungary…

    • John Stuart Mill also wrote about the ‘tyranny of the majority’ in On Liberty. The book you mention is a bit pricey on Amazon-dot-co-dot-uk, but looks interesting. As does the work of Lyszard Legutko.

      • John Stuart Mill also wrote about the ‘tyranny of the majority’ in On Liberty.

        But I thought the only bad guys were the Dastardly Elites. Surely the Elites don’t number at least 250 million or more…? (that number being a rough estimate of 50% of the total population of the entire West — Canada, USA, UK, Europe, Australia).

        Secondly, is this “tyranny” a diabolical plot or a complex sociological phenomenon whereby various Western virtues have become mired in a system that, due to the exigencies of complex progress applied to ever growing populations and technological sophistication, become increasingly bureaucratized?

        I find that when a person tends toward an “Elitistics”, they also seem to tend to lean toward the conspiracy theory imputing malevolence to an amorphous number of their fellow Westerners (with a fundamental analytical incoherence adhering to their equivocation on “majority” vs. “minority” of “elites”).


        Elitistics, cont.

  2. I’ve been doing a great deal of thinking about finding the weak points and fissures in the Left/Islam alliance. One thing for sure: polite and ineffectual opposition is what they have come to expect. Just as Trump has disrupted the political status quo, we need to throw out the courtesy, which our twin cultural enemies laugh at behind our backs. We need to call the SJW traitors what they are at every chance, Quisling traitors. The only debate left is, witting traitors, or useful idiot traitors, but we need to call them what they are at every chance: traitors.

    In the USA, we have a hole card, the First Amendment to the Constitution, which must be held supreme above any politically correct notions or “interfaith dialogue” which are used as prior restraint against free speech. Free speech is our hill to fight and die on, including the right to call Left-wing traitors just that, and to call Islamic subversion what it is, Islamic subversion.

    There is a big crack to attack between the useful idiots and the knowing buy lying taqiyya Moslems. We can peel most Americans away from their unwitting defense of our Islamist enemies by applying pressure on the cracks, and the pressure is the loud and sustained charge of treason, of selling our children to their future Moslem slave-owners and rapists. We should be as direct and crude and brutally honest as possible to expose the cracks, and then drive in wedges.

    • I’m not sure calling them “traitors” or any version thereof will have any effect, because they appear to be proud of their ability (they believe) to bring down the US by any means possible. They are thus proud to be called traitors, because the end justifies the means in their world of fantasy.

      However, if there were consequences applied to their being traitors, that’s a whole different matter. Being called a traitor and being formally accused of being a traitor are, as far as I can see, two different situations, one without, and one with, potential consequences.

      • You make a good point. So I’m pondering: what label would enrage them? We know they’re thin-skinned…and reactive…and deeply ignorant. The very existence of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate has sent them over the edge – being paid to raise a ruckus helps, but I’m sure many would do it for free…

        Again, they’re deeply ignorant – but quite knowledgeable about current pop culture.

        They can’t stop screaming so any counterattack couldn’t have more than two or three syllables or it wouldn’t be heard.

        I know there’s a #Rumplestiltskin kind of word (or maybe several) that would reduce them to puddles but I can’t think of what it might be…

        Any ideas?

        • Most lefties I know are very sensitive about the ‘superior’ intellect, and this is always their vulnerability. Theirs is an intellect held up by scaffolding because very few of the have thought anything through, they have never needed to, they can always hide behind their stock of race related ad hominems and wait for the (more rational) critic to back down. The thing is not to back down, Trump has forced them over the edge into street violence for which they cannot blame, or accuse anybody else, it is an obvious action on behalf of tyranny.

          The other thing is to bring down the media lies, attack their advertisers (verbally of course) boycott them and let them know that supporting the media lies will cost them dear, start small with local papers and radio/TV stations. The media is already struggling one good blow and it will collapse.

          The other thing is to start an underground political movement based on the Constitution, “rules for realists” and cast the left as the ignorant utopians that they are.

        • Um…hard to use these types of words on a “family friendly” website, but one that screamed its way into my mind while reading your post had to do with the…hmm…complete subjugation of non-Muslim women to the whims and desires of Muslim men.

          Also the huge number of known attacks by Muslim men on children of both sexes in Europe (as reported on GoV). And the mass attacks on young women New Year’s Eve (as also reported on GoV).

          Most decent adults in the U.S.–and most adults think of themselves as “decent”–wouldn’t want to think of themselves as…uh…child-abuse/child-rape facilitators, yet this is precisely the fate they visit upon children, whether existing now or in the future, in an Islamic-controlled America.

          Think of the Rotherham “grooming” gangs, for example. Even the term “grooming gang” itself is a euphemism for what these organized rings of Muslim men did to young English girls (ages 12 to 16, for the most part). Well, one can rub the noses of your targets in that kind of terminology, I would suppose.

          That’s what came to mind immediately. Maybe there are other terms that will float up from the swamp, but that was the first.

          And now the ISIS men are auctioning off women (perhaps Yazidis? perhaps Christians?) on–YES!–Facebook, which for heaven’s sake, won’t allow “conservative” topics to appear in Trending News or whatever FB calls it. Perhaps someone who is FB-savvy can report these disgusting posts to Schmuckerberg???

          See the Washington Post article at

          • Slave-takers.
            That is what they are.
            That is what their texts INSTRUCT and AUTHORISE.
            Islam has never abolished slavery.
            Mohammed owned black slaves.

        • And here are two important points, which are a matter of settled law:

          ‘The Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the continuing existence and the use of flawed domestic laws that purport to combat hate speech but are in fact used to supporess critical or opposing voices. […]

          The Special Rapporteur also reiterates his concern in relation to anti-blasphemy laws, which are inherently vague and leave the entire concept open to abuse. He wishes to underscore once again that international human rights law protects individuals and not abstract concepts such as religion, belief systems or institutions, as also affirmed by the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 48).

          ‘Moreover, the right to freedom of religion or belief, as enshrined in relevant international legal standards, does not include the right to have a religion or belief that is free from criticism or ridicule.

          Frank La Rue, UN General Assembly, 67th Session, 7th September 2012, document no. A/67/357, paragraphs 51, 53.

        • It seems obvious that very little would enrage them to the point of shutting them up, let alone stopping them. And by the way, we’re obviously including huge numbers of “students” in the troll-count…
          Which leads me to believe that we have to get to the source(s) of the current mindset: the instigators.
          We tend to talk about the damage being done by so-called professors, through direct incitement within the walls of academia. We also talk about the massive damage being done by dubious, but not necessarily smart, media characters. But we usually shrug and walk away because it seems impossible to do anything to stop the lying and hypocrisy, the main problem being the lack of media outlets available (of the calibre of GoV) to counter the effects of the psychology of “authority” – the vested authority of “professors” and “knowledgeable journalists” – on the feeble-minded.
          It may be that such “authorities” are being “payed off” by certain interested parties, and if so, somehow this must be intensively investigated and brought to light.
          But the whole idea of traitors in our midst will remain just an idea so long as they are not prosecuted for treason by those who are mandated to do so. Of course it’s easier, and potentially more effective, to undertake such prosecutions one at a time; pour encourager les autres…
          Of course such prosecutions would be far more effective if we actually declared war on our enemies…

        • This won’t be any help, but I’m just wondering if anyone has managed to engage any of these twits in any sort of ‘sane’ discourse as to the sort of America they actually want, when the country is brought to it’s knees?

          I realize intelligent conversation would be difficult with any of them, since their speech is usually interwoven with four letter words, (probably their longest words) and it would be unwise to attempt any such conversation while they are engaged in their favourite occupation–rioting; but I’m curious to know what sort of America these super-beings strive for.

    • Love ya, ya hit the nail on the head, i’m in canada, am am thrilled to see the big change in the attitude of tolerence of intolerence. the whole pc thing is absurd when looking at followers of the koran, hadiths and sura. Many people are starting to realize it has gone to far and we are being taken advantage of everywhich way by muslim migrants. I dont see a problem where i live, they seem to work and not cause trouble like all over europe. Here no groups of young men, just families, and many kids. So far so good, seems fine, nothing to see here folks. So just in time BEFORE we get like europe, trump comes along to save our grandkids if he can. I honestly think thats why he ran. And I also believe islam won’t quit its built in obligation for supremacy in the world. They have tried many times in history and will again. They Could not beat western christian european countries in the long run after the ottomans. Islam verses everyone that is not like them. (unless you join of course} I asked mom recently if they taught in her childhood about the muslim ottoman ocupation for 150 years and told me yes and the first thing she said was the terrible abuse of the women of her country. That country of only 2 million does not want control in the hands of the russians past communism or shariah law of muslims. They have a history that tells the reality not the fantasy of pc.

    • “”The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
      But in ourselves…”

      I read the many fine excerpts from European writers carried on the GoV, and one thing pops out very clearly: they are very, very concerned with the reaction of other people to what they say. European culture seems very focused on group approval. They are wounded when criticized excessively.

      Let me suggest the most important facet of fighting back against the onslaught of communist and Islamic propaganda is not to become abusive, but to become assertive. That is, to explicitly say, in conversation and in writing, that Islam in and of itself is a deadly danger, that Muslims are not trustworthy, and that communists and hard-core leftists are murderous and totalitarian.

      These assertions can be made without being abusive to persons. I don’t mind being abusive when the situation calls for it, but generally, an abusive approach to conversation denotes fear. You place the abusive demeanor between you and the person with whom you are conversing. How much better would it be to look the person in the eye, and calmly say all those true but unpleasant facts which he tries to shame you into ignoring.

      In other words, most of the fight is simply ignoring the demeanor of the opponent, who tries to paint you as an evil person if you advocate positions he labels as racist, elitist, totalitarian, fascist and so forth. You are communicating that his accusations have no effect on you, if he can’t support them with facts.

      Frankly, I don’t think many leftists or Muslims can be reached with facts or even abuse. Their power comes from their ability to shame and make us hold back our own reasoning and arguments. The analogous situation is that for the moment, we can still be in control of our own borders, but our executive leader is using his powers to demolish our border controls. In exactly the same way, people opposed to immigration, and to Muslim immigration especially, can probably dominate the debate if they speak their minds.

      Again, I have nothing against the use of abuse and invective when an opponent tries these techniques to silence criticism. I simply don’t believe they are a good primary strategy.

  3. My impression is that the left are becoming more and more totalitarian for each passing year. And I’m not referring to the hardcore left, but rather the mainstream left.

    The leadership of the EU has made their intentions clear, no “right-wing” political parties will be allowed to govern in any of its member states, without serious financial repercussion for that member state. Europeans are already living under a soft dictatorial rule, and it is only going to get worse.

    I hope that Trump wins a landslide election in the US, but will it really matter?

    I hope that it will, but I don’t know if it will change the overall picture that much.

    • “My impression is that the left are becoming more and more totalitarian for each passing year.”

      The thing about the Left, is they only give lip service to issues of personal freedom and then only if it suits them. Like all socialists they believe the “good of the state” has priority over personal freedoms and if troublesome naysayers get in the way, they must be shut down, stamped on and eventually eliminated.

  4. Eleven years ago, English Nationalists started calling the Left “Anti English Labour Scum”, “Anglophobic Labour Trash” and so on and it worked. Then the Labour appeared unstoppable, but our name calling worked. Labour didn’t like being described accurately. By 2007 Labour changed their leader to Gordon Brown which made matters worse because he was a Scot. Labour support rapidly went downhill and by 2010 they received their worst share of the Vote since 1983.

    We kept on exposing Labour’s English problem and they imploded very quickly and Remain totally unelectable.

    Labour has now been forced to concentrate on keeping its Islamic voters because they are its core supporters, resulting in Labour becoming .more and more Islamic by the day.

    We must now call Labour ,”Anglophobic jihadist Labour scum” which will be very effective.

    Calling politicians anti English or whatever is very very effective. It will ensure that only racial enemies vote for them.

  5. end game matey. the only reason that it is now instead of four years ago is that we were a bit too resilient and needed further softening up. I had never considered the Verdun analogy but it is a rather accurate one. just as the soldiers were commodities then, so are citizens now, simply pawns on the elite’s chessboards.

  6. I think that it is even worse in Sweden. But basically it is the same situation. The political nobility rule & the journalist-preasts do their job, indoctrinating & checking the people. This may end in a civil war.


  7. I advise readers to read the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights articles 9,10,11 and 17.

    We have freedom of expression and political association as long as we do not deny the fundamental rights of others. Conversely as Islam denies all non Muslims basic human rights it can be banned and denied by this Convention.

    If only our leaders would just read it and check it out.

    • It’s the gap between what’s on paper and what your leaders feel pushed to enforce that’s the problem. IOW, a lack of political will, and I don’t think you can enforce something they feel free to ignore with impunity. As long as the citizenry are reduced to begging them to look at the law, you have too wide a chasm to cross. Sad beyond words.

      That’s one reason the American Constitution has been such a source of hope to many, and has been copied in so many places. The crucial difference is that we actually went to war to get those pieces of paper made into the law of the whole land.It’s why we kicked the can of slavery down the road, leaving it to future generations to fix, i.e., in order to present a united front in the face of Europe’s disdain.

      Our foundation is free speech and an armed citizenry. Not all the ignorant jibes from the rest of the world (or from our own transnational elites) will ever change our minds on either issue.

      • The UK was forced to change its anti discrimination laws to protect political opinions thanks to the tenacity of former BNP member Arthur Redfearn. Google Redfearn v UK for case. We CAN win using the law.

      • It’s the gap between what’s on paper and what your leaders feel pushed to enforce that’s the problem. IOW, a lack of political will, and I don’t think you can enforce something they feel free to ignore with impunity. As long as the citizenry are reduced to begging them to look at the law, you have too wide a chasm to cross. Sad beyond words.

        Yes, but the point is not to ‘beg them to look at the law’ but to tell them that we already know the law – and we already know what they are doing! It’s a confrontational attitude and a demanding attitude, an insistence that they abide by the law, and enforce the law – or else they will face the consequences of that because they will be voted OUT.

        And in the meantime they will be roundly castigated & called every name under the sun. These people want to have the uneducated masses worship them, well they need to understand – to be made to understand – that their view of us is wrong, and our view of them is entirely contrary to what their fevered little egos desire it to be!

        Game on!

    • Yes thanks to Churchill for article 17. Of course right now the EU elite has no intention to apply it against Muslims.

      • I didn’t know Churchill was behind Article 17 of the Convention, but I’ve noticed that Article 17 was used against former BNP member Arthur Redfearn during an Appeal Court Hearing (England and Wales) in 2006, however no evidence was presented to justify it being invoked and Arthur Redfearn took the case to the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg and won.

        Google Redfearn v UK for details of the case.

    • There are some very useful documents in the archives which we would do well to read – and to quote at every opportunity!

      For example:

      ‘The Special Rapporteur has consistently underlined the importance of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, not only as a right that should be guaranteed to all, including individuals belonging to marginalized groups, but also as a means to claim and enjoy all other rights. Indeed, it is a fundamental right that safeguards the exercise of all other rights and is a critical foundation of democracy, which depends on the free flow of diverse sources of information and ideas. […]

      As the Special Rapporteur has previously emphasized, for the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion to be fully realized, robust examination and criticism of religious doctrines and practices – even in a harsh manner – must also be allowed.’

      Frank La Rue, UN General Assembly, 67th Session, 7th September 2012, document no: A/67/357, paragraph 36.

      • So logically, our having the right to robustly examine and criticise Islamic doctrines and practices is a necessary condition for our right of freedom of thought conscience and religion to be fully realised.

        And that is a fundamental right which is a critical foundation of democrazy. That is to say, without it, there is no such thing as democracy. So logically, the freedom of thought conscience & religion is a necessary condition of a democracy’s very existence.

        It follows that any society where the criticism of Islam is forbidden cannot be, and indeed it is not, a democracy.

      • Thanks. Ive just read it. I see the jihadists will just try anything to circumvent and usurp our laws, even if they are wasting their time.

  8. I predict a civil war in parts of Europe within 10-20 years.
    Something that will resemble the Lebanese Civil War.

    The U.S. will see it as a warning and wake up in time to avoid its own.

    • Events move too fast for something as bloody as a civil war to take one or two decades to come to a boil. I predict a crisis – one that can’t be foreseen – to jump start hostilities. There are so many Muslim armories now that natives will have a hard time – at least in the cities – putting up any sort of defense.

      Rural warfare is another matter. People in the country hunt. And they are used to using guns to repel animal predators among their flocks, herds, etc.

      All bets are off, though, if we have a series of EMP attacks. And those *will* be in America first.

      • Well that means that air power and genetic bioweapons should be used against the Muslim enclaves in the cities.

        Under the UNs Declaration of Rights For Indigenous Peoples WE have priority over them.

        • Not sure how bio weapons would work. Air strikes in the enclave of Tower Hamlets would take out many fine Georgian and Queen Anne buildings, possibly including my Georgian house. I would stick to using the law and righteous name calling.

          • Possibly the laws used against Roman Catholics ( a serious menace to English liberty in the past) could be revived together with adapted. past laws restricting the dress and customs of Scots highlanders.

          • Yes I would prefer not to use bioweapons or force at all but the jaw of Islamic Jihad is closing in on us. Possibly the best chance would be to leave the EU which we hopefully will do, then we need a revamp of our domestic laws and apply Article 17 of the European Convention to deny rights to jihadists.

            Should violent confrontations occur between native white Britons and non white minorities we may be forced to use whatever weapons needed.

            Your Georgian House will look lovely but is not as important as your life. The Jihadists will in time take it from you regardless.

      • My fear is that the police and military will be used against the indigenous defenders, should any massive conflict with Muslims come about. Recall that the military if firmly under the control of Obama, with the oversight of the Republican neo-com establishment. Recall that Obama has been carrying out a purge of the military and the military upper command. It appears that any soldier who has shown initiative, or dedication to principle, is subject to retirement.

        The most dangerous force is a multi-national or supra-national force, such as NATO or the European Union military. This military can be moved freely to where they have no cultural roots and no knowledge of local issues, but are used as mercenaries pure and simple. The best example of this is the use of NATO to suppress the Serbian side of the civil wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, to the benefit of the Muslim uprisings.

      • Dymphna, I think you greatly underestimate the number of privately owned firearms there are in the cities. I know you frequent one or two shooter’s websites, but perhaps they are rural based. There are retired military, retired and current law enforcement in every major city. Check out the Smith & Wesson forum
        to get an idea of how wide ranging private gun ownership is and the impressive size of some people’s collections. I own 26 functioning firearms (some collect relics unsafe to shoot) and I live in suburban Los Angeles County. I also have so much ammo I won’t say, but it fills three dozen 50 caliber ammo cans. CA is one mighty gun-unfriendly state, but you should see the enthusiasm at the local range, which happily is less than 15 minutes from home.

        EMP attack, well I’d have to put the points distributers back on my cars, but my guns would still work. Maybe I should have sprung for a copper roof?

        • Of course there is always hand-to-hand combat for defending one’s household if need be. Henkel Brothers knives when properly sharpened can be just, if not more effective at close range as is a good utility knife grasped firmly in the palm. I only hope that we don’t see that day or a smiling cyclops (Arabic letter N) tagged on our fences.

          BTW, the reason the Left and Islam are so cozy is that they are birds of a feather. Both are unhappy with the present societal order and both want the order changed to suit their conception of what it should be. Both deal in absolutes so neither can brook any discussion or disagreement. As both regard all others than themselves as inferior, there is no compunction in the elimination of any and all opposition. As a result, sadly, there can be no other confrontation other than war, and that with true believers.

        • Rick, I would like to visit a range such as the one you mention. As I’m from Canada, and although I now live in Southern California close to my younger son and his family, for about four months every year (happens to coincide with the Canadian winter, or at least part of it), I can’t purchase or possess firearms or ammunition, although up here in the frozen north I have many firearms (all legally procured) and much ammunition.
          I would like to be pointed in the direction of the range you speak of, or a similar one, just so that I can mingle with my fellow shooting enthusiasts and get the latest “interesting” news from them.
          I don’t know whether or not you want to publically divulge the information I need, but so far I’ve drawn a blank on finding such ranges in the vicinity of where I usually live.

    • Hopefully by then the leftist governments are removed by then at least in some countries anyway so the problem should be able to be dealt with in time.

  9. They enrage themselves because rage releases endorphins and “Liberals”/The Left/Jihadies are always chasing the next High. They are literally addicted to their various Virtue Signaling via their endlessly repeated Virtue Mantras and Virtue Violence

  10. At least you have a chance of defeating the left.

    My country is so far to the left that has a ruling socialist party with parliament support by TWO communist parties with a 10%+ votes share each.

    My country is so far to the left that the social-democrats (how Sanders describes himself) are considered right-wing.

  11. I don’t agree that the “average” American doesn’t know what’s going on. Does he/she have a grasp of the Marxist playbook? Probably not. But does he know himself and his way of life to be under attack? Yes. Most of Trump’s popularity springs directly from that realization and the it’s now or never anxiety that motivates his supporters. Of course, read the “official” story and you’ll get none of that, but it’s very real. And the Marxists know it’s real, witness their Trump will be the end of the world rhetoric.

  12. Let me detail one way in which the analogy with Verdum breaks down.

    As the article pointed out, for all its huge death toll, Verdun was not consequential in the actual movement of troop positions. So, France and Germany eliminated a major part of their up-and-coming youth generation, without actually affecting the battle.

    In contrast, the coming elections will have tremendous consequences for the future of the western democracies. It is difficult to see how the republic will maintain its identity or political character if Hillary gets elected. A gridlocked Congress will continue to give the President every opportunity for extra-legal, but binding, peremptory decrees. In particular, Hillary will have the opportunity to break the Supreme Court deadlock with judges committed to vote according to leftist doggerel, rather than Constitutional provisions. Once the Constitution is interpreted to mean what it plainly does not mean, literally anything is possible.

    So, this next election is anything but a Verdun.

    • Yes, quite true. The Verdun analogy was appropriate in just two ways: (1) the size and scope of the battle, and (2) the devastated landscape that will result from it, which will require centuries to recover from it.

  13. ricpic, astute of you. It is true out here on the prairie, although we have our share of lefties and muslimes, but we are in the majority.

    Wow, Cynthia, you have opened my eyes. I must not be reading the right publications. Out here in the Midwestern hinterlands, I don’t see the Washington Post and I would not pay for that rag anyway. However, since you provided the links, I will read that. I do keep up and I know what the muslimes are doing in both their homelands and throughout the Europe they have been allowed into (or snuck into).

    Amen, Dymphna – exactly what I was thinking. We have a Constitution and we are armed. It will make those socialist loonies and weenies think twice. Or so I hope.

    Well, this was a bit depressing reading for a Sunday, but we have to keep our eyes and ears and minds open so we can see what’s coming and be prepared.

    Thank you all!

  14. Verdun is for me the first symbol of Europe in the 20 th century. I was there the first time as a child with my father (born 1915) I must have been ten years old.

    Since then I have been there many times, as the north east of France is om my route to the south of Europe from Denmark. I have studied the litterature about it, and photographed it. To me, it is still a cardinal point in our history. Our Stalingrad.

    • You’re welcome. We need to share stuff like this as much as possible, IMO. I first came across these reports from the Special Rapporteur when I read Majed el-Shafie’s book; he cited several of those reports. Off I went on a reading binge, and believe you me, there is some very interesting material in there.

      Another useful source of information is the annual reports – specifically the chapters of their annual reports dealing with islamic countries – compiled by the USCIRF.

      If anyone wants to know what islam is really like, all they have to do is read through those reports, & they will see what happens in islamic countries.

  15. This Battle mirrors the Gallipoli Campaign a few months before hand. Turkey’s military had just been re engineered by the Germans and with new German made equipment. German commanders within the Turkish military helped Turkey fight off Britain and France.

    What a waste of life, and the only way the Ottomans were defeated was through a Colonel TE Lawrence lead Arab uprising. Yes he saved our bacon, but Gallipoli was a disaster for both sides. Yes Turkey won that Battle but ultimately lost the war and their empire.

    Today’s battles are legal and procedural in nature. That is why we have hate speech and Equality legislation – to silence us and empower minorities above ourselves.

    We need to fight back and use the case precendents Mark Souster v BBC and Redfearn v UK in order to reverse the litigation jihad against our people.

Comments are closed.