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

New Zealand Mosque Attack: Egypt’s Grand Imam Schools the West on Terror Equality

Ashraf Ramelah’s latest essay reports on the reaction of the grand imam of Al Azhar to the Christchurch massacre, and the way Muslim leaders worldwide have used the opportunity posed by the atrocity to further their plans for Islamic expansion.

New Zealand mosque attack: Egypt’s grand imam schools the West on terror equality

by Ashraf Ramelah

The following includes a brief review of how Islam realized its presence in a country such as New Zealand (Muslims are one percent of the population) by way of intentional Islamization efforts and export across the world. The grand imam of Al-Azhar Institute, Ahmed al-Tayeb, responded to the New Zealand tragedy with comments consistent with the context of this background.

The supreme religious leader of Arab-Muslim Sunnis reacted to the Mar 15 fatal mosque shootings in New Zealand with a statement that shows us his real concern. While he is the one individual in the whole world positioned to use this opportunity to create positive reforms of Islam by saying something like “terrorism must be stopped,” he instead expressed relief that Muslims are not the only terrorists.

Under the banner of the popular Egyptian slogan, “Terrorism has no religion,” the grand imam stated that “It’s time for people in the East and West to stop repeating lies concerning Islamic terrorism.” In this quote, the lie he refers to is that terrorism belongs solely to Islam. The white, non-Islamic Australian gunman as reported by the media was a fact that debunked this assumption for the world to see.

It was not an issue of sympathy, prayers and eulogies for the head imam, but of politicizing the perpetrator and the crime. Al-Tayeb’s fixation was with having another example of terror on the world stage — the infidel and “Christian.” His focus has been entirely on blaming those who single out Islam for the terror business.

Please know that the grand imam of Al Azhar has never condemned the killings of Shia Muslims murdered by Sunni Muslims, any ISIS aggression, or any Muslim attacks on Christians and their religious institutions. Instead, through public and private TV channels, Al Azhar imams have instigated the notion that Sunni Muslims must occupy Rome, the White House and recapture Spain.

As the facts of this horrible incident were uncovered, sympathy from New Zealanders began to pour forth with various actions binding non-Muslim to Muslim, including interfaith gestures. Many Christians delivered flowers to the outside of the mosque. Many entered in. New Zealand’s prime minister opened an emergency session of parliament with the religious Islamic greeting, “Al Salam Alikom,” attended the Muslim ceremony for the dead, wore a hijab, and recited Koranic verses.

For Muslim expansion, the tragic event has brought some hope. Muslims are embraced. Their Friday worship will now be welcomed in the open air to be heard even by those who currently hold no real interest in Islam. Also, as a result of the horrible tragedy, New Zealand will now allow outdoor speakers for the Islamic call to prayer. Consequences such as these will advance the grand imam’s and the Vatican’s “Ark of Brotherhood” interfaith pact to spread togetherness throughout the West. Their agreement was signed earlier this year in Abu Dhabi.

Arab-Muslim reaction to the New Zealand tragedy

In the Arabic press, much was made of hatred toward Islam, escalation of hostilities, prejudice and growing Islamophobia with various reactions from Arab-Muslim leaders. A cleric and scholar from Al Azhar Institute pointed out that the gunman was not killed this time, whereas Islamic terrorists are always killed on the scene. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stressed the escalation of hostilities toward Islam. He called on the West to take emergency measures to prevent such disasters.

Continue reading

Brad Johnson on the Christchurch Massacre

In the following interview, the retired CIA station chief Brad Johnson talks about some of the background to the recent massacre in New Zealand, material that is not being discussed in the media.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for conducting the interview and uploading this video:

Brenton Tarrant’s “manifesto” has been largely scrubbed from major media sites and social media, although I’m sure it’s available on plenty of dissident websites. I’ve uploaded a copy here, in case anyone wants to read it.

I’ve only just started looking at it myself, but the similarities between the slaughter in Christchurch and the massacres by Anders Behring Breivik are remarkable. The main difference is that Mr. Breivik killed Young Socialists, while Mr. Tarrant killed Muslims.

Like the Breivik case, Brenton Tarrant’s ideology (such as it is) was designed to harm specific target groups. The Butcher of Utøya brought down a firestorm upon the Counterjihad — with the exception of Fjordman, his targets seemed to be mainly Counterjihad people in the USA.

Similarly, the Butcher of Christchurch seemed to be aiming at the anti-immigration movement in general, and more specifically the opponents of Islam in the Balkans.

I tend to be paranoid, and the Breivik affair intensified that trait. At the time I thought Anders Breivik must surely have had a “handler”. In the eight years since then I have observed that there is no limit to the depravity, ruthlessness, immorality, and evil of the Permanent Government, a.k.a. the Deep State.

That’s why this little piece of the Tarrant manifesto made my spider sense tingle (the conceit being that he is interviewing himself):

Continue reading

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.
    Afterword
    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.