The Five Choices

Sweden — The Partition of India

Update from the Baron:I was using Dymphna’s computer, and forgot to log in as the Baron before posting. But this really is one of my posts.

Ten years ago, El Inglés wrote his ground-breaking essay about the dilemma that Western Europe is currently facing, “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”. It made heads explode even among certain of our supposedly “conservative” allies.

Last week we discussed partition, which is a third option.

Now our long-time commenter RonaldB has added two more options in remarks about the fall of Uppsala. He was specifically addressing the situation in Sweden, but his descriptions are equally applicable to all of Western Europe and the UK, with Canada and Australia moving along right behind them. Even the USA will face the same dilemma, at least in some of our major metropolitan areas, within fifteen or twenty years, so this is something we should all be thinking about carefully.

Option #5 is “Genocide”, but I would assume it includes ethnic cleansing, which might be called “Genocide Lite”.

Remember: The most important thing about these options is not whether one or another of them is the one you prefer. There are two important questions to consider (besides the morality of the chosen solution):

1.   Is the choice politically possible? For instance, I often hear statements to the effect that “All seditious Muslims must be immediately deported, all the mosques must be closed, and all the globalist elite traitors must be tried and executed.” OK, I hear the suggestion. But it is not politically possible, neither now nor for the foreseeable future. So why bother discussing it?
2.   Is the choice viable? That is, even if it is politically possible, would it work? Can it accomplish its goals, or is it almost certain to fail? It’s my contention that partition might be just barely possible in political terms (after all, it was implemented in India in 1947), but it is not viable — it would fail, and fail quickly. Western Europe and India are very different cases.

Dymphna and I will shortly be going out for a little while. Y’all can start the discussion, and when we get back, we’ll moderate the comments.

Here’s what RonaldB had to say:

1.   Surrender
    This is indistinguishable from what they’re doing now. Withdraw the police, allow sharia law, sharia enforcement police, sharia courts to do as they wish, and continue sending in welfare and public assistance, including housing and medical care, for any Muslim from the area who applies for it.
2.   Partition
    Build a wall or impenetrable fence around the area, move any Muslims or immigrants in the surrounding area into the partitioned territory, and leave it alone. The main difference between this and surrender is that people from inside the area will not be allowed into Sweden, and no assistance will be given. They can apply to the EU, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else who wants to give them money. Whether they starve will no longer be a concern.
3.   Mass expulsions
    This will take some real planning, as a place must be found to expel the immigrants to. The Israelis had the right idea: pay a head tax to some local despot for every head he accepts, and don’t concern yourself too much with what happens to them after they get there.
4.   A horrific crackdown, completely discarding individual rights
    A simple military movement will not have much effect, because the organized Muslims can simply assassinate anyone who gets in their way. You would have to have a security apparatus akin to Saddam Hussein’s secret police, or Savak or the British Tans who controlled Ireland. The city would be treated as occupied territory. Unfortunately, the welfare and aid would probably continue under this scenario.
5.   Genocide
    There are so many other ways of handling this that genocide would be profoundly immoral.
    Those are all the possibilities I can think of. I don’t think there is a possibility of putting a lid on the situation and pretending it’s been settled. The Muslims feel its time to assert their control, so they’re now in the last stages of jihad and aren’t about to pull back for bribes or appeals to reason or civic pride.

Avi Yemini vs. the Facebook Behemoth

Avi Yemini is a Jewish Australian who is also a veteran of the Israel Defense Forces. He is a conservative activist and a candidate for public office. Recently he has been an outspoken advocate for white South African farmers who are currently facing expropriation and genocide.

A few days ago Mr. Yemini’s Facebook page was abruptly taken down. He was unable to get any answers to his questions about why his page was removed, so he has come to New York to confront Facebook in person, and is planning to file a crowd-funded lawsuit against the company.

Vlad Tepes interviewed Avi Yemini yesterday via skype:

Oz and Russia to Welcome Besieged South Africans

Good news! The white population in South Africa has been under the gun (and the machete) for far too long; a murderous heritage from Nelson Mandela to his people. But that legacy is about to turn.

That Russia is smart enough to offer experienced white farmers land to put into production shows how shrewd is the Bear. Heaven knows it needs people who are willing to be fruitful and multiply.

Meanwhile, Australia will have some balance for its leftist leanings, and some ballast for its ship of state that will eventually have to turn toward China.

Social Justice: An Analysis (Part 1)

Below is the first part of a four-part guest essay by Richard Cocks about Social Justice (and also, of course, Social Justice Warriors).

Social Justice: An Analysis

by Richard Cocks

Part 1

Cosmic justice: infantile and nihilistic

Social class, home environment, genetics and other factors all contribute to differences between individuals. People differ in looks, height, income, social status, morality, various kinds of intelligence and athleticism, musical ability, industriousness, discipline, and every other human characteristic. Differences in culture, history, and geography generate differences between groups. Being born into a culture that emphasizes hard work, education, conscientiousness, and thrift is a tremendous advantage.

“Social justice” advocates describe the resulting disparate achievements as “inequalities” with the suggestion that these represent some kind of injustice. Unequal achievement is treated as though it must be the result of discrimination, “privilege” or some other unfairness, while it is in fact the inevitable consequence of differences between individuals and groups. These differences will exist no matter how a society is organized, barring a race to the bottom where the laziest, least talented individual set the bar and every achievement that surpasses that pitiful measure gets confiscated and distributed — removing any incentive to do anything much at all.

Very young children and even some animals[1] have a sense of justice or fairness. In humans this starts out with an intuitive perception, later gets modified by reflection and culture, which in turn influences what gets perceived as just or unjust. Iain McGilchrist describes this as right hemisphere perception, left hemisphere mid-level processing, returning once more to the right hemisphere.[2]

An egocentric child, without prompting, can perceive that receiving a small ice cream while his brother gets a large one is unfair and unjust.[3] However, he is also likely to think that the fact that his older brother has fewer restrictions on what he can do than he does is unfair. Both cases generate resentment. However, only one is justified.

In the second case, being older and thus a little wiser, the older brother does not need as much supervision. He is more capable, self-sufficient and responsible, and therefore has more privileges. These privileges might seem unfair and unjust in some “cosmic” sense, but they are in fact perfectly reasonable.[4] His parents are not being unjust at all. It is merely that age and experience are on the side of the older brother. To harbor resentment at the parents is unreasonable, unfair and unjust. They are blameless. To resent the brother is also ridiculous. There will always be an older sibling as long as siblings exist. The protest is misguided.

Part of the maturation process is learning to distinguish between events that are due to favoritism, attempts to solicit elicit sexual favors, or some other inequity and occurrences that are the result of relevant differences between people. To feel resentful towards someone merely because he is better in some way, such as in looks, status, wealth, or popularity, is in some sense natural. It is also puerile and undeserved. It is a sin in the literal sense of missing the mark. Certainly the envied person is not at fault simply for being superior. The defect is in the heart of the malicious resentful one.

It is true that even a relatively happy, mature person will almost inevitably suffer occasionally from this kind of inappropriate resentment, but he recognizes that the fault lies in his own breast, not in the other person.

By failing to distinguish between deserved resentment and inappropriate hatred towards someone or some group simply for being superior in some way, “social justice” returns people to an infantile inability to differentiate between resentment based on actual unjust treatment, and resentment that is generated simply by the desire to have or be what someone else has or is.

If the universe itself can be considered unjust in some way, due to the unequal distribution of admirable characteristics, it is not the fault or responsibility of man and it is not in man’s power to fix. It is certainly not the fault of “society,” which the phrase “social justice” implies. Justice and fairness appropriately considered enter the picture only with regard to human institutions and rules.

To reject inequalities is to rebel against reality itself. All people bar two are superior to some and inferior to others in any conceivable characteristic. To reject that fact is to renounce the character of existing at all.

One response to existence and Being is to reject it; to decide that it is better never to have lived and then, having lived, to end it as soon as possible. Mass shooters act out the intention not just to end their own lives, but to kill as many as they can in a rejection of Life itself.[5] Social justice warriors are engaged in a similar kind of nihilism. Scapegoating and killing the “kulaks”[6] in the manner of Stalin has no logical end. Since differences of achievement are unavoidable, the logic of social justice is the complete destruction of the human race. By encouraging undeserved resentment against individuals and whole sectors of society, “social justice” activists ramp up intergroup hatreds that promote internecine conflict and, if unchecked, will lead to more horrible violence than simply one individual picking up a gun. Once the scapegoated group is murdered, differing levels of success within the persecuting group remain, and the process will continue.

To reward merit or productivity?

In thinking about economic success, Thomas Sowell recommends simply jettisoning the notion of merit. He argues that “the concept of merit brings an insult to misfortune and arrogance to achievement.”[7] It is impossible to separate how much achievement is the result of talent, for which a person can take no credit, and how much is the result of industriousness. On the face of it, hard work seems meritorious. However, even industriousness tends to be highly affected by familial and cultural influences; an unearned advantage. This means that it is not possible to assess merit. What can be rewarded — what is known how to reward — is productivity.

Rewarding productivity creates an incentive to be productive, and all tend to benefit. They benefit because rewarding productivity encourages using the latest technology and most effective methods, raising the quality of products while reducing their cost. Simply rewarding effort would not be optimal for that reason.

Continue reading

My Old Halal Kentucky Home

Several Kentucky Fried Chicken (or are they just KFC now? — an acronym with no title reference) restaurants in Australia have made themselves 100% halal, and are therefore no longer offering bacon or any other pork products to their customers.

This story merits further discussion, but first here’s the brief news report from The Daily Mail:

How Australian KFC stores are refusing to sell bacon in their burgers — because they only use HALAL products

KFC has refused to sell bacon at three Australian stores to keep in line with Halal certified products.

A customer revealed the rule after contacting the fast food company about the lack of bacon offered at a store in Punchbowl, in Sydney’s west.

‘Why is bacon not available at KFC Punchbowl, NSW?’ Disgruntled customer Marc Miller wrote on Facebook.

In response, KFC said the fast food chain’s stores in Punchbowl and Bankstown South in NSW, as well as a location in Fawkner in Victoria, don’t sell bacon to keep in line with other halal products.

‘Hi Marc, currently, the KFC stores at Punchbowl (NSW), Bankstown South (NSW) and Fawkner (VIC) have a number of products which are certified Halal and are available to customers from these stores only,’ the statement reads.

‘Some Suppliers of chicken have indicated they are Halal certified. However, we cannot claim our stores can be classified as being 100% Halal, as there is bacon in all stores (except for three stores listed above) plus the Suppliers of certain seasonings, marinades etc have indicated that they are not Halal certified.’

The spokesperson added that there are no current plans to extend the number of stores in Australia which have Halal products.

I ask readers to temporarily suppress their natural and understandable outrage over this news, and consider it as part of a larger process, one that is underway throughout the Western world.

The offering of halal products is obviously a business decision. If you have a lot of Muslims in your customer base, and you see a lot of women in bags and men in dresses in beanies, then you will offer them halal items, because that’s what they want, and that way you will sell more stuff. It is of no moment to you — if you are aware of it at all — that a percentage of the cost of halal products is turned over as zakat to “charitable” organizations, including jihad groups. After all, that’s just part of the cost of doing business.

However, in this case the decision not to offer any non-halal products goes beyond a mere business decision. KFC has at least some kafir customers — obviously, since one of them publicly complained — so the franchise in question could make a greater profit if it continued to include menu items with bacon to satisfy the demand from the kuffar.

Yet they decided to withhold bacon and forgo some of their profits. Why?

Continue reading

Ihsas Khan: “To kill and be killed… Discharging my obligation to jihad”

A young “Australian” culture-enricher named Ihsas Khan is on trial in Sydney for attempting to murder his neighbor with a hunting knife back in 2016. The following video from Channel 7 is unusual in that it lays out all the facts about Ihsas Khan: he intended to slaughter his victim in order to discharge his obligation to wage jihad against the infidel.

Mr. Khan has pleaded not guilty due to insanity. It will be interesting to see how well that works for him.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Below are excerpts from an article about the case from ABC News (Australia):

Terror attack accused Ihsas Khan compares stabbing Sydney neighbour to ‘eating a Picnic bar’

The man on trial for the attempted murder of his neighbour in the Sydney suburb of Minto compared stabbing the man to like eating a chocolate bar, a Sydney court heard on Wednesday.

Ihsas Khan, 22, was charged with committing a terrorist act with the intent to influence the Australian Government and attempted murder for stabbing Wayne Greenhalgh with a hunting knife on September 10, 2016.

Mr Khan has pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental illness.

The court was shown a police interview of Mr Khan.

During an interview with a detective, Mr Khan said he felt nothing about stabbing Mr Greenhalgh.

“How do you feel about eating a Picnic bar? You don’t really think about it,” he said.

The detective asked him whether he regretted what he did.

“No, not at all,” Mr Khan replied.

“This person you stabbed today, if he died how would that make you feel?” the detective asked.

“Nothing,” Mr Khan replied.

“Can you tell me why you’re here?” the detective asked.

“I tried to slaughter a guy,” Mr Khan replied.

Continue reading

Diana West and Katie Hopkins at CPAC 2018

Last Thursday the Center for Security Policy held a panel discussion at the CPAC 2018 conference in Washington D.C. on the topic of “Whither Freedom?” Among the participants were Diana West and the British writer Katie Hopkins.

The entire presentation, which was chaired by Frank Gaffney, may be seen here; it’s worth watching in its entirety. The two excerpts below show the talks given by Ms. West and Ms. Hopkins. The former described the event in her most recent column:

Yesterday [Thursday February 22], I had the privilege to join Katie Hopkins and Deborah Weiss at C-PAC 2018 on a Center for Security Policy panel moderated by Frank Gaffney. Our topic was “Whither Freedom?” and we three panelists each treated a different threat — the Left/Russia (me), Islamization of Europe (Katie) and sharia (Deborah).

In each case, the threat to freedom is compounded if not created by deception — Big Lies entrenched as conventional wisdom, “fake news,” false narrative, all of which drive crucial strategic missteps while disarming our natural reflexes and undermining our natural loyalties.

When it comes to the Left/Russia, just think: If Joseph McCarthy is not the demon child of American history and is in fact the hero of American history then everything we’ve been taught is wrong. …

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing and uploading the videos.

Diana West at CPAC:

Katie Hopkins at CPAC:

Culture-Enrichers Launch Brutal Attack on Two Female Cops in Melbourne

Two female police officers were viciously attacked during a traffic stop in Melbourne. Their assailants were a couple of “New Australians” — brother and sister, as it happens. One can’t help but wonder whether these culture-enrichers would have been so eager to start a fight if the two cops had been men.

But that’s a sexist thought, so I will suppress it…

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this news video:

Excerpts from the accompanying article in Yahoo7News:

Two female police officers kicked in the head in brutal attack

Two female police officers have been kicked in the head and body during a brutal attack in Melbourne’s north.

A brother and sister are accused of launching the alleged attack at South Morang, leaving two female officers injured in hospital.

Just before midnight on Saturday a BMW was seen driving erratically in Mill Park, police allege.

After a short pursuit the vehicle stopped at a house at nearby South Morang, missing a wheel.

Yak Dut, 21, and his sister allegedly got out of the vehicle, before a fight with the two officers broke out.

Police allege Dut kicked both officers while his sister punched at least one of them in the head.

Seven News understands the officers were forced to use capsicum spray to gain control of the accused.

The assault left the officers aged 36 and 57, both hurt, bleeding, bruised and swollen.

The 36-year-old officer had ligaments torn in her neck and a suspected torn bicep from a hard kick to the shoulder.

Dut is facing 24 charges, including: threats to kill, assaulting a police officer, kicking a police officer, reckless conducting, endangering life and drink driving.

Hat tip: SS.

The Islamic State Strikes in Melbourne

An ISIS-inspired stabbing attack took place today (yesterday, if you’re in Australia) in Melbourne.

There’s no indication in this news story of the ethnicity of the victim, but given that he was renting the perp a room, I’d be willing to bet he’s a fellow culture-enricher. Maybe even a Hindu from the subcontinent, which would explain the murderous rage of a new arrival from Bangladesh.

From ABC (Australia):

Woman Charged Over ‘Islamic State-Inspired’ Stabbing in Melbourne

A 24-year-old Bangladeshi woman will appear in court, charged over an “Islamic State-inspired attack” following a stabbing incident at Mill Park, in Melbourne’s north on Friday.

Police were called to a home in Callistemon Rise about 4:20pm on Friday where they found a 56-year-old man who had been stabbed in the neck while he was asleep.

The man will undergo surgery today but his injuries were not life-threatening.

His young child was present at the time but was not injured.

Police allege the woman is a Bangladeshi national who travelled to Melbourne on February 1 on a student visa.

She was renting a room at the man’s home while she was studying.


Ian McCartney, the acting Australian Federal Police Deputy Commissioner, said police are not looking for anyone else in connection with the incident.

“We will allege this was a stand-alone, Islamic State-inspired attack, designed to cause harm to our community,” acting Deputy Commissioner McCartney said.

Since September 2014, when the national terrorism threat level was raised, police have charged 85 people, including this woman, following 36 counter-terrorism operations around Australia.

Vehicular Jihad in Melbourne

Here we go again. A downtown street in a major city is cordoned off. Police guard the perimeter. Emergency vehicles clot the area, lights flashing. Medical personnel and passers-by huddle over crumpled figures on the pavement.

And the first thing the authorities say? “No connection to terrorism.”

This time it’s in Melbourne CBD (Central Business District), on Flinders Street. Late this afternoon (early this morning our time) a car ran down pedestrians on a crowded sidewalk, wounding 19 people. The accounts emerging after the incident follow the standard playbook: a lone-wolf driver with a history of mental illness who has no connections to terrorism. The second man arrested is just a bystander taking photos who happened to have three knives in a bag. And, yes, both of them are Muslims, but so what? Are you a WAYCIST??

An Australian reader named RA sends this report:

The police have just held a media conference and it turns out this has nothing to do with terrorism. One of the two Muslim guys arrests was just filming the incident and (though found with three knives in his bag) it turns out he was just an innocent bystander.
The attacker was the sole guy in the car, and is a 32-year-old man of Afghan descent who was known to police and has mental health issues. And though it was definitely deliberate, according to police it is not related to terrorism.

He was known to police because he had some minor driving charges and a minor assault arrest or conviction. He has mental health issues because he has used or was being treated for drug addiction. So apparently his deliberate running down of (now) 19 pedestrians was not terror-related.

And from Salome, also in Oz, summarizing the news articles:

  • A white SUV collided with pedestrians on Flinders St just after 4.30pm
  • Police say 19 people were injured during the incident, 15 of them are stable and four are in a critical condition
  • Police have emphasised there is no evidence to connect the incident with terrorism
  • Victoria Police have arrested the sole occupant of the car, 32-year-old Saeed Noori, who is of Afghan descent and has a history of drug use and mental illness
  • A second man who was filming the incident was arrested. He had three knives in his bag
  • Police have not established a relationship between the two men who were arrested
  • Nine patients have been taken to The Alfred hospital
  • Three have been taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital
  • A child with a head injury has been taken to Royal Children’s Hospital and is in a stable condition
  • More patients are at St Vincent’s
  • Two men are in custody and are being questioned by police
  • Buildings fronting onto Flinders St were evacuated
  • All pedestrians and vehicles are advised to avoid the area
  • Premier Daniel Andrews says there is no intel to suggest we need to change our current threat level or threat assessment

From The Herald Sun:

Pedestrians hit by car in Melbourne CBD, two men arrested

ICE-addicted Afghan-Australian Saeed Noori has deliberately mowed 17 pedestrians down in the CBD in an “act of evil”.

Noori, who was known to police and was on a mental health plan, roared through the Elizabeth St intersection on Flinders St and slammed into innocent shoppers, workers and tourists.

After his Suzuki SUV smashed into a tram stop bollard an off-duty cop — hailed on Thursday night as a hero — dragged Noori out of the vehicle.

Victoria Police Acting Chief Commissioner Shane Patton said Noori, 32, had a history of drug abuse.

Sources said he had missed a medical appointment earlier in the day.

“He is still in custody, under arrest for what we allege is a deliberate act,” Mr Patton said.

Pedestrians aged four to 83 needed hospital treatment after the horrifying rampage at one of Melbourne’s busiest intersections, with four critically injured.

Continue reading

An Epistle to the Australians

From Malcolm Pollack at waka waka waka, some words of comfort [with the format slightly edited]:

He is writing to an individual Aussie, but his advice could well apply to anyone in Oz — or the rest of the West for that matter — who is trying to keep going in the current political climate. You’ll like his metaphors:

We Will Not Flag or Fail

A reader from an Australian metropolis wrote me a little while back to describe the social and emotional difficulties of being a Right-thinking outlier in an overwhelmingly, and so often unreflectively and oppressively, Leftist culture. He needed some bucking up, I thought, and so I offered the following (slightly edited) reply. I don’t think he’ll mind my reprinting it here in the hope that it might offer some comfort to others in the same lonely predicament.

“Dear ____,

I understand what you’re going through. I face exactly the same issues in my own relationships, all the time.

It’s very hard to push back effectively. There is a tremendous soggy weight of dogma always pressing down; it’s as if you are caught under a big wet circus tent that you have to lift every time you want to stand up to speak your mind.

Or perhaps the better metaphor is the one I’ve always used in the past: that we are swept along in a powerful stream, and as long as we drift with the current we don’t feel its power. Most people drift along in little groups, focusing only on each other, but some of us look at the banks of the river, and notice that we are being swept away to an unfamiliar landscape far from our home. We plant our feet on the bottom and try to grab hold of the people we care about, but immediately we feel the enormous power of the current, and it is all we can do to resist. Meanwhile our friends just think we’re acting very strangely indeed, and making things very unpleasant for ourselves and for them. It’s so much more pleasant to drift, you see, especially when everyone else is — and as soon as we put our feet down on the bottom everyone else is suddenly moving away with the current. (To them, it seems as if we are moving backward.)

All I can say is to tell you what I do — how I’ve managed to live in such a condition without going mad:

Continue reading

Taking it to the Streets — But Not Yet

Why don’t native citizens of Western nations take to the streets by the tens of thousands to protest what is being done to them, and demand change?

The above question is a recurring topic in comment threads here at Gates of Vienna. You might call it the “Pitchforks and Torches” question. Previous generations in the various nations of the European diaspora took to the streets with far less cause — or so it seems — than the current cohort has. So what has changed?

The reasons are complex, but the short answer is: Citizens of the West are not yet at the point where they have nothing left to lose.

Consider the streets of Berlin and Munich in 1919 and 1920. During the chaos that reigned in the early Weimar Republic, the Freikorps took to the streets almost daily to do battle with the Communists. This was before Fascism and National Socialism — the Freikorps were largely comprised of demobilized members of the Imperial German military, who came together to resist their arch-enemy, international Bolshevism. It was out of that milieu that the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, National Socialist German Workers’ Party) arose later in the 1920s. After the Nazis came to power, order returned to German cities, much to the relief of the average citizen. But the early years were the heyday of the street-fightin’ man.

So why isn’t something similar happening now?

The cultural deracination and population replacement that is currently being inflicted on Germans, Britons, Swedes, Austrians, and Frenchmen is arguably much worse than what happened in the aftermath of the Great War in Europe. Yet there is no indication of any uprising by the indigenous population. Nobody is taking it to the streets. Not yet.

One of the main reasons is that the average indigenous Westerner is far better off, in material terms, than were his counterparts in 1919. The average Berliner in those days had almost nothing, and the inflation of 1923 wiped out what little he had. Why not take to the streets and do battle with the Bolsheviks or the Nazis? He had nothing left to lose.

But Joe Europe has a lot to lose in 2017. Regardless of the fate of the Bolsheviks, Socialism won in the end. The megastate that is the modern EU (or the modern federal behemoth in the USA) caters to the citizen’s every need. If he decides to do something that meets with the disapproval of his masters, he may lose his job, his car, his house, his pension, and all the fripperies and gewgaws that keep his wife and kids happy. He may not like the fact that the streets are full of feral Third World immigrants, that his wife and daughters (or even sons) are increasingly likely to be raped by “refugees”, and that he himself may be car-jacked, mugged, or knifed as he goes about his business in his once-safe city. But a public protest has its price.

Demonstrating against current conditions has to be weighed against the penury and shame of what would happen if he spoke out against mass immigration and Islamization. He’s seen what happens to people who do such things — why should he take to the streets in protest over a lost cause?

“But Baron,” you say, “the antifas take to the streets all the time and do battle with clubs and rocks. Why can’t the ‘Islamophobes’ do the same?”

Continue reading

From Lady Zones to Sharia Zones

Or, Why We Fight: Reason #4,559

This post is the latest in an occasional series about why we at Gates of Vienna (and those in the larger movement) decided to enlist in the information war. What makes us don our virtual helmets, pick up our digital rifles, and jump over the parapet into the barbed wire and shell holes of no man’s land?

The answer naturally varies from individual to individual. Mine varies from day to day, depending on which aspect of Western Civilization I happen to be contemplating at any given moment. There is so much treasure here inside the walls of our citadel for the enemy to plunder or destroy. So much that will be lost when we are finally overrun, as Alexandria was overrun in 641 A.D. — libraries turned to ashes, churches in ruins, monasteries sacked, survivors enslaved…

This essay has been a long time in gestation. It was conceived in January 2016, just after the Groping Jihad in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. Back then I wrote a post about what happened that included the following sentence:

Islam understands something that we Westerners seem to have forgotten: A society that refuses to defend its women will defend nothing.

What I said seemed so obvious to me that I was taken aback by the bitter, angry response in the comments from some of our male readers. Their general sentiment, from which they could not be shaken, was that women deserved what happened to them at the Hauptbahnhof. Because of feminism, because of the War Against Men, because of all the humiliation and insults they’d had to endure at the hands of the Cultural Marxists and Feminists who now dominate Western societies.

I began to take notes and jot down further thoughts after the German city of Regensburg took action to protect its women from being groped on public transport by setting aside special “lady zones” on its buses. No men were allowed in those zones. There the women of Regensburg were protected from all the insistent swarthy hands that were constantly bedeviling them in public places. They were now in their own safe space marked off with attractive pink delimiters.

It seemed such a feminized response to a basic violation of public order. Such a solution could only emerge from a culture that has decided in advance that it will never respond to habitual violent public disorder with its own violence, no matter how serious the provocation. The idea that German men might be encouraged — or even allowed — to defend German women never even entered the pretty little heads of the Gutmenschen who manage German society.

The establishment of “lady zones” is yet another example of the feminization of our political culture. It represents the banishment of masculine behavior from public life.

In reaction, there is a large reservoir of male resentment out there that mitigates against the traditional male defense of women. Men who feel this type of anger believe that with the help of major Western institutions, women have collectively made war against them, and so women must collectively reap their just reward. Regardless of whether any individual female has participated in the gender wars, she must bear her share of the responsibility for the actions of her sex.

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

In summary, this is why Western men don’t rush to the defense of Western women:

1.   They have been conditioned by decades of “education” and media propaganda to believe that for the ordinary citizen, violence is never, ever justified. On those rare occasions when it is necessary, only members of the military or civil authority — i.e. the police — may administer violence, always with regret and restraint, as a last resort. In some countries a man may be arrested and prosecuted if he intervenes violently to protect a woman from being molested.
2.   In addition to all the acculturation described in #1, men may well have been subjected to decades of feminist propaganda that demonized them for being evil males, so that they are now experiencing gender-fatigue. Women (or should I say wymyn?) have for so long excoriated and belabored them for being “patriarchal oppressors”, for having “testosterone poisoning”, for being aggressive and violent, that as far as they’re concerned, those particular women who are being groped, harassed, and raped by culture-enrichers are on their own. The men are simply going to sit this one out.

My response, presented as answers to three hypothetical questions, is below.

Does a man need permission from the women of his tribe before he stands up to defend them?

The short answer is: No, he doesn’t.

OK, so you’re a Western Man. For decades you’ve been assaulted continuously by Cultural Marxist propaganda that demonizes you, belittles you, and holds you responsible for all the ills in the world. One aspect of the propaganda push is to delegitimize any act of violence that is not approved by feminists and the girly-men they have deputized to manage our cultural and political institutions.

In other words, your feminist guardians frown on manly action. Does that mean you can no longer act decisively? Just because the feminists are mean to you?

A real man doesn’t care whether a woman approves of his defending her. He doesn’t wait for her permission.

A real man — a manly man — defends his people, no matter what. He defends his women (and by “his”, I mean the free, independent women of his family, his hometown, his district, or his country) regardless of their opinion of what he does. He defends the old and the young, the beautiful and the ugly, the brilliant and the stupid, and, yes, the feminists and the sane women. All of them.

Which women deserve protection?

The short answer is: All of them.

Or, more to the point: how do you, a Man Going Your Own Way, determine whether any given woman deserves to be defended by your strength, cunning, and skill?

Imagine that you’re in the Hauptbahnhof in Cologne next New Year’s Eve. If you see a young woman screaming and crying, surrounded by hooting “youths”, how do you tell whether she is “modern” or “traditional”, so that you can decide whether or not you will defend her?

Do you pull out a ruler and measure the length of her now ripped-off skirt?

Do you check to see how much slutty makeup she is wearing? It might be somewhat hard to tell at this point, since it’s all running down her face mixed with tears and blood.

Do you push past the young thugs and ask her a series of questions designed to determine her political position on the Gender Wars?

“Who did you vote for in the last election, mademoiselle? Where do you stand on the issue of gender-inclusive pronouns?”

Now tick off the boxes on your clipboard, add up her score, and make a decision on whether or not to clock the nearest “refugee”.

I remain skeptical of the practicality of such measures…

No, a real man defends vulnerable young women of his own family, clan, hometown, or nation. Period. He doesn’t determine in advance whether they deserve it or not. He doesn’t require that they desire to be defended, or be grateful for it. He just does it.

What will happen to a society whose men make the bitterly conscious decision not to defend their women?

The short answer is: It will be conquered by Islam.

And that’ll show the feminists, won’t it? Boy, I’ll bet they’ll be sorry then!

Continue reading