The Nihilism of Emmanuel Macron

The following video by Maxime Lépante juxtaposes the Notre Dame fire with a couple of clips of President Emmanuel “Toy Boy” Macron denying the existence of French art and culture.

When I first heard Mr. Macron’s words, they seemed familiar, and I eventually recalled what they reminded me of — Mona Sahlin, at that time an MP for the Social Democrats in Sweden, speaking to a Turkish youth organization in 2002:

I cannot figure out what Swedish culture is. I think that’s what makes many Swedes jealous of immigrant groups. You have a culture, an identity, a history, something that brings you together. And what do we have? We have Midsummer’s Eve and such silly things.

As an alternative label for Mr. Macron’s and Ms. Sahlin’s nihilistic sentiments, Dymphna coined a new word: “Erasism”.

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

Video transcript:

Continue reading

What are the Electoral Prospects for the German Socialist Party?

Katarina Barley is a member of the SPD (Socialist Party of Germany), which is a partner in the “Grand Coalition” with Angela Merkel and the CDU. Ms. Barley is currently Minister of Justice, and is an SPD candidate in next month’s elections for the European Parliament.

In the following interview Ms. Barley answers questions about the upcoming elections, as well as various questions about the SPD’s domestic policies. She deftly dodges the most difficult questions, but a few of her answers are worth noting. Most significantly: she considers anyone who supports the existence of sovereign nation states to be an “enemy of Europe”.

Also: she thinks the call for a 2% increase in spending on NATO to be far too much, more of a financial load than the country could possibly bear.

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

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Of Brainwashing and Bathwater

MC weighs in on all the latest trendy socialist initiatives that plague the 21st-century body politic in the West.

Of Brainwashing and Bathwater

by MC

The idea of child abuse is defined by a Christian doctrine based upon the words of Yahushua (Jesus), “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” It goes on to explain that those who meddle with these children of the kingdom will suffer a fate so bad that they should drown themselves.

It is quite graphic and it is inbuilt into the Christian culture.

So, if we step outside the Christian culture we need to beware, for many a baby is thrown out when we vote for either Islam or humanism.

In the period following the Russian revolution in 1917 we have some graphic accounts of child abuse. Maxim Gorky (or maybe Orlando Figes quoting Gorky) describes starving little girls lifting up their skirts and exposing themselves in the hope of attracting the attention of someone who could give them a crust of bread in return for favours. These children were just the useless human rubble left in the street after the purging of the class enemy. They were “useless eaters”, as Adolf called them in his identical revolution two decades later.

The various socialist revolutions discarded (or worse) many children, for Karl Marx wrote no scriptures specifically about protecting children.

I have never understood Ali Bakr (the first Caliph after the prophet) giving his six year old daughter to a man he must have known to be a sexual predator, but then there is no protection for children in Islam either.

When we step away from Judeo-Christianity we leave behind some very profound doctrines.

The French revolution started as a revolt against the abuses of the Aristocracy and Church leaders who had abandoned their calling at the behest of those same Aristos, for they believed that the ten commandments no longer applied to those of the ‘important’ bloodlines; they were only for the peasants.

In the power vacuum that followed the storming of the Bastille, a series of new political religions based upon humanism and the goddess of reason took hold, so the tumbrels rumbled, the drums rolled — as did the heads of the many of the innocent — and children starved.

The Ten Commandments and other Judeo-Christian principles establish a framework that has worked and has produced a working environment which, although not perfect, has created a peak of civilization, and it is only in a civilized state that child abuse can even be defined.

But socialists, of course, think they can do better, and that by demolishing the house built on rock, they can replace it with something more fair and more equal but built on the sands of toleration and moral relativity. And that this time it will not fail like on every other occasion man has experimented with self-godship.

What they cannot seem to understand is that it was Judeo-Christianity that was the real healing and beneficial revolution, and that it is their new socialism that is the same old, same old cruelty and abuse.

Continue reading

The Story of the First Brexiteer — And Now We’re Out… Again!

Well, today is Brexit Day (again). Or is it really…?

Seneca III has some remarks to make on the topic.

The Story of the First Brexiteer — And Now We’re Out… Again!

by Seneca III

Legend and history record that strange are the ways of the gods, and even stranger are the ways of men.


In the year 286 AD, in the twilight of the Imperium, the once all-powerful Rome was on its last legs, as was its most western province, Romano-Britain. Together with Northern Gaul, Britain was seized by Marcus Aurelius Mausaeus Valerius Carausius, a military commander of the Empire and a Menapian from Belgic Gaul, who usurped the crown and declared himself Emperor (Imperium Britanniarum). He held power for seven years, fashioning the name “Emperor of the North” for himself, before being assassinated by his finance minister, Allectus.

Carausius was of humble origin and had been appointed to command the Classis Britannica, a fleet based in the English Channel, with the responsibility of eliminating Frankish and Saxon pirates who had been raiding the coasts of Armorica and Belgica. He was suspected of allowing pirates to carry out raids and collect loot before attacking them, then keeping the captured treasure for himself, and Maximian ordered his execution. In late 286 or early 287 Carausius learned of this sentence and responded by declaring himself Emperor in Britain and northern Gaul.

Maximian, Roman Emperor from 286 to 305, prepared an invasion of Britain in 288 or 289 to oust him, but it failed. A panegyric delivered to Constantius Chlorus attributes this failure to bad weather, but notes that Carausius claimed a military victory. Eutropius says that hostilities were in vain thanks to Carausius’s military skill, and peace was agreed. Carausius began to entertain visions of legitimacy and official recognition.

It is also notable that Carausius appears to have appealed to native British dissatisfaction with Roman rule; he issued coins with legends such as Restitutor Britanniae (Restorer of Britain) and Genius Britanniae (Spirit of Britain). Some of these silver coins bear the legend Expectate veni, “Come long-awaited one”, recognised to allude to a messianic line in the Aeneid by the Augustan poet Virgil, written more than 300 years previously.


Allectus was Treasurer to Carausius. In 293 Carausius seemingly became isolated when the Western Caesar, Constantius Chlorus, later Emperor from 305 to 306, retook some of his Gallic territories, particularly the crucial port of Bononia (modern Boulogne), and defeated his Frankish allies in Batavia. Allectus then assassinated Carausius and assumed the mantle of Emperor of Imperium Britanniarum himself.

His [Allectus’s] reign has left little record, although his coin issues display a similar distribution to those of Carausius. They are often found in north-western Gaul, indicating that the recapture of Bononia did not spell the end of the rebel empire on that side of the English Channel.

Constantius launched an invasion to depose Allectus in September 296. His forces sailed in several divisions. Constantius led one division from Bononia but seems to have been delayed by bad weather. Another division, under the praetorian prefect Asclepiodotus, took advantage of fog to avoid Allectus’s ships stationed on the Isle of Wight, and landed near Southampton Water, where they burnt their ships. Allectus’s forces were forced to retreat from the coast but were cut off by another of Constantius’s divisions and defeated. Allectus himself was killed in the battle, having removed all insignia in the hope that his body would not be identified.

How little things change in the world of power politics. Could the story of Carausius and Allectus be a parable for our time?

Well, in conclusion, I am of a mind that from one perspective Nigel Paul Farage might well be considered a metaphorical incarnation of Carausius, but I wonder who, from amongst all the usual suspects, bribing and juggling allies and backstabbing each other in an unsavoury feeding frenzy to replace May, will become his Allectus.

Johnson, Gove, Leadsom, Rudd…

…Corbyn, McDonell, Javid or Winnie…

…and will the part of the Western Caesar (and later Emperor), Constantius Chlorus, be played out by the EU perhaps in the person of a Macron or a Selmayer or an Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer?

Furthermore, in the future as things start to become even more politically chaotic, keep a very close eye on Phillip Anthony Hammond, current Chancellor of the Exchequer — he has an agenda all of his own.

Nevertheless and without doubt the coming months and years will reveal all. Do bear in mind that the Globalist cartel has not been destroyed; it has simply lost a major campaign, and will come back again from another direction if the other once-sovereign nations of Europe do not soon take their destiny back into their own hands and commit the memory of the malignant EU to but a few pages in the history books. May their future politicians read those pages every morning before going about their work on behalf of the people who elected them.

Strange indeed are the ways of men… and women, so thank you Gina Miller[1] and I do hope your ‘investment’ decisions have a sounder moral foundation than the motivations behind your attempt to thwart the will and aspirations of the people of your adopted country.

But yet, despite all the contrary machinations such as Project Fear and the activities of the likes of Miller, Branson, the EU and the rest of the international money-grubbing fraternity, we have cleanly left the European Union without any so called ‘Deal’ and are now able to carve our own path and determine our own future for the first time in two generations irrespective of the desperate, ill-informed caterwauling of those who have never before experienced the challenges, the disappointments and the always-substantial rewards of real independence.

Seneca III — at 2301 hours BST in a now sovereign United Kingdom, this glorious 12th of April 2019.

1.   Gina Nadira Miller (née Singh) is a British Guiana-born businesswoman and owner of a company involved in ‘Investment Management’. She is also a political activist who initiated the 2016 R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union court case against the British government over its authority to implement Brexit without approval from Parliament. Miller is an ardent Remainer and one has to assume that she thought Theresa May was actually going to keep her word and take us out — foolish child.

However, the best-laid plans of mice and men often backfire, and by handing authority to Parliament to determine the process, she made Remain impossible, because that arrogant and constitutionally corrupted Legislature could not find a way to approve May’s persistently presented surrender document farcically known as the Withdrawal Agreement, nor agree on anything else other than a substantial pay rise for themselves.

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

I Once Was Blind…

A cautionary tale about centralized medicine:

Thousands of elderly people in Britain are left to go blind because of rationing of eye surgery in the National Health Service (NHS), a report revealed on Saturday (April 6).

The Times newspaper said a survey by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO) found tens of thousands of elderly people are left struggling to see because of an NHS cost-cutting drive that relies on them dying before they can qualify for cataract surgery.

The survey has found that the NHS has ignored instructions to end cataract treatment rationing in defiance of official guidance two years ago.

The RCO said its survey has found 62 percent of eye units retain policies that require people’s vision to have deteriorated below a certain point before surgery is funded.

With more than 400,000 cataract operations carried out each year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) concluded that there was no justification for policies that denied patients cataract removal surgery until they could barely see.

The RCO said that refusal to fund surgery was insulting and called into question the entire system through which the NHS approves treatments.

Ms Helen Lee of the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) said: “Cataracts can have a dramatic impact on someone’s ability to lead a full and independent life, potentially stopping them from driving and increasing their chance of serious injury by falling. The NICE guidelines make it clear cataract surgery is highly cost-effective and should not be rationed. It is nonsensical for clinical commissioning groups to deny patients this crucial treatment.”

Ms Julie Wood, CEO of NHS Clinical Commissioners, which represents local funding bodies, defended the restrictions.

She told the Times: “NICE guidance is not mandatory and clinical commissioners must have the freedom to make clinically led decisions that are in the best interests of both individual patients and their wider local populations. The NHS does not have unlimited resources.”

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

Having just experienced cataract surgery myself, I was curious as to how common it was and what the waiting period entailed. While one is on the operating table, there is time for conversation. So I asked the surgeon how many of these procedures he’d done. He thought for a moment and said, “probably several thousand by now. I have two days of surgery in this suite, and one at another site. I like to keep busy so a good day is between six and twelve patients. And of course, I see my patients the next day in a follow-up visit.” The whole thing, including prep and post, takes a bit more than an hour, and I was given every single phone contact the doctor has; they don’t want complications. And, yes, it is relatively painless. [Keep in mind that I’m comparing it to chronic fibromyalgia so a bit of stinging when the B puts in the multitude of eye drops for two weeks – the sting recedes – is the most tedious part.] Now, ten hours post-op, I am using both eyes to tell you about it.

In my early years of motherhood, I had some experience of “socialized” medical care while my then-husband was in the military. The docs were grumpy – they had to serve six years back then because of the draft. I liked the corpsmen, though. Very nice fellows and responsive to the needs of a young family. The docs? Not so much. When one pediatrician found out I was breastfeeding he gestured toward my infant and harumphed, “So when he grows up to be neurotic, will you blame it on his toilet training?”

Many Indian tribes report the same dissatisfaction with their government medical care, as do our veterans. One of the first things tribes do with their casino-funded bank accounts is to procure private medical care for everyone. The veterans don’t have that luxury.

Maybe Britain could start a lottery for health care. Brits love to bet. Besides, it worked for the Irish for many years.

I found a free Kindle Margaret Thatcher autobiography on Amazon. Haven’t gotten to her views on medical care but she was a true Methodist believer in local planning so I have my suspicions where this is going.

By tne way, the British method of politics seems eminently sane, as least compared to ours…and compared to what Thailand does, per H. Numan’s delightful essays.

On Being Snookered by Penny-ante Political Obfuscations

Hey, Jordan Peterson! Your descriptions of what young men need if they are ever to mature in our Western world are spot on. But as a political philosopher, you lack the foundation to address the ugly divisions the Left has driven into the heart of civil discourse.

Which is unfortunate for us all. You are good at stating what you don’t know, but sometimes you enter into the realms of what you don’t know that you don’t know, i.e., what you have glossed over or failed to comprehend. Yes, you want your reach to transcend politics but it can’t since the Left has inextricably bound the political into every facet of life, a merging the right rejects categorically. You say the right can be seen by its identity politics but you don’t say the left does exactly the same thing. Try saying “All Lives Matter” in public and see where it gets you.

People are anxious to pigeonhole your ideas and you want to allay their fears that you might be -gasp! – right wing. You attempt to declare your political agnosticism while refusing to bow to an overweening leftist identitarianism. When you refuse the strictures of compelled speech from the rulers of Canada, you are speaking from the right. Compelled speech is a leftist/socialist trope; it is the Right which defends freedom of speech.

By the way, how many rightwingextremists have shown up to disrupt your talks, trash your ideas, or make you feel unsafe in public? And if you think Charlottesville was reality-based, you’ve been snookered, sir. We live near there; we watched it go down. From the beginning, the whole mess was a false flag set-up.

Read Tomas Sowell, sir. Across more than fifty years, his body of work, his opera of conservative political philosophy, has been consistently correct. In his eighties now, he’s still sharp. Here’s his Amazon Page It’s a wealth of information that never stale dates.

Meanwhile, listen to Dr. Turley explain why Nazism -National Socialism- is leftist. It did not come from the Right.

Now tell us why wanting to be a nation-state with one’s own peculiar culture, language and traditions is not a good thing. Ask Les Québécois why they won’t give up and join you Anglos. Do you think they should? If not, why not? Compare and contrast.

Pulling Threads

The launch of Diana West’s new book has awakened some of the controversies that surrounded her previous one. In the essay below, JLH talks about both books as they relate to the current Constitutional crisis in the United States.

Pulling Threads

by JLH

News has come to us (that is the journalistic, not the imperial “us”) that David Horowitz has turned on his long-time friend and ally, Ron Radosh, denouncing him for the leftist he is/has returned to be. Horowitz is known — and respected by many — as a conservative author, founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, editor of FrontPage Magazine, director of Discover the Networks, a website that tracks individuals and groups on the political left, and founder of Students for Academic Freedom. Some may ask “Why?” While others may ask “Why now?” Has Radosh, like Trotsky, become a dissenter — in this case not from Stalinist Communism, but from the neoconservative creed supposedly followed by both of these friends since their disaffection from the philosophies of the Communist Left? Or has he simply been hiding out in the shadow of his illustrious friend?

I will propose a solution to this conundrum, but it requires some background. Some regular readers of GoV may recall that, in October of 2014, I wrote an essay called, “It depends on what the meaning of IS is”. The essay was written in defense of Diana West’s American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character . It proposed, among other things, that the Horowitz-Radosh-led attacks were inspired by an adulation of FDR and a feeling of ownership in the interpretation of his story.

As Thomas Paine said in Common Sense: “…a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom.”

This was proven true in the reception of Betrayal, which was characterized by two opposing schools of thought. One, led by Horowitz and Radosh, attacked the book for its portrayal of members of FDR’s inner circle. Since material for factual arguments against West’s thesis was sparse (not to say absent), the politics of personal destruction were required. On the other side, West and a small group of impressive defenders fought back. It was spleen and invention versus hard facts. Hostilities decreased very gradually after some intense exchanges, and the trenches grew quiet, except for an occasional salvo from Radosh or some other diehard warrior. It seemed to me that Horowitz went back to what he had been doing before, as a credentialed neoconservative. Radosh never quite gave up.

Then came the shock. Diana West — one of a minority of true reporters in a sea of what the Baron and Dymphna refer to as “jornolists” — wrote a follow-up to her historic exposure of useful idiots and actual traitors around FDR and the shaping of his post-war, Soviet-friendly foreign policy. Unlike the historic exposures in Betrayal, the events in The Red Thread: A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy are present, here and now. The copious footnotes rival those in Betrayal in frequency — an average of three to a page — but, because of the contemporaneity of the events, a majority of them are from online sources.

Continue reading

A Moment of Clarity

You’re driving down a winding country road late at night. Up ahead, just barely within range of your headlights, you catch a glimpse of a moving shape. Uh-oh — could it be another one of those #@%&?!# deer? After a split second your guess is confirmed: you see the twin red pinpoints of its eyes. And then another pair, and another — the little red winking lights of four or five deer, looking like a row of error codes on a modem. The creatures leap into the road, eager to throw themselves in front of your car and send it to the body shop, and possibly you to the hospital. You brake hard and swerve… Phew! Your luck holds — you miss them by a couple of yards.

Yes, we denizens of the Virginia Outback are all too familiar with the awful moment when the view ahead becomes well-lit and clear enough to see that another close encounter with a deer is on the way. It’s a moment of ghastly clarity.

That’s what the last four years at Gates of Vienna have been like for me. Beginning with the Great Migration Crisis in the summer of 2015, some of the previously obscure underpinnings of currently unfolding events have sprung clearly into view, as if a row of light switches by the door to reality were being flipped on, one by one.

I could list any number of processes that make up this ongoing moment of clarity, but for simplicity of exposition, I’ll condense them into three major categories:

1.   The coordinated, planned invasion of Europe by masses of third-world migrants.
2.   The election of Donald Trump, and the consequent events that followed it.
3.   The global de-platforming of Tommy Robinson.

What these events have in common is that they reveal the otherwise occluded machinations of the international elite who strive to manage global affairs to suit their plans. The interference and manipulation have become so obvious that even non-paranoid people can’t help but notice them.

In the following analysis I’ll draw on vast quantities of data that I’ve absorbed over the past few years, without including any links. However, anything that is speculation will be clearly marked as such.

1. The Great Migration Crisis

When the columns of (mostly young male) migrants marched into Europe through the Balkans in the summer and fall of 2015, it quickly became clear that the whole operation had been planned in advance. Yes, Angela Merkel took advantage of the Dead Baby Moment when the corpse of little Ayan was carefully arranged and then “found” on a beach in Anatolia. No good socialist lets a crisis go to waste. Yet the logistical process that followed was far too large, complex, and expensive not to have been arranged ahead of time. Endless caravans of buses were lined up at various national borders to carry the migrants from one photo-op to the next, when they took those brief walks across the frontier that created such good visuals for the media.

And the culture-enrichers were carrying €500 notes to spend at their first stops in the European Union. Where did they get that kind of cash? Almost nobody uses that denomination of banknote in the EU.

A couple of years later it became clear that the EU itself was the cash cow for the migrants, when a credit card company acknowledged that it had partnered with the EU — which had guaranteed repayment of the debt — to hand out prepaid cards to migrants when they arrived in Europe.

Early in the game it became clear that George Soros was heavily involved in the process of migration. His NGOs ferried the “refugees” across the Med, handed out maps and instruction booklets, and chartered the buses that carried them onward towards Germany. But Mr. Soros wasn’t playing the philanthropist — he made that explicit when he told an interviewer that he expected to turn a profit on all his dealings.

Governments across Europe fell into line with the plan. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stood alone against the migration, and has become the sworn enemy of Brussels as a result. Until Matteo Salvini became Italian interior minister last year, Mr. Orbán was the sole governmental leader on the continent to actively resist what was happening.

Mass migration into Europe is not intrinsically profitable for anyone except the culture-enrichers themselves. Yet lots of people — people-smugglers, businesses, NGOs, and local governments — have been making money off the process. So who is paying for the population transfer?

Somebody wanted those migrants to get to Europe, and was willing to pay billions of dollars to make it happen.

Three years later, an exactly analogue of the process could be observed in the migrant “caravans” traveling from Central America through Mexico to the southern border of the USA. That was also a complex logistical process costing a lot of money. The trek overland through several countries had to be organized and supplied. Local officials had to be paid off to allow it through.

Who bankrolled all of that?

I don’t have any definitive answers to these questions, just speculations. I’ll get into those later.

2. The election of Donald Trump

Twenty-five years or so before the 2016 election I noticed how unpopular mass immigration was with American voters. Polls routinely showed that somewhere between 60% and 80% of the population said they opposed immigration, and some considered it an important issue. It seemed that an aspiring presidential candidate could do well if he included a prominent anti-immigration plank in his platform. Yet no one ever did, and that seemed peculiar. How could a pragmatic politician resist such an electoral advantage? Yes, it was considered a “populist” position, and everyone knew that populism was bad. Still… the issue could have helped a candidate win an election because it was, well, popular.

Fast-forward to 2016. As the campaign progressed, and Donald Trump deftly picked off all his opponents during the primaries, it became clear that the reason no one ever took up opposition to mass immigration was because they were not allowed to. The intense vitriol aimed at Mr. Trump from both parties — what we now refer to as the Uniparty — made it clear that primaries were designed to weed out any opponents of immigration. And that was OK with the Republican establishment — they didn’t really want to win elections that much anyway, as their rush to join #NeverTrump proved.

The events since January 20, 2017 have provided more evidence that the political establishment (a.k.a. the Swamp) in Washington D.C. is prepared to use all its wealth and power and influence to push Donald Trump out of the Oval Office. And the major issue that makes Mr. Trump so popular is his staunch opposition to mass immigration.

Why do all those wealthy, powerful members of the entrenched elite want so badly to bring millions of illiterate immigrants into the United States?

Continue reading

The Old Folks at Home — In a Campground

The following video does not directly concern immigration or cultural enrichment. However, it’s well-known that the migrants who have arrived in Germany since 2015 are being bumped to the top of the queue for housing and other social benefits. That may help explain why an 84-year-old native German pensioner has to live in a campground instead of an apartment.

This travesty is especially egregious in a socialist welfare state like Germany, where working people pay extraordinarily high taxes. In return the state promises to take care of them in their old age. Is this what people who give up more than half their income should expect?

And is it going to get even worse in the future, as the ratio of third-world freeloaders to working Germans continues to increase?

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

Video transcript:

Continue reading

What are the “Values” Represented by Opening the Door to Jihadist Armies?

The following op-ed from Germany discusses the recent controversy over a remark by a CDU politician — a member of the same party as Angela Merkel — who said that it would be just fine if Germany had a Muslim chancellor by 2030.

Many thanks to JLH for translating this piece from Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung:

Upside Down

So something like this happens to the CDU too; for whom Armin Laschet feels responsible; and how we always stick with what we know.

Now it’s happening to them! There must have been some gleeful chortling in the AfD leadership after the noteworthy comment by the CDU/CSU parliamentary leader, Ralph Brinkhaus. The news agency Idea asked Brinkhaus whether a Muslim could become federal chancellor for the CDU in the year 2030, and he replied, “Why not, if he is a good politician and represents our values and political views.”

Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania CDU head Vincent Kokert groaned in the Bild newspaper, “No matter how hard I try, I cannot believe that Ralph Brinkhaus said that — I just can’t.” Only the far, far left wing of the Union [CDU-CSU] finds the Brinkhaus remark even acceptable.

Genuine glee reigned among members of AfD. Normally it is their lot to experience what has just happened to the Union. That is, that some party representative blurts something out that is of service only to the opposition and does nothing for the home team.

So, OK, this fictional Muslim should represent “our values” and then he can be our Christian Democratic chancellor. But what does Brinkhaus mean by “our values”? We have learned that national security has received more than 700 leads to possible war criminals among asylum seekers and not followed up on them — while Chancellor Merkel has unrelentingly shown her happy face and everyone who tends to scent danger is called racist, arsonist or worse. What are the “values” represented by opening the door to jihadist armies?

And what about not following up on leads? If only that were all! It appears that influential groups were protective of Anis Amri, whose deportation was consequently repeatedly thwarted, until he had killed a dozen people. There were allegedly bureaucratic hurdles. Yes, yes, the mills of bureaucracy grind slow, don’t they. After the mass murder in Breitscheid Square,[1] the mills ran hot overnight and Amri’s “confidant” Bilel Ben Ammar was able to be gotten out of the country lickety-split.

So who is being pals with whom? At any rate, the Merkel government — in harmonious splendor with the opposition Green and Left parties, with media, churches, unions, employers, in unity unseen since 2014 — was at great pains to conceal the inpouring danger from us, and to punish any “traitor” who spoke of it. We would like to know what kind of “values” these are supposed to be, hiding behind this large-scale operation. Or maybe better not, since the mere thought of the likely answer can give us goose bumps.

Some things just make sense on their own. After the massacre in Paris in November 2015, NRW (North Rhine-Westphalia) governor Armin Laschet of the CDU blustered: “It is irresponsible to connect the murders in Paris to immigration.” Was he right? It is more or less obvious. It depends on to whom Laschet feels he is “responsible.” Security experts connect so many members of the “Arab clans” living and active in his state with the fact that, “for humanitarian reasons,” NRW deports almost no one.

Continue reading

You Thought Occasional Cortex Was an Accident?

Nope. There’s a guy behind the curtain that shields her from reality. AOC was groomed by rich capitalists. Think of those talent shows that find performers who look good and sound good reading a script. Then polish them up till they’re good enough for prime time. Simon Cowell comes to mind…but he’s in real show business, not politics.

In this case, it’s not Simon C. doing the grooming but an entity (a PAC, Political Action Committee) called Justice Democrats.

What a group of motley capitalists behind that curtain. Like, man, these people are part of the American nomenklatura, fer sure. And just like all totalitarian groups, they expel anyone who ever had a wrong thought, no matter how long ago they expressed those ideas. So Cenk Uygur has been airbrushed.

OC – or AOC, if you insist – is our latest actress in Washington. And she’s having more fun than a blond would. So take that, white guys!

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

UPDATE: My eyes still aren’t back to normal from cataract surgery. Accidentally posted the wrong video. Corrected now.