A Jordanian Mujahid in Germany

German intelligence has warned the USA that a Jordanian is plotting a terror attack against American bases in Germany. And let’s not forget that Jordan is one of our “friends” in the Middle East…

Many thanks to MissPiggy for translating this report, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Fjordman: Why Laws Against Hate Speech Are Dangerous

Fjordman’s latest essay has been published at the Gatestone Institute. Below are some excerpts.

In November 2019, Germans celebrated the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany 30 years earlier. That same month, Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a speech to the German federal parliament (Bundestag), advocated more restrictions on free speech for all Germans. She warned that free speech has limits:

“Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. This house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise, our society will no longer be the free society that it was.”

Merkel received great applause.

Critics, however, would claim that curtailing freedom in order to protect freedom sounds a bit Orwellian. One of the first acts of any tyrant or repressive regime is usually to abolish freedom of speech. Merkel should know this: she lived under a repressive regime — in the communist dictatorship of East Germany, where she studied at Karl Marx University.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech, specifically speech critical of the government, and prohibits the state from limiting free speech. The First Amendment was placed first in the Bill of Rights because the American Founding Fathers realized that freedom of speech is fundamental to a free society. US President George Washington said:

“For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences… reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”

Without freedom of speech, you cannot truly be free. Freedom of speech exists precisely to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

What exactly is “hate speech,” and who gets to define it? Those who love justice usually also hate injustice. But what is justice? Social justice? Economic justice? Ecological justice? Religious fundamentalist justice? Climate justice?

Continue reading

The Temporal Princes

In the early days of this blog, back when I was commuting to work in Richmond and was only home on weekends, Saturday was often designated Poetry Day (and when it wasn’t, it was Ranting Day, which was also fun).

Today’s poem is actually an excerpt from a much longer work by C. Day Lewis, “The Magnetic Mountain”. I’ve never seen any of the rest of the poem, so these four stanzas must be the best part. The excerpt was included in an anthology of modern verse that I was assigned to study for O-level English in the late 1960s. I memorized it back then (we had to memorize lengthy chunks of verse to quote in the exam), but I don’t own a copy of it, so I hadn’t thought of it in decades.

As I mentioned last weekend, I’ve been sorting through a big old trunk of odds and ends. Some of the memorabilia in it are more than fifty years old, and I hadn’t laid eyes on any of the stuff in more than forty years. As a result, I’ve been running into some (mostly pleasant) surprises.

This past week I encountered the first two stanzas of the poem mentioned above in that trunk. I had scribbled them from memory on the cover of a William and Mary notebook — in class, when I was bored — in about 1971. When I saw them, they seemed VERY familiar, and gradually all four stanzas came back to me. But I couldn’t remember who the poet was, so I googled a piece of the text, and found it on someone’s blog (with minor textual errors, and possibly missing some commas).

This is a superb poem. I’m glad I recovered it after all these years. It’s somewhat gloomy, but I’ve just returned from a funeral, so gloom is appropriate:

Continue reading

Rape or Not?

Last week I reported on three young American sisters in Spain who reported to police that they had been raped by three Afghan culture-enrichers. It seems that further investigation has revealed some holes in the sisters’ stories.

FouseSquawk has translated two articles on the case. The first one, from La Opinión de Murcia, isn’t all that different from last week’s video report, except for the possibility of an insurance scam:

Forensic report confirms that the three sisters who were allegedly raped had injuries

The alleged attackers remain charged for sexual assault, while victims are questioned about taking out insurance that would indemnify them in case of rape

by Ana Lucas
Jan 15, 2020

The three US sisters who were raped in Murcia on New Years Eve had injuries to their genitals and external to their genitals, according to reports by those who examined them hours after the attack in Virgin de la Arrixadaca (Murcia), say sources close to the investigation being conducted by the National Police.

In addition, one of the three sisters, the smallest, had suffered blows, the same sources insist.

The case is in the judicial process. The three accused continue to be charged and are currently out on bail, investigated for two consummated sexual attacks and one attempted. “As a precautionary measure, a weekly appearance before the court, the withdrawal of passports, and a prohibition on approaching the girls is in effect,” judicial sources then stated. Before the judge, the individuals admitted to having been with the girls, although they maintain that it was consensual. The judicial investigation continues.

The victims, nevertheless, are in the spotlight with the revelation that they took out quite controversial insurance. Something which, in this case, had already begun to be discussed the same afternoon that the three alleged attackers were released on bail. There are foreign women who come to Spain with an insurance policy that in case of rape indemnifies them. For the past few years, periodically, the police have been alerted about foreign tourists making false rape charges to collect travel insurance.

The young women, 18, 20, and 23 years of age, are not being investigated for making a false report, although the defense attorney for the three suspects announced that he will make a complaint to this effect before the court. They (the three women) remain outside of Spain They were passing through Murcia and one of them was studying, and it is still pending that they testify in court, either by returning or by video conference.

But this investigative report from El País tells a different story:

The judge questions the rape report by the three US sisters in Murcia

The women have not ratified the complaint and have created contradictions

The case of the three young US women who reported suffering sexual attacks on New Years Eve in Murcia has awakened numerous questions two weeks after the alleged rapes were committed. The contradictions in their declaration and the circumstance that none of them have ratified their complaint in court nor clarified the gaps in the case has generated doubts on the authenticity of their complaint among the investigators, the judge and the prosecutor.

The girls, age 18, 20 and 23, explained to the officers that they had met their alleged attackers, three young men of Afghan nationality, at a New Year’s party in a pub, where the boys had first cornered them and kissed them against their will. The judge on duty who assumed the case ordered the provisional release of the three accused in a January 4 report which El País has gained access to, and in which he shows his surprise at the fact that after been supposedly kissed by force, two of the girls later went to the home of the young men “without any evidence of violence or force”. And that the third went with the last of the accused to the residence in which she resided for the past three months, since she was studying for a quarter in the University of Murcia. Her sisters had traveled from Ohio to visit her.

Continue reading

Almost Heaven


(Click to enlarge)

Most Americans over the age of 40 know how the state of West Virginia was formed. For the youngsters, or for readers in the Far Abroad, this is what happened:

During the Recent Unpleasantness (a.k.a. the American Civil War or the War Between the States) counties in the western part of Virginia voted to secede from Virginia after Virginia seceded from the Union. They then established themselves as the separate and independent State of West Virginia.

Those good folks out in Them Thar Hills are close kin to the rural residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, especially in the counties hard on the border with West Virginia — Buchanan, Tazewell, Bland, Giles, Craig, Alleghany, Bath, Augusta, Rockbridge, etc.

Now West Virginia is offering an opportunity to the 2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties and localities here in Virginia: If we want to secede from the tyrannical government in Richmond, we are invited to apply for admission to the State of West Virginia.

The counties up there along the Blue Ridge may well jump at the opportunity, and some of the ones down here in the Piedmont could follow suit. I don’t know if the same sentiment would extend all the way east to Tidewater and the Eastern Shore, but it could be that all the declared sanctuary counties and cities would want to stick together. If they do, most of the Commonwealth of Virginia will abscond to West Virginia, leaving only Northern Virginia (the Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy) and a few progressive islands such as Richmond and Albemarle County (with its embedded Li’l Kumquat, Charlottesville). In other words, the original Commonwealth of Virginia will have been almost completely reconstituted.

Now, that’s one of history’s little ironies.

Below is the full text (also archived here) of the bill introduced yesterday in the West Virginia House of Delegates:

House Concurrent Resolution 8

(By Delegates Howell, Summers, Shott, Householder, C. Martin, Hott, Graves, Cadle, Barnhart, J. Jeffries, Maynard, Phillips, Foster, Hamrick, Steele, D. Jeffries, Wilson, Waxman, Bartlett, Paynter and Linville)

[Introduced January 14, 2020]

Providing for an election to be had, pending approval of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a majority of qualified citizens voting upon the proposition prior to August 1, 2020, for the admission of certain counties and independent cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the State of West Virginia as constituent counties, under the provisions of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution of West Virginia

Continue reading

Deception by Muslims: Learning Curve Needed

In his latest essay Michael Copeland discusses what has been pointed out here repeatedly in the past: Islamic scriptures and teaching require believers to engage in sacred lying whenever it serves the cause of Islam.

Deception by Muslims: Learning Curve Needed

by Michael Copeland

“Act like you are his friend. Then kill him.”

So urged Sheikh Mubarak Gilani to his Muslim listeners concerning non-Muslims, kafirs. He was advocating two of Islam’s teachings: deception of kafirs and killing of kafirs.

Islamic deception

Islamic deception has an Arabic name — taqiyya. It is a well-developed doctrine. In short it authorises Muslims to deceive the kafir in the cause of Islam. One of Islam’s most important theologians, Al Ghazali (1059-1111), set out the position a long time ago:

“Understand that lying is not wrong in itself. If a lie is the only way to achieve a good result [for Islam], it is permitted.”

“Permissible Lying” is how taqiyya is featured in the Manual of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Traveller (r4). In the Muslim Brotherhood’s secret “Strategic Plan”, the “Explanatory Memorandum”, it is included as “Using deception to mask intended goals”. It is part of their strategy for “destroying the Western civilisation from within”. This explosively important document was captured through alert police work.

An observant traffic officer in Maryland in 2004 saw a car being driven across the Chesapeake Bridge with a woman in a hijab taking a video of its structural members. He pulled it over. The driver was a Hamas activist. The driver and the passenger were arrested and their Virginia home searched. In a secret sub-basement was a stash of Arabic documents, including the Explanatory Memorandum. Subsequently this became critical evidence in the largest terrorist-funding case in American history, the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Islam’s doctrine of killing non-Muslims has been its blood-soaked track record for the last nearly 1,400 years. It cannot be missed. Islam’s history is one of repeated attack, killing, slave-taking, piracy, extortion, subjugation, humiliation and forced conversion of non-Muslim peoples, and the annihilation of their cultures. Churches, temples, and synagogues have been destroyed and triumphal mosques built in their stead. Great swathes of the Near East and North Africa that were previously Christian, even Spain and part of France, have been forced to be Islamic, with great cruelty and barbarism. Formerly Buddhist Afghanistan, Zoroastrian Persia, and Hindu India have all experienced the same. The process is in full swing in Nigeria, Myanmar, East Timor, the Philippines, Sudan, and elsewhere. The tainted BBC euphemise these conflicts as “separatist insurgencies”, but they are all instances of Islamic jihad.

Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones were deceived by Muslim jihadi Usman Khan. Khan had been imprisoned for planning terrorist mass murders. In prison he had claimed that that he wanted be rehabilitated. It was taqiyya. He joined a “Learning Together” programme in which the two were involved.

Killing kafirs

Unfortunately the “Learning Together” programme had not started on its own Learning Curve about Islam. The management had not informed either themselves or their personnel of basic Islamic doctrines. Had they done so, they would have been alerted not only to Islam’s Permissible Lying, but also, critically, to Islam’s standing instruction to kill kafirs.

Continue reading

Homeless or Not??

Before her fibromyalgia became so severe that she had to quit working, Dymphna’s final job was at a charitable organization that helped mentally ill people, many of them homeless. This week’s edition of Dymphna’s Greatest Hits (from September 2009) draws on that work experience.

Homeless or Not??

by Dymphna
Originally published on September 29, 2009

The story below has been on my mind ever since it arrived via email a few weeks ago.

First, I’ll present just the story itself, which my friend thought amusing (as did all the commenters at the site). After you read it and decide for yourself what this situation is about, I’ll give my interpretation of the events. Having saved our email exchange, I’ll also give my friend’s arguments against my interpretation.

Several blogs posted this when it first appeared. Unfortunately, I no longer remember where I ran across their posts, though I do remember they drew the same conclusion as my friend, i.e. that it was simply a weird amusing story from Kansas:

A man and woman decided to give the phrase “Dumpster diving” a new twist over the weekend, crawling inside one on North Waco so they could be alone.

But while they were engaged in what Wichita police described as “an intimate moment,” they were robbed by a man armed with a pocket knife.

It all unfolded shortly after 6 p.m. Saturday in the 700 block of North Waco, police said, when the man and woman, both 44, crawled into the trash container for privacy.

A short time later, a 59-year-old man and his 64-year-old companion interrupted the couple inside the trash container.

With the older man encouraging him, the 59-year-old man pulled out a pocket knife and took shoes, jewelry and the 44-year-old man’s wallet.

Police were notified, and officers found the two suspects a short time later. The stolen property was recovered.

Okay, there you have the bare facts. I looked around for more details, but none were to be had. Thus, we’ll have to go with what we’ve got here.

How did you read this story?

Here’s my response to my friend:

Thanks for sending this (I think). It made me immensely sad.

I felt so sorry for all of those people. They were like something out of a Flannery O’Connor short story. Degraded and such casual evil.

The couple must’ve been homeless. And the villains don’t sound any better off.

I’m not sure I’m up to reading the comments about them unless there is some compassion somewhere in them. Is there?

My friend didn’t agree with my interpretation at all. He wrote back:

I doubt that they are homeless.

Remember that the thieves got away with jewelry and a wallet.

And most homeless people don’t call the cops when something happens. If anyone was homeless, I think it was the robbers.

As I read his reply, the time I’d spent working with homeless people came flooding back in full Technicolor. I intuitively knew that these were not only homeless people but likely from that class of homeless known as “the ambulatory mentally ill”.

The fate of these folks is the result of legislation going back to Kennedy’s era, when the enlightened elite decided to open the doors of our mental institutions and send patients back into their communities to be cared for by local folks. Of course this novel legislation, which eventually created “Community Service Boards” who would oversee the mentally ill, was another case of unfunded or underfunded federal do-goodism. If you think ObamaCare is a good idea, just look at federal mandates as they apply to CSBs. It would be funny if it didn’t damage so many people. And if the dedicated staff at your local CSB didn’t have so few resources to help the walking weirdoes (as other homeless people call them).

This report [pdf], by Kaiser, is overly optimistic in my view:

Continue reading

Viktor Orbán on Iran: Europe Should Align With the USA and Israel

The following video is an excerpt from a press conference given last Thursday by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. In it Mr. Orbán is asked a question about his government’s policies on Iran.

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

Video transcript (times based on the original longer video):

Continue reading

“We Are At War”

Michael Copeland’s latest essay reminds me of two lines in “There is a War”, a song by Leonard Cohen: “There is a war between the ones who say there is a war / and the ones who say there isn’t.”

“We Are At War”

by Michael Copeland

“We are at war and I am a soldier,” said Mohammed Sidique Khan, one of the London 7/7 murderers. Lee Rigby’s killer told the court, “I am a soldier… This is a war… I’m a Soldier of Allah”.

Observers who are alert to Islam’s objectives have little difficulty in accepting this. Public broadcasters and politicians, by and large, though, do not accept it. They are uninformed: as a result they are incredulous. Stephen Sackur of BBC Newsnight scowled with disbelief when Anjem Choudary informed him that kafirs are not innocent — basic Islamic doctrine — and that Britain has always been the Realm of War. The BBC knows better, apparently. Recently in France the very well-informed Eric Zemmour insisted to his interviewer:

“Civil war! —Yes. We are in a civil war. — We are… excuse me!”

His interviewer did not appear to be convinced: perhaps he thinks he knows better. The media, and, more seriously, Western governments, have yet to receive the memo.

The blogger ECAW writes, “In 2005 four British born Muslims blew themselves up on the London transport system, killing 52 people, citing religious and political motivations. I was angry about it but was elsewhere, and otherwise engaged, and I went back to sleep.”

Sleep

ECAW probably speaks for many, many more. Why did we go back to sleep? Was it anything to do with repeated assurances from our leaders that these four had misunderstood their Peaceful Religion, that they had warped, twisted, perverted it and so on — you know the rest? ECAW is no longer asleep. His acronym explains: “Everything Changed After Woolwich”.

But… but… but we cannot be at war. War means Arnold Schwarzenegger… and helicopters… and commandos… and tanks. Let’s face it: most of our mental images are owed to Hollywood, and we hardly even realise it. No. War is not all heroic and exciting. It does not need to be continuous: it can be gradual. Wars in the past dragged on for decades — the Thirty Years’ War, the Hundred Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars. Islam itself is, by its own doctrines, in “a permanent war institution” against the West, which is “Dar al Harb”, the Realm of War. “Britain has always been Dar al Harb”, Anjem Choudary assured BBC Newsnight.

The US has suffered many jihad attacks: 9/11, Fort Hood, Little Rock, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Boston Marathon, Orlando night club, van ramming in New York, subway bomber, and so on. Britain has undergone a large number of attacks: Lockerbie, London 7/7, London 21/7, the foiled airline liquid bomb attack, the fertilizer bomb plot, Glasgow airport, the London night club failed car bomb, the beheading of Lee Rigby, the beheading of Palmira Silva, the murders of young Kriss Donald, Charlene Downes and others, the anti-EDL bomb plot, the Manchester concert bomb. Add the ongoing taking of thousands of vulnerable underage girls as sex-slaves, including one murdered at home with her family at night by arson. Add all the assaults on young men, and the carving out of Muslim-only ghettoes by the aggressive thuggery of White Drive-Out. The picture emerges of widespread and sustained hostile actions, complete with multiple victims. How many attacks are needed to qualify as a war? Certainly a state of hostility exists, with casualties.

Continue reading

Bolsonaro Backs President Trump on Iran

You’ve probably noticed that only “deplorable” foreign leaders (such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán) have expressed public support for Donald Trump’s lethal action against Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil is one of those Deplorables.

The following video shows Mr. Bolsonaro’s remarks on the issue of Iran. José Atento of Lei Islâmica em Ação, who translated the video for subtitles, sends these contextual notes:

Two interesting reactions coming from Brazil regarding the “events in Iraq.”

First, the official communiqué from Foreign Minister Ernesto Araújo with Brazil’s official stance on the “events in Iraq and the fight against terrorism.” The first paragraph of the note already sets the tone:

“Upon learning of the actions taken by the United States in recent days in Iraq, the Brazilian Government expresses its support for the fight against the scourge of terrorism and reiterates that this fight requires the cooperation of the entire international community without seeking any justification for or relativization of terrorism.”

Today [January 8] Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro made a short statement after watching the TV statement by President Trump. In it, Bolsonaro criticizes former (Socialist) President Lula, who advocated for Iran’s enrichment of uranium, stressing that Brazil’s constitution establishes a principle that Brazil must follow in international relations: “the defense of peace and repudiation of terrorism.”

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Five Years After Charlie Hebdo: The West is on its Knees

Tuesday was the fifth anniversary of the massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, in which Islamic terrorists murdered twelve people in the name of Allah. In the years since the attack, the West has become even more craven, and is even less willing to engage in frank discussion about the nature of Islam or the Islamization of Europe.

As usual, Mark Steyn has the most cogent remarks on the topic:

Instead of sharing the risk, the bigfoot media behaved exactly as they had a decade earlier. At my old London home The Daily Telegraph some gutless pansies decided that their reporting on the story could only be accompanied by carefully blurred images of the late cartoonists’ work in order to avoid giving offense — turning Mohammed into a perpetually pixelated prophet, as if (to reprise a gag I did in 2005) poor ol’ Mo’s entered the witness protection program.

Which is in fact the precise opposite of what’s going on: cowardly media pixelate Mohammed as a way of fast-tracking themselves into the witness protection program, or so they hope. On TV, one of the few surviving Charlie Hebdo staffers attempted to hold one of the offending covers on screen, only to have the camera lurch away. Around the world, the dead cartoonists’ professional colleagues, almost to a man, agreed that the preferred response was some or other limpid, evasive, self-flattering variant of “the pen is mightier than the sword”.

But that line doesn’t work if your pen’s filled with White-Out…

[…]

To be honest, it makes me vomit to see people holding these Princess Dianafied candlelit vigils, and using the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie — I am Charlie — and in effect appropriating these guys’ sacrifice for this bogus solidarity. It makes me sick to see all these ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’ cartoons that have appeared in newspapers all over the United States, Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Australia, everywhere, from other cartoonists, again expressing solidarity with these very brave men — but not doing what they did…

I’ve been on enough events in Europe with less famous cartoonists than these who live under death threats, live under armed guard, have had their family restaurant firebombed — it’s happened to a Norwegian comedienne I know — have come home and found their home burned, as a Swedish artist I know happened to. And all these people doing the phony hashtag solidarity, screw your phony hashtag solidarity. Let’s have some real solidarity — or if not, at least have the good taste to stay the hell out of it.

That would have been asking too much. In the days that followed almost all those who claimed to be expressing solidarity with Charb were, in fact, signaling very clearly that they preferred to live on their knees.

[…]

That’s why free speech matters. Without free speech, there are only the official lies — about who’s killing Jews in Copenhagen, who’s sexually assaulting women in Cologne — and there is nothing to say in response to either except to crank up the old joanna for one more chorus of “Imagine”.

What happened on January 7th 2015 was terrible. But our response to it made it more terrible, and emboldened civilization’s enemies. With respect to the late Charb, the choice is not between dying standing up or living on our knees — for those who choose to live on their knees will die there, too, cringing and craven…

Read the whole thing.

There has been a lot of talk on French TV about the fifth anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo slaughter. Below are two video samples. Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translations, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video #1: Marika Bret, the former Social Relations Director for Charlie Hebdo, discusses the increase in the Islamization in the five years since the attack.

Video #2: Remarks by Jean Messiha. According to Wikipedia, as glossed by MissPiggy:

Jean Messiha is an Egyptian-born French economist, high-ranking civil servant, political advisor and candidate. He became the deputy under-secretary of management at the Ministry of Defence in 2014. He is the spokesman for “Horaces”, a group of high-ranking civil servants and business executives who meet once a month and discuss the National Front (now National Rally) party platform. He was a candidate in the 2017 French legislative election.

Mr. Messiha tells the audience, “You’d best learn to pray in Arabic.”

Video transcript #1:

00:00   That’s what we blame Charlie [Hebdo] for. We blame Charlie for being secular, but it’s only been
00:03   50 years that Charlie [Hebdo] has been secular. —It goes after all the religions.
00:06   Exactly, it treats every religion the same.
00:09   Actually, when you put the word religion in a drawing,
00:13   if you place the word Islam in a drawing, afterward
00:17   there are miles of messages and those messages are death threats. For the past five years,
00:24   I’ve been going to the police station every month or so to file a complaint
00:28   about death threats, not insults. Death threats.
00:31   Yes, that’s what Riss [Sourisseau] also said in his interview yesterday in the Sunday paper.
00:35   It’s necessary to file complaints each time.
00:38   You live in a bunker at Charlie Hebdo. We need to remember that
00:41   people still live under police protection.
00:45   We’ve all heard about the different events that have taken place
00:49   over the last few days. Thibault de Montbrial, a fierce advocate of secularism,
00:53   says that the threat is even stronger
00:57   today than five years ago. —The threat is stronger because it has become home-grown. The reality is
01:03   that this threat is strong, because this barbaric and deadly ideology
01:08   has permeating a number of minds.
01:12   As we’ve seen in recent days, people will do anything to explode what they have to explode.
01:22   So, yes, it is strong, it is very strong and along with that, to top it all off,
01:27   no president, no government, no minister of the interior is doing anything against it. —Yes.
 

Continue reading

The Iranian Heydrich

Ehud Yahari is an Israeli journalist and political commentator. In the following video from Israeli TV Mr. Yahari asserts that the killing of Qasem Soleimani — the Iranian general who was killed in a targeted attack in Iraq a few days ago — is the most significant political assassination, from a Jewish perspective, since the killing of Reinhard Heydrich during the Second World War.

Many thanks to D@rLin|{ for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

World War 3 Started in 2001 With the Attack on the Twin Towers

Bishop Guy Leven-Torres has commented here frequently in the past, but this is his first guest-essay for Gates of Vienna.

World War 3 started in 2001 with the attack on the Twin Towers

by Guy Leven-Torres

I left this comment on YouTube on 2nd January:

The New Ottoman Imperium is trying to form. We live in a truly multipolar world. Then there is the Beltway involving Russia and China but also Iran. The Iranian regime is actually quite weak and it would not take much to push it over. They will make a limited strike against the USA to save face in the eyes of Hezbollah. My question is: Where is the EU in all this? Europe looks weak and fit for client status (dhimmi) of this possible new power, now in process of forming. Russia will not risk a war at present with USA. The EU is a wet soggy paper tiger with huge a Moslem population. Iran will conduct a campaign of asymmetric warfare using its jihadi colonists in Germany, France, Holland and possibly the UK.

There will be a huge increase in illegal migration from Islam, a surge already threatened by Erdogan. Our “Useful Idiot” multiculturalists have become trapped by their own fixations and goals. If they had any sense they would cease Moslem migration forthwith. The EU has made the same mistake as Stalin did with the wooing of Hitler and the 1938 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact…

I will use this comment now to expand my paradigm of what I think is underway. Nobody can be 100% correct, but the method of modelling I have used in past theories and analysis has worked well.

The Romans were past masters of the strategy of Divide and Rule. They controlled an Empire from Southern Scotland to the Persian Gulf. They were above all else pragmatists and saw no shame or contradiction in bribing aggressive German tribes, to assuage their invasive ambitions to enter the Imperium. Often this was done to buy time before sending in the Legions to finish the job. Edward Luttwak described the Roman system as an “Economy of Force” that utilised the seeming invincibility of the Roman legions to come back from the brink and strike at the heart of the enemy with terror of gladius and scutum. In these affairs reputation is all.

It is truly amazing how the Romans controlled such a large part of the known world with but 28 legions and an almost equal number of lightly armed auxiliary troops. Tiberius was one particular master of the Great Game, as was his predecessor Augustus. Both realised that Roman arms could not take or control the known globe, despite having immense reserves, as seen in its seeming ability to create and rearm its forces after disasters such as Cannae in 216BC, and even the destruction of three crack legions under Varus in the year 12AD on the Rhine. Each time Rome rallied and re-established its hegemony.

Rome suffered when hotheads and over-ambition took hold of less experienced minds. What we see today is the result of over-ambition and ridiculous ideas of exceptionalism spouted by the likes of Globalist Neocons like former President Obama and his predecessors.

Donald Trump is very different from any of these earlier leaders, and this is why they seek to depose him by all and every means. It is Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama’s exceptionalism that has led directly to the current impasse and situation. The void they created by weakening the US military, combined with foolish military cuts across the West and the wholesale dilution of the West’s culture and morality by cultural Marxist ideology, has led to the emergence of a new “Wannabe” Caliph in the form of the Islamist Erdogan, now seeking to extend his sway across the Inner Sea or Mediterranean into Libya. I feel he has over-extended himself, and in a while he will find it difficult to maintain power in Turkey, let alone Libya.

Continue reading