Gates of Vienna News Feed 4/30/2019

Opponents of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro have taken to the streets of Caracas in massive protests, clashing with soldiers. Videos show armored vehicles running over the demonstrators. Opposition leader Juan Guaido called for the military to join him in overthrowing Mr. Maduro, but so far the army seems to be maintaining its support of the current regime.

In other news, the former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor has been convicted of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for the shooting death of Justine Damond.

To see the headlines and the articles, click “Continue reading” below.

Thanks to Dora, JD, MB, Reader from Chicago, SS, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Continue reading

Islam Can’t Change and Won’t Change

The following essay by H. Numan was originally published in Dutch at E.J. Bron’s website, and has been translated into English by the author.

Islam can’t change and won’t change

by H. Numan

Most of the time I fully agree with Geert Wilders, but not all the time. In this case I think Wilders has very few options. In nearly every interview he points towards ‘bad’ mohammedans, and rightly so. He always says they have to adapt to our values and cultures. That’s where he goes wrong. It doesn’t happen. They don’t do it, and worse: they will not do it. I’m pretty sure Wilders knows that better than anyone else. But what can he say? Even though he is 100% correct, every judge in Holland or Europe would condemn him. For whatever reason they can think of.

Let’s start with the koran and Mr. Mo himself. All religions reason in circles; the worst offender by far is islam. The koran is the word of god, dictated by the angel Gabriel to Mohammed. Who is also appointed to be the last prophet ever. How do we know that? Mo said so. What’s the proof for that? It is written in the koran. In other words, the koran is proof for the veracity of the koran. Mo’s appointment as last prophet is quite important. Because all subsequent prophets, for example Joseph Smith (Mormonism) or Ron Hubbard (Scientology) are automatically false prophets. It’s written in the koran that God himself didn’t want to work with prophets after Mohammed. Therefore anyone claiming to be a prophet must be false.

The entire religion is set up so it cannot be changed. Normal books are mostly written in chronological order. Not the koran. The surahs are ordered by length. Those verses were revealed to Mo over a period of 23 years. Very often in dreams, when Mo was in bad need of divine backup. A great example are the Satanic verses:

Mo had taken Mecca, which at the time already was the Lourdes of Sandland. Allah existed, but wasn’t the one and only god yet. It was one of the many gods that could be worshiped — for a small fee, of course — there. The Meccanos made a handsome dirham out of this business. Mo’s order to abandon the entire business except for Allah didn’t sit very well with them. They politely asked the prophet to really think long about it, perhaps sleep on it. Give his command the next morning, not right now. Supposing tomorrow his command would stand? Well, not a problem. They would behead the prophet, so he could discuss it in person with the great god himself. Sweet dreams! In the night Gabriel appeared and told Mo that the order was false. Allah hadn’t given the order. It was Satan. Therefore, no worries. Business as usual.

We see this happen lot with Mo: Gabriel coming to the rescue in a dream. Polygamy was common in that area, but usually no more than 3-4 women. When questions were asked why Mo kept a whole herd he told them he was given permission. In a dream. Same story when people wondered if Aisha wasn’t a tad too young to marry: “Allah told me I could”. In a dream? “Of course in a dream! You didn’t think the supreme being would bother to visit his humble prophet in the flesh, do you? Oh, before I forget. Allah also gave permission only to me. You can’t marry toddlers. Only prophets can. And I’m the last one. Sorry about that.”

The ordering of the koran is also a mystery. At least to anyone who is not a mohammedan, that is. The ordering is not chronological, but by length of surahs. That’s not a coincidence. The friendly chapters (surahs) were written when Mo lived in Medina and tried to be friendly. He had to; at the time he didn’t hold absolute power. As Mo was anything but friendly, those are the shortest verses. That changed completely when Mo conquered Mecca. Friendliness went out of the window immediately.

Continue reading

A Plea for Unity and Resistance Via a Musical Journey

Seneca III sends this special-purpose musical interlude to his fellow citizens in the British Isles.

A Plea for Unity and Resistance Via a Musical Journey

by Seneca III

These are change times, dangerous times, and as such ask of us many demanding questions. Foremost in my mind is our ethnic survival, and we will not survive if we continue as we are now, ideologically fragmented and disunited, pulling every different direction imaginable.

Thus, can we in this small, chill, windswept archipelago in the North Atlantic discard the burden of a turbulent past and put an end to ancient tribal differences, commit the memories of bloodshed and enmity into a well of deep quietude, cast aside the subliminal resonances of centuries of internecine conflict, centuries that made us who we are and what we are as people and, instead, turn now together to face off the latest threat and look onward to the next thousand years?

It is imperative that each and every one of us accept that our principal enemies are no longer internal; they are external, and they are here within us and around us in great numbers, bereft of all mercy and full of hatred for what we were in our prime and what they were not nor ever will be.

Are we to become the victims of our treacherous political classes and their bag carriers, of affluent suicidal altruism fed by a pointless guilt for what was the way of men then, now and ever shall be?

Somehow, we collectively made it together, albeit raggedly, through the yesteryears, so “Does not tomorrow deserve a chance as well?”

We could do it if we all pulled together and demonstrated yet again that barbarism and tyranny can never sustain unless enabled by those who would have it so in their own interests and those who would knowingly stand back and do nothing.

A Musical Journey — in order of national populations by size

England:

Scotland:

Eire:

Wales:

— Seneca III, somewhere in the middle, this 30th day of April 2019

For links to previous essays by Seneca III, see the Seneca III Archives.

Schrödinger’s Caliph is Alive

A new video has surfaced of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Caliph of the Islamic State. Mr. Baghdadi has been reported killed on multiple occasions, but he keeps popping up again. This is said to be the first video of him to be released in almost five years.

The clip below contains a brief excerpt from the new video. A subtitled version of the full-length video of the caliph’s remarks is currently being processed, and will be available soon. In the meantime, enjoy these samples of the wit and wisdom of the Mujahid-in-Chief.

Many thanks to Ibn Al Malek for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Bannon Goes Against a Modern Pope in a Post-Modern World

A reader’s comment on the shrinkage of the Easter worshippers drew me to this.

Dr. Turley has some surprising information on Steve Bannon, late of Breitbart News and of the Trump administration. And as it turns out he’s moved on — ever a restless spirit — to Belgium, where he has started a group called “The Movement”. Not a felicitous name but then his organization is going to be fighting for nationalism and against the globalist sludge, so maybe…

I have paid little attention to Steve Bannon, though the general outlines of his life (he’s a Virginia boy and Irish to boot) have been out there in the ether, where we see ideas and personages and some of what we see sticks. So this video required that I do a bit of research. I took the quick and dirty route, through the muds of Wikipedia. Sorry, but it’s all my health/stamina allows. Thus, from the Wiki on his life:

Bannon is supportive of several European right-wing populist national conservative movements such as the Hungarian Fidesz, the French National Front, the Spanish Vox, the Dutch Party for Freedom, Alternative for Germany, the Italian Northern League, the Brothers of Italy, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Sweden Democrats, the Finns Party, the Flemish Vlaams Belang, the Belgian People’s Party, the Polish National Movement, and the Swiss People’s Party.

Another wiki, this one on Bannon’s Movement group, says:

Bannon initially discussed his plans for the organization with The Daily Beast, saying he wanted to create a populist “supergroup” bloc that could win up to a third of all 700+ MEP seats. He said he thought of the idea when he was invited to speak at an event hosted by Marine Le Pen. Bannon also believes that Sweden’s 2018 elections created the perfect timing to launch The Movement.

The Movement stands as a counterpoint to George Soros’ Open Society. Bannon has referred to Soros as “evil but brilliant”, and expressed a desire to promote nationalism instead of globalism.

Finally, an American paying attention to Europe. Overdue but welcome. By the way, he spoke out against Tommy Robinson’s imprisonment. He is also moving directly against Pope Frankie — Deo Gratias! — before that dude single-handedly destroys the Catholic Church. Bannon is a devout Catholic and appears to be a bit of a Don Quixote, though he refers to himself as “a Cromwell among the Tudors” [my paraphrase of his summation of life among the Trumps].

I like Bannon — his energy, his dedication, his willingness to fight back. Despite what the naysayers claim, he’s not a Jew-hater, he doesn’t trust Islam, and he’s not racist. Get over yourselves, NAACP.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 4/29/2019

The EU-skeptical anti-immigration party VOX entered the Spanish parliament for the first time after yesterday’s elections. Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini is negotiating with VOX in hopes of forming an alliance in advance of the European Parliamentary elections.

In other news, an Anglican bishop has branded Nigel Farage a “traitor to the EU” for his stance on Brexit.

To see the headlines and the articles, click “Continue reading” below.

Thanks to C. Cantoni, Dora, Insubria, JD, MB, MC, Reader from Chicago, SS, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Continue reading

Banning the Cannonballs

I frequently read prescriptive assertions that begin with the words “We should” or “We need to”. Since I generally hang out among fellow Deplorables, such sentences usually conclude with an action based on a right-wing policy position — “close the borders”, “deport all the Muslims”, “ban mosques”, “hang the globalists”, etc., etc.

I always ponder what the word “we” might refer to in such statements. Does it mean “Myself, my brother, my uncle, and a few of my friends”? “The congregation of my church”? “The United States Congress”? “The UN”? “The Provisional Tribunal of Justice established after the revolution finally takes place”?

I’ve written in the past about this mysterious “we” that needs or ought to do certain things that never actually get done. “We” need to do these things, but somehow “we” never do. Why is that?

The Progressive “we” is another matter. If you’re on the Left, one of the most important things “we” need to do is to institute arms control of one form or another. Whether it’s nuclear weapons, standing armies, or guns in the hands of private citizens, “we” need to get rid of them, to ensure that peace will reign. Just imagine… it’s easy if you try.

The most cherished anthem of arms control in the Progressive Liturgy is Bob Dylan’s song “Blowin’ in the Wind”, which contains these lines:

Yes, ’n’ how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they’re forever banned?

You can tell it’s a hip song, because he drops the “g” from all his participles and reduces “and” to “’n’”.

I was in junior high school when I first heard it. Not Bob Dylan’s version, mind you — it would be several years before I heard the Bard of Greenwich Village sing one of his own songs — but the smash hit by Peter, Paul and Mary. Even back then, when I was a pencil-necked teenage geek, I understood that the sentiment in the song didn’t make any sense.

It was irrational, and ultimately meaningless. Nowadays I would call it “virtue-signalling”, but in 1963 it was just hip and cool and high-minded.

Let’s think about banning cannon balls. How would “we” do it?

“We” would have to include national governments in the process, so major military powers would be called on to negotiate a treaty. If one posits the existence of the United Nations, then it would have to be involved. After lengthy multilateral discussions, the Cannon Control Treaty would finally be signed by all parties and come into force. From then on, cannon balls would be forever banned.

Unfortunately, some years later the Central Asian nation of Ollistan secretly violates the terms of the treaty: its armament factories begin building caissons and casting barrels and balls to make cannons. When the intelligence services of major cannon-free nations learn about the violation, they’re in a quandary. How can they stop Ollistan’s cannons, when they have no cannons themselves? The only thing that could bring the violator to heel would be a bigger cannon.

This is where the UN comes in. If it doesn’t already exist, the cannon-free nations will have to sign a new treaty bringing it into existence. It will be granted the privilege of maintaining a large enough force of cannons so that any treaty-violators will be subdued before a single cannon ball can fly (other than a UN cannon ball, of course). A brand new state-of-the-art Supersized Nuclear Cannon is the preferred weapon in the UN’s new arsenal. It can stop any uppity cannon-making country in its tracks.

Take that, Ollistan! Problem solved.

The UN now has a vast stockpile of cannons that must be kept ready in case another violator appears. What to do with them in the meantime? It seems a shame to waste all that cannon-power.

Well, the nation of Bucolia has just elected a populist president who refuses to implement the UN’s mandated wetlands policy. Fortunately, his deplorable country has no cannons, so it’s a simple matter to reduce its capital city to a smoking crater. Which then becomes a wetland after the next monsoon.

Meanwhile, the nation of Orwellia has declined to admit its quota of UN-sponsored refugees. Just roll out Big Bertha, and all that shiny new border fencing is reduced to a mass of shattered concrete and twisted steel, allowing the puir wee migrant bairns unimpeded entry into the country.

Yes, those special UN cannons really come in handy for maintaining order and implementing public policy in a cannon-free world.

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

When I started this essay I didn’t intend to write a fable, but then I kind of wandered off track. So now I’ll return to it.

My point is that any prescriptive policy statement carries an implicit threat of coercive force to ensure its implementation. If “we” decide to prohibit, require, ban, mandate, or proscribe, the implication is that “we” will have the firepower to enforce compliance. If citizens are disinclined to do what’s required of them, or want to enjoy what is prohibited, then a massive state apparatus of coercion may become necessary, up to and including uniformed police, secret police, national police, security police, an army, a navy, an air force, electronic surveillance, drones, and satellite tracking systems. Oh, and also lots of cannons.

The above description applies to any mandates or prohibitions, regardless of ideology. Whether “we” demand conservative or progressive behavior by citizens, the enforcement of “our” demands implies a swollen, intrusive state. No matter what “we” want to impose on others, the less people want to do it, the more jackbooted thugs will be required to make them.

I’ll give you an example from the deplorable end of the spectrum. Suppose “we” decided to vet potential immigrants for their level of Islamic ideology, to determine whether they were dangerous to national security. Can you imagine the size of the federal agency that would have to be created to do the job? A veritable behemoth of bureaucracy, complete with civil service regulations, mandated procedures, record-keeping requirements, diversity officers, ombudsmen, and whistle-blower protections. It would grow bigger every year, and even so, 98.6% of all Muslim applicants would be admitted, because… Human Rights.

And I almost forgot: just as with all other federal agencies, a large proportion of its employees would carry firearms on the job.

On the other side of the political fence, if “we” ban assault weapons, “our” agents have to possess even more powerful weapons to take them away from people.

Or suppose a state government were to implement a law prohibiting any restrictions on the possession of firearms (fat chance!). Then suppose a locality within that state passes a law restricting the use of certain weapons. How would the state enforce its regulation, except through the use of superior firepower?

It seems an impossible idyll now, but the state used to be smaller and less powerful, at least here in the USA. Is there any way to reclaim that earlier environment?

Obviously, a government mandate is not the preferred method, or “we” would have to roll out the cannons to make sure it happens.

What conditions would be necessary for general liberty to re-established among a free people?

That’s a big topic. With luck, I’ll be able to return to it in a later essay.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 4/28/2019

123,000 people applied for asylum in France last year, which set a new record. That number of asylum applications represents an increase of more than 20% over the previous year.

In other news, the Sri Lankan government has banned face coverings, including burkas, in response to the Easter Sunday terrorist bombings.

To see the headlines and the articles, click “Continue reading” below.

Thanks to Insubria, JD, Reader from Chicago, SS, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Notice to tipsters: Please don’t submit extensive excerpts from articles that have been posted behind a subscription firewall, or are otherwise under copyright protection.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Continue reading

The Non-News From the Netherlands

The two videos below are brief Dutch news reports about the Easter Day bombings in Sri Lanka. Many thanks to C for the translations, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling.

This first video is from early on, when the news was still breaking. According to the correspondent in Sri Lanka, the attacks were the Christians’ fault, who somehow provoked the Buddhists to commit the atrocities:

Later on, when it became obvious that the bombings were carried out by Islamic terrorists, the reporters managed to discuss the news without saying anything at all:

Video transcript: #1

Continue reading

Frans Timmermans: “Diversity Gives Us So Much Strength”

Frans Timmermans is a Dutch politician and an EU apparatchik. He is currently a member of the Politburo — I mean European Commission — and hopes the become General Secretary of the Party. Whoops! Did I really say that?? I meant: President of the European Commission.

In the following interview, Mr. Timmermans discusses Brexit, EU-skepticism, and other annoying forms of interference with those dedicated functionaries in Brussels who toil daily to fix all of Europe’s problems — especially the problem of people who don’t like being told what to do by Brussels.

Many thanks to C for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Whose Ox?

The blatant difference between the media coverage of the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka and that given the Christchurch massacre illustrates what everybody already knows: the media and the political elite love Muslims and hate Christians — I mean, Easter worshippers. We’re not supposed to use the “C” word in public anymore.

But that’s not news. It’s a dog-bites-man story, so I won’t waste any more virtual ink on it. Instead I’d like to talk about a more subtle media preference that was revealed this past week in the differing coverage given to two attacks on religious minority groups.

The first was Tuesday’s vehicular attack on a group of pedestrians in the California town of Sunnyvale by a man named Isaiah Joel Peoples. Eight people were wounded in the attack, one of them grievously.

Mr. Peoples is a retired soldier and a veteran of the Afghan war. His mother told the press that he had been discharged early due to his PTSD, which was the only possible explanation for his actions. But Sunnyvale police say the suspect targeted his victims deliberately because he thought they were Muslims. A witness heard him saying “Thank you, Jesus, thank you Jesus” as he got out of his car.

The second attack occurred yesterday. A man named John Earnest entered the Chabad of Poway synagogue near San Diego and opened fire on the congregation, killing one person and wounding at least three others. The shooter was eventually apprehended by police.

Mr. Earnest is allegedly a Jew-hater who regards Donald Trump as a Zionist tool and a traitor to his race. He has posted anti-Jewish materials online, and even has a manifesto (I haven’t attempted to read it yet).

The second story received the kind of media coverage that you would expect, given that it was a deadly attack on a synagogue by a “white supremacist”. Yet the coverage of the first story, despite its anti-Muslim angle, was more muted.

Muslims and Jews are generally held in equal esteem as victims by the media. Given current political and demographic trends, Muslims may well surge past Jews* and become the preferred victim group. But for the moment the two are roughly equal.

I couldn’t understand why the Sunnyvale Islamophobe didn’t rate top headlines on every media outlet. Not only is he an American veteran who deliberately tried to kill Muslims, he’s a Easter worshipper — that is, the media finally have a Christian terrorist to point to, something they’ve been slavering for ever since 9-11.

So why aren’t the talking heads screaming about the incident? Why aren’t the spokescreatures for CAIR being given top billing on every news program to bewail the growth of Islamophobia in this country?

And then I saw the mug shot of Isaiah Peoples, and I understood why: he’s black.

Isaiah Joel Peoples doesn’t fit the Narrative. Yes, he’s an Easter-worshipper, but he can’t possibly be a white supremacist. Covering the story in detail would give the news anchors heartburn, so they’ve mostly ignored it.

If CAIR is shouting about the incident, they’re not getting any media attention. Vlad suggests that their apparent lack of outrage is a deliberate, pragmatic strategy, designed to avoid causing tensions in their alliance with the African-American community.

In any case, the Sunnyvale attack is in the process of being buried, while the Poway synagogue shooting is still major news.

* Dymphna is of the opinion that the pendulum has already swung: Muslims are preferred by the media, while Jews are deprecated.

As evidence she cites this cartoon of Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump that was published in the international edition of The New York Times, the overseas outreach division of “America’s newspaper of record”:

Continue reading