Forget the Oscars. Forget the Super Bowl. School Shootings are the Trending Public Spectacle.

In the blurb for last Friday’s news feed, I composed a flip introduction to the reports about the murderous school shooting in Texas committed by a kid named Dimitrios Pagourtzis, which had happened earlier that day: “Today’s school shooting was held in Santa Fe, Texas.”

I’d used the same formula for introducing school shootings once or twice in the past. This time, however, a reader took exception to my ghoulish sarcasm, and emailed me with his reproach:

I’ve been a long time reader of your site, and I agree with the vast majority of your viewpoint. While I KNOW that no disrespect was intended, the comment hurts.

I wrote him back with this reply:

Yes, well, it’s a sardonic, sarcastic way of presenting it (which I’ve been using for a while), and it’s meant to hurt. It’s intended to remind the reader what a media circus school shootings have become. The lavish media attention and feting of the victims’ families helps GUARANTEE that there will be more — and worse — shootings in the future.

THAT’S what my sarcasm is about.

The media frenzy that accompanies school shootings these days is driven by a couple of cultural imperatives.

The first is the hoary old newspaper adage: “If it bleeds, it leads.” That was true when Caveman Og chiseled the first edition of the Neanderthal Times. It was true when everyone read at least two newspapers every day, one in the morning and one in the evening. And it’s true now, when we all have access to fourteen gazillion cable channels. The story with the most slaughter and gore is the one that grabs the most viewers.

And this is especially the case when children are the ones who are bleeding. Och, the puir wee bairns! Whether it’s the victims of terrorist violence in Chechnya, or dead baby porn on a beach in Anatolia, or high school students shot up in art class — stories about children as victims of violence are fascinating to the general public.

The second reason that school shootings cause such moist eyes in the media is their major subtext: gun control. Democrat politicians wait a decorous period of time — in Joe Biden’s case, at least two or three hours — and then their litany begins: Haven’t there been enough school shootings? It’s time to get serious about gun control!

This imperative has become even more urgent since the election of Donald Trump. A large chunk of the president’s support comes from Second Amendment enthusiasts. Even the most skeptical libertarian gun owner regards the president more favorably than he does any other major political leader. These are the people that put Mr. Trump over the top in his contest with Hillary. They are the primary wellspring of intractable American orneriness. And it is essential to the Deep State that they be quelled and subdued.

Which means they must be disarmed.

Continue reading

The French are furious at Donald Trump’s remarks about the Bataclan. But what did the president actually say?

Last Friday President Donald Trump gave a speech at a National Rifle Association (NRA) event in Texas. Among other things, Mr. Trump described how differently things would have gone at the Bataclan restaurant — where Islamic terrorists massacred hundreds of people back in 2015 — if even one person at the event had been packing heat.

The French political elites — including all the talking heads on TV — were united in their sanctimonious outrage at the effrontery of the American president for saying such things. They demanded a public apology.

We hear from our French contacts that although French TV was filled with the fury of the bien-pensants, what Mr. Trump actually said last Friday was scrupulously omitted — the viewer just saw stills or silent footage of the president at the NRA.

So Vlad had a bright idea: subtitle the original footage of President Trump in French, as a public service. Then the French people can actually read and see what all the outrage is about.

Many thanks to Ava Lon (French to English) and Nathalie (English to French) for the translations, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Here’s an objective, unbiased (ahem) account of the brouhaha from CNN:

Trump angers France and Britain with his NRA speech

(CNN) US President Donald Trump took aim at two of America’s closest allies in a speech at the NRA convention, saying strict gun laws failed to prevent the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris and highlighting a purported increase in knife violence in London.

The comments provoked anger in both France and Britain.

France was especially incensed after Trump, while speaking at the gun rights convention in Dallas on Friday, pointed his hand as if it were a gun while describing how each of the victims in Paris was fatally shot.

“They took their time and gunned them down one by one — boom, come over here, boom, come over here, boom,” he said.

The French foreign ministry issued a statement Saturday after Trump’s comments.

“France expresses its firm disapproval of President Trump’s remarks … and calls for the respect of the memory of the victims,” it said.

Francois Hollande, who was the French President during the 2015 attacks, tweeted Saturday:

“Donald Trump’s shameful remarks and obscene histrionics say a lot about what he thinks of France and its values. The friendship between our two peoples will not be tainted by disrespect and excessiveness. All my thoughts go to the victims of November 13.”

Trump went on to say things might have been different had Parisians in the cafes under attack had been armed.

“If one employee or just one patron had a gun, or if one person in this room had been there with a gun, aimed at the opposite direction, the terrorists would have fled or been shot. And it would have been a whole different story,” Trump said.

Video transcript:

(Three separate clips were combined in this video. The transcripts are listed separately with the original times. Mr. Trump’s words are included in both the French translation and the original English.)

Continue reading

Matt Bracken: Is the NFL ready for a stadium attack on a Las Vegas scale?

This essay was published earlier today at Western Rifle Shooters Association.

Is the NFL ready for a stadium attack on a Las Vegas scale?

by Matthew Bracken

My first novel, Enemies Foreign and Domestic, published in 2003, begins with a sniper shooting into a packed football stadium. Ninety bullets are fired from long range into an upper deck, precipitating a stadium-wide panic stampede that results in over a thousand deaths. In the book, a combat veteran holding a semi-automatic rifle is quickly located by a SWAT counter-sniper in a helicopter, after a citizen’s tip is phoned to the police. However, the veteran is just a patsy, and the true perpetrators of the massacre are a pair of mid-level federal law enforcement agents who are seeking to increase their departmental budgets and overall bureaucratic power. The liberal mainstream media accept the false narrative without close examination. Right-leaning military veteran “gun nuts” are universally tarred as potential mass murderers. Within a week, semi-automatic so-called “assault rifles” are banned. The first chapter can be read here.

My goal with the plot of Enemies Foreign and Domestic was to encourage news consumers not to blindly accept convenient official explanations after traumatic national events. Since the release of this novel, we have, in fact, seen federal agents and bureaucrats at a much higher level than my two fictional villains conspire to commit mass murder with the intention of spinning a false news narrative. We know this intentional mass murder plot as “Operation Fast and Furious”, whereby thousands of semi-automatic rifles from Southwestern gun dealers were deliberately sold to criminals with the expectation that they would be transported to violent cartels in Mexico. This resulted in mass carnage which would then be blamed on the Second Amendment and lax American gun laws. Honest gun dealers were coerced by the ATF into making otherwise illegal straw purchases to criminals in bulk quantities. No attempt was made to track the guns once they left ATF observation at the point of sale. The Mexican government was never informed of the murderous gun-running plan. Operation Fast and Furious was not a legitimate law enforcement operation gone wrong. It was a covert murder plan from start to finish, conceived and carried out for political purposes.

Before the evil scheme was exposed after the shooting death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in 2010, President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and Secretary of State Clinton were regularly touting as fact the lie that 90% of the guns found at Mexican murder scenes had originated in the USA. Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress after stonewalling their attempts to investigate Operation Fast and Furious, when the half-hearted investigation was leading directly to his office. None of the principals behind this murderous plan have ever been held accountable. I revisit Fast and Furious in case any readers of this article learn the premise of my first novel and declare that federal law enforcement officials would never be involved in a mass murder scheme concocted for political ends.

That Rubicon was already crossed with Operation Fast and Furious.

Since then, we have witnessed other scandals which involved selling the American public a false narrative. One example is the lie that the deadly attacks on our nearly undefended diplomatic missions in Benghazi were the result of an angry local response to an obscure video about the life of Mohammed. My point in recounting this history is to encourage Americans to always search beyond the “official narrative,” which, as we have seen, can sometimes be manufactured from whole cloth for public consumption. If the false narrative coincides with the liberal mainstream media’s underlying biases and preconceptions, you can be certain that very little honest journalism will be done to expose the lies and reveal the truth to the public.

This brings me to Las Vegas, with its ever-changing timelines and other dark mysteries, such as the motive of Stephen Paddock, the presumed shooter. Columnist Mark Steyn proposes a theory of the case that, in the absence of any declared motive or connections to international terrorism, “the medium is the message.” In Las Vegas, then, the message would be that the ready availability of semi-automatic firearms constitutes a menace to American society, and the Second Amendment must be curtailed to prevent future massacres. Limiting the right of Americans to keep and bear arms has been a long-standing goal of the Left. So-called progressives well understand that their dream of imposing a “socialist utopia” cannot be achieved while Americans possess sufficiently effective weapons to mount a furious armed resistance. If Paddock had left a note declaring this end to be his true motive, he would have discredited his own purpose.

Of course, Paddock might have simply been a deranged psychopath, bent, for his own twisted reasons, upon topping the record books as America’s most successful mass shooter. We’ll never know because he’s conveniently dead and, apparently, he left no departing message. The lack of a declared motive, the ever-shifting timeline, and the fact that it took more than an hour after the shooting had ceased for the police to enter Paddock’s suite means that mystery may cloud the Las Vegas Massacre for years or decades to come.

One outcome is certain: millions of Americans are unlikely to accept any “official narrative” released after the investigation has concluded, and with good reason. The FBI and other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies have squandered their reputations for honesty and integrity in recent years, and we can no longer assume that politics and corruption have not trumped even-handed truth telling.

Continue reading

Why European Preservationists Should Join the Military Reserves

Most European countries make it difficult (if not impossible) for ordinary citizens to acquire firearms legally. Unlike their American counterparts, European patriots are generally unable to gather and train together as part of an armed militia.

In a recent post at the blog European Civil War, Michael Gladius makes an argument for European patriots to join the reserves or National Guards of their respective countries in order to prepare for the next phase of the Counterjihad.

Below are excerpts from his excellent article:

Why Preservationists Should Join the Military Reserves

by Michael Gladius

Not everybody can be an activist, especially on the right. The left-wing activists have more sponsors and wealthier sponsors than the right has, and they have been doing this for far longer. Right-wingers need to ask permission from the state to do anything, whereas left-wingers can act with impunity, protected by the police power of the government. Right-wingers need months to plan a rally, whereas leftist thrall-masters can summon a riot within hours. When it comes to virtually all conventional methods of power, the left holds a near-monopoly.

So what can the right do? There are already several successful activist groups, particularly Generation Identitaire and its various iterations, but for various reasons many patriots cannot get involved with these activist groups on a regular basis.

The answer lies in the army reserves. If European patriots joined the reserves en masse, the balance of power would shift dramatically in our favor.

What are the reserves?

War is expensive, and standing armies are a massive drain on a nation’s resources. For peaceful nations, small nations, or poor nations these costs are prohibitive. Even bigger and wealthier countries would prefer to spend as little as possible on their militaries, unless they are at war. The reserves are a way to balance out the need for a large body of trained soldiers with the desire for a small, inexpensive army. When a man joins the reserves, he goes through basic training, same as a full-time soldier. When he finishes training, he returns to civilian life and is required to drill once a month. In time of war, he may be re-activated, and called up for duty. When this happens, he normally undergoes a period of a few months to refresh his skills before being deployed.

Switzerland is famous for mandating military training for its entire population (which I personally think should be copied across the West). Being a small, peaceful country, it has maintained a policy of iron neutrality for 500 years through this system. Other examples throughout history include the Spartans, Romans, Germans, Israelis, and Boers. The Israelis in 1948 and the Boers in 1899 are the most suitable for our scenario today. This will be the subject of a future article.

Advantages of joining the reserves

In a military, there are combat units, auxiliary units, and a chain of command to ensure these are coordinated and organized. Basic training varies from country to country, but is generally no shorter than three months. Compare this to gun clubs and tactical schools in the United States and Europe, which normally only offer classes on weekends (many of them will, however, offer courses for law enforcement personnel on weekdays… hint hint). These basic skills are highly perishable, and require time and qualified teachers in order to be effectively ingrained.

The first advantage of joining the reserves is that patriots do not have to quit their jobs to join. Once training is complete, reservists will return home, and pick up where they left off. It would be impractical for every European patriot to join the army full-time, but this is not the case with the reserves.

The second advantage of joining the reserves is legitimacy. It may seem odd to join the armies of the nation-states conspiring to replace us and our way of life, but the left has no qualms about milking the state for money and wielding its conventional power. Neither should we. If the right breaks away from the nation state, then we are only another gang in a lawless landscape. If the nation-state collapses, the gangs will survive, but so long as the state remains, the left will ensure that it hunts us down first. By joining the reserves, we will show our loyalty to our nations (if not the politicians running them), and be able to claim legitimate use of force against lawless Islamo-leftists. If we are reservists, then the state cannot declare war on itself without consuming itself and rendering itself irrelevant.

Continue reading

Czechia Files a Complaint Against EU Gun Regulations

Many thanks to Ava Lon for translating this article from the Swiss news portal Les Observateurs:

Czech Republic lodges complaint against Europe

by Frank A. Leutenegger
August 15, 2017

In fact, the Czech Republic has filed two complaints, one directly against the European directive which makes unacceptable restrictions on the right to possess weapons, the other against the effects of this directive on European states, which are obliged to modify their national law by September 2018.

— Milan Chovanec, Minister of the Interior for the Czech Republic

“We are going to the Court of Justice of the European Union to ask for the abolition of this directive, possibly its suspension, or that an exception be introduced for certain member states and of course in particular for the Czech Republic,” said the Czech Interior Minister, Milan Chovanec.

“A punishment of the legitimate owners of weapons is unacceptable because the weapons legally confiscated and banned by the directive have no connection with terrorism,” Chovanec said. “Not only is this decision likely to destroy people’s trust in the EU,” he added, “but it could even have a negative impact on the internal security of the Czech Republic, because a large number of weapons could end up on the black market.”

Moreover, the Czech government relies heavily on the cooperation of legal holders of firearms in the event of an attack threatening the sovereignty of the Czech Republic, particularly in the event of a terrorist attack.

There are currently more than 800,000 weapons of all categories registered to 300,000 owners in the Czech Republic (population 10.6 million).

The Red Cliffs of Zerhoun, by Matthew Bracken — A Commentary, Part 2

Below is the second half of Seneca III’s introductory commentary to The Red Cliffs of Zerhoun by Matthew Bracken. Part 1 of this essay is here.

The Red Cliffs of Zerhoun, by Mathew Bracken — A Commentary

by Seneca III

Part II — As it may become

As the rhythms of the seasons change, so also do the rhythms of human affairs. When culturally homogenous societies are destabilised by invasive parasites and predators, those societies swiftly atrophy and inevitably disappear into an encroaching darkness, where dawn remains but a hope beyond an unseen horizon, where the night people are well about and yet to be put to the sword. There is found the formative crucible within which men and women, bound by strength and tradition, gather together and stand firm against the onset of barbarism.

But this response can only happen when free men and women first look around them at their children and their children’s children, contemplate what such a future may hold for them and theirs, and then, lastly, inwardly ask of themselves: “What am I doing? Why is this happening? Where have I gone wrong?” Thus, in the face of this observed reality, the whole rotten-to-the-core 21st-century global elite’s collective power grab may be peeled back layer by layer. Once full understanding and the fear induced by a realisation of impending tyranny or extinction have together overcome the false doctrines endlessly iterated by the deconstructionists, it is then, and only then, that mass counter-movements can arise, reset the course of their lives and determine their own destiny according to their needs and desires.

Indeed, as the comforting smoke and mirrors of affluence and its transient spawn indulgence dissipate, a primeval survival reflex kicks in which in turn forces a huge sea-change in the status quo. History teaches us that over the course of the gestative years preceding such upheavals the final objectives of the deconstructionists that are being implemented by their Executives, Judiciaries and the apocryphal incubi and succubi of Academia gradually become exposed for what they are. When this burgeoning awareness takes root in the minds of a significant percentage of the demographic these once fragmented masses begin to coalesce, organise, cooperate on a broad, often transnational scale and find a central defining ethos and leadership with a common purpose derived from the indigenous peoples, by those peoples and for those peoples.

Furthermore, history teaches us that in addition to mental battles, physical battles must also be fought, often at great cost over extended periods of time. We are now simply in a new phase of a very old war. We would be foolish to ignore what can be learned from earlier battles fought, won and sometimes lost by our ancestors at places such as Covadonga (718), Valencia (1094), Tours (1356), Granada (1492), Rhodes (1522), Mohács (1526), Djerba (1560), Malta (1565), Lepanto (1571) and, in 1683, at the Gates of Vienna.

There, courage, sacrifice and the utmost ruthlessness were the defining characteristics of Western resistance. For our coming battles, as did our forebears, we will need to cultivate not just those personal qualities but also find leadership of the likes of Pelagius of Asturias, Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, Charles Martel, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, Phillipe Villiers De L’Isle Adam, Jean Parisot de Valette, Don John of Austria and John III Sobieski. However, we in Europe have left it far too late to fight at our gates; the enemy is among us in significant numbers, well-entrenched, supported and nourished by fifth columnists from within our own ranks. Only Guerre à Outrance on our part can now save us from the ultimate objective of the Globalist Cartel — the reduction of all free peoples to the level of the lowest common denominator by means of the foot soldiers of the Caliphate, followed by our subjugation to the whims and edicts of draconian dictatorship. The EU project, although now stalled in the late stages of embryo, is a prime example of this process, as were the years of the Obama interregnum in the USA.

Continue reading

An “Epic Riff”: The NRA versus The NYT

Most, if not all, Americans on the Right find The New York Times every bit as odious as The Washington Post when it comes to the creation and maintenance of fake news. The Times has been at it for generations now. At Schloss Bodissey, the Baron has harrumphed for decades about the old gray hag’s blatantly left-slanted opinion pieces tarted out as “news” accounts. As it becomes more difficult to hide its true colors, the Times has doubled down on complaints about fake news even as it continues to promote false news stories.

If the NYT ever had integrity — and that’s a big IF since they didn’t admit until well into the 21st century that the fake stories created in the 1930s by their (in)famous Moscow correspondent, Walter Duranty, were an ongoing series of lies by a bought-and-paid-for Soviet shill.

They’d argued about his Pulitzer Prize for that Russia reporting for years, even in the face of Ukrainians’ organized anger and demand for the truth, until finally caving before world opinion almost fifty years after his death.

So, a half-century later, the Times called him — finally — their worst reporter ever. Duranty died in 1957. Many knew by then the level of his perfidy, but the Times was more than molasses-slow in admitting that prevaricator covered up the Soviets’ deliberately brutal starvation of millions of Ukrainians. For Duranty and his employers, the narrative came — and still comes — ahead of truth.

No organization can stiff-arm the truth as well as the NYT.

John Hinderaker at Powerline provides a punchy introduction to Ms. Loesch’s brief video:

Get out the popcorn: the nation’s largest and most effective civil rights organization has declared war on the New York Times. The Times is running an ad campaign portraying itself as a purveyor of truth, a claim that is met with hollow laughter by those who are familiar with the paper’s sordid history. Into the breach steps National Rifle Association commentator Dana Loesch, who — unlike anyone who writes about guns for the Times – knows a great deal about firearms. Her riff is epic:

Here’s Ms. Loesch’s Twitter account. [She has a radio show but I didn’t find the link].

Last year Loesch published Flyover Nation: You Can’t Run a Country You’ve Never Been To.

Here’s the Amazon description of her book on America’s current divided condition:

Dana Loesch believes in Christianity, patriotism, traditional marriage, and the right to bear arms, among other “quaint” ideas. For the elites in DC, Los Angeles, New York, and Silicon Valley, that makes her as bizarre as a three-headed dog.

Loesch is alarmed that America is fracturing into two countries—not North and South, but Coastal and Flyover. Worse, the people in charge don’t understand the first thing about how most of the country thinks and lives. Consider a few examples . . .

  • In Flyover America, people believe criminals should be punished. Coastal America focuses on “rehabilitation.”
  • Flyovers think the Declaration of Independence was crystal clear: “All men are created equal.” For Coastals, Black Lives Matter — but anyone who adds that all lives matter must be a racist.

Continue reading

Lies of Omission

From Western Rifle Shooters Association comes this plug for an upcoming film, Lies of Omission, that we’ll all want to see:

From the production shop comes this new clip, with TL’s caveat:

A new short teaser for Lies of Omission, not as good a quality as the film, I assure you.

Thanks to all who have supported this film to date.

Thanks in advance to those who are considering doing so.

Lies of Omission donation portal

Here’s the new trailer, which includes a couple of familiar faces — the late Mike Vanderboegh and Matt Bracken:

An earlier trailer, also featuring Mike Vanderboegh and Matt Bracken:

Additional WRSA posts about Lies of Omission:

What Happens When the Antifas Acquire Automatic Weapons?

Like most of the American geezers among Gates of Vienna’s readers, I can remember the “revolutionary” phase of the 1960s. It lasted from 1968 — the year of revolutions throughout the West — until about 1972. It petered out after Richard Nixon’s re-election, and the president’s resignation in 1974 provided a coda.

There was plenty of violence in those times — street riots, bombings, assassinations and attempted assassinations, the killing of police — but it seems to me that all that pales in comparison to what’s been going on in the USA for the last couple of years. Back then the violence never reached the well-organized intensity that the Antifas and BLM troops have been displaying recently. And the incidence of brutal action for its own sake — “revolution for the hell of it”, as Abbie Hoffman put it — seems to be more widespread these days.

For a few days after the November 8 election, mass demonstrations against the president-elect were organized in major cities. Most of you have probably seen videos of the miles-long ranks of parked buses in Chicago that carried the protesters to their mustering areas, and hauled them away again afterwards.

That was an expensive operation — it cost a lot of money to charter those buses and hire the drivers. And there were undoubtedly provisions for the demonstrators, plus printed signs and other paraphernalia. Someone paid for all that.

Which raises an obvious question: What if one or more of those deep-pocketed someones decided to forget the buses and snowflake signs, and instead started buying up automatic weapons from the cartels and handing them to the black-masked thugs of Antifa?

It would become a different sort of civil war at that point. And it wouldn’t be at all like the Civil War of 1861-1865, which was actually a sectional war between two distinct and geographically separate political entities. We haven’t seen this sort of civil war in the United States before. In order to get an idea of what it might be like, we’d have to look at the “Dirty War” in Argentina in the 1970s. Or maybe the war between the Freikorps and the Communists on the streets of Berlin and Munich in 1919 and 1920.

Mountain Guerrilla is a blog run by a man who goes by the nom de guerre of John Mosby. His post today, entitled “Skull-Stomping Sacred Cows: Reality Isn’t Nice. It’s a 2×4 to the Teeth”, discusses the emergence of a “hot” civil war at the hands of the black-masked progressives who have up until now been throwing firebombs, breaking plate-glass windows, and beating up supporters of Donald Trump. As far as he is concerned, the war has gotten pretty toasty already. Will the next phase be the emergence of disciplined Antifas carrying AK-47s to their street battles?

Mosby’s post is rife with non-PG language, so the brief excerpts below are just relevant segments that didn’t require much bowdlerizing. I recommend the entire piece — it provides much food for thought:

While not technically accurate, Fort Sumter was the first “official” battle of the War of Northern Aggression. It was the real opening of hostilities between the uniformed services of two distinct, autonomous governments. In the current conflict, the legitimate government of the United States is, at most, a bit player, thus far. The War of Northern Aggression, while labeled a civil war, was not. It was a conflict of conquest by a sovereign state, against a sovereign state, that had declared its independence, and been recognized as a sovereign state, in accordance with international law. None of that mattered of course, but the difference with the current conflict should be obvious.

This is an actual civil war, as in a conflict between ideologically-opposed factions within the civilian and political population of a country. Like real civil wars, it is not going to be pretty. It’s not going to be armies, in pretty uniforms, fighting pitched, conventional battles. It’s going to be a matter of assassination, sabotage, hit-and-run raids, targeting ideological leadership figures, enemy families, etc.

As Matt Bracken pointed out in a recent Facebook post himself, we’re looking at more of a Balkans and/or Argentine “Dirty War” conflict. People just haven’t accepted that, because it doesn’t fit their mental images of what “war,” even “guerrilla war” looks like. That, in turn, is because, even the most devout conversions to the “Church of the Anti-Media” in this country today, have a lifetime of conditioning to the media’s portrayal of what “reality” is. From what a “proper” war looks like, to what “collapse” looks like, to what “bad guys” look like.

We commonly jump to the idea of “well, George Soros is funding this [excrement], so it’ll cause a breakdown, and currency collapse, and he can make a fortune off it.” There’s probably a lot of truth to that. I don’t know Soros, so I can’t tell you what his ultimate goals and motivations are. I have however, met a lot of Leftists, both in the US and elsewhere, and I can tell you, they are not looking for a currency collapse, in order to get richer.

It’s easy to sit in your lounger, with your laptop across your knees, and pontificate on the false motivations of the Leftist activists. “Oh, they’re just attention whores!” “Oh, they just want their safe spaces!” “Oh, they’re just useful idiots being played.” “Oh, they’ll quit as soon as the money stops.” There’s a very real problem with that though, and it’s called underestimating your enemy. If you don’t believe that a dude who is out, in wintertime, in a protest/riot, and eating some riot cop’s baton, as he receives a solid washing with “hickory shampoo,” is not a dedicated True Believer, you’re deluding yourself.

If you think that some twenty-something kid, who just saw his buddy take a bean bag round from a PD riot gun, in the [genitals], and then ignored his friend’s screams, to continue advancing, is not dedicated, and a True Believer, you’re [vulgar intensifier] stupid.

If you think POTUS is going to magically save you? You’re dumb. Large urban areas and entire states are telling the federal government to go [perform an anatomically impossible act upon] itself on the immigration issue (and granted, the states are wrong on this one, but that doesn’t change the fact that this—as I mentioned, in detail, in Forging the Hero—is symptomatic of the collapse of the American Empire.) Things are not normal, and if you’re still stuck in your normalcy bias about “Make America Great Again,” you’re WAY behind the learning the curve.

And then there’s this:

Continue reading

Georg Zakrajsek Convicted of Incitement

An Austrian gun rights advocate named Georg Zakrajsek has been convicted of incitement for posting “Muslims have declared war on all of us” on his website. He has been sentenced to five months in prison, but is free pending his appeal.

This is one of those cases that makes me want to say, “Pick your battles.” In the USA, of course, what he wrote would not have been illegal and would never have prompted a prosecution (although if Hillary Clinton had been elected president, all that could have changed). And his firearms advocacy wouldn’t have been such an issue, since we have the Bill of Rights here — advocacy for the Second Amendment is commonplace.

But Mr. Zakrajsek lives in Austria, and claims to be familiar with Austrian law. He must have known that what he said was fully actionable under the current statutes. Yet he chose to risk public opprobrium and prison anyway, not to mention discrediting Counterjihadists among his countrymen.

Our Austrian correspondent AMT sends this introductory note:

This case is troubling for two reasons:

a)   It shows there is no freedom of expression in Austria, and, more troubling,
b)   Georg Zakrajsek has done the Islam-critical community no favour by declaring that “all Muslims want to kill us”, since he should have been aware of the current laws.
 

There was never any doubt that he would be charged and found guilty under current laws. By appealing the verdict he is making a fool of himself. There is little to no chance he will win an appeal. The law is very clear. Period. Like it or not.

Zakrajsek said he is knowledgeable about the law. Thus he should have known that the incriminated sentence would ultimately lead to a conviction.

Many thanks to JLH for translating this article from ORF:

Incitement: Weapons Lobbyist Zakrajsek Convicted

The weapons lobbyist Georg Zakrajsek was conditionally sentenced Tuesday to five months imprisonment for incitement. He appealed, so the decision is not legally valid.

Georg Zakrajsek, general secretary of the syndicate Liberal Weapons Rights in Austria (WÖ), has a website. In December 2015 he posted an essay which said, among other things: “Muslims have declared war on all of us and are already conducting it. Our traitorous politicians are firmly on their side. They are furthering and facilitating terrorism. But we will lead the struggle against it.”

Charged With Incitement

Two weeks before that, the 77-year-old had posted another passage which disparaged Muslims and included a call to self-defense. The Greens submitted a description of the facts of the case to the state prosecutor’s office in Vienna. The trial took place, but the Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the charge of incitement.

In what appeared to be a packed hall in the Viennese criminal court, the weapons lobbyist defended the condemned comments: “I regard what I said as right. Why should I not write it? The reason for it was the terrorist attacks. Proponents of Islam were at work there,” Zakrajsek pointed out.

Continue reading

Gun-Grabbers, Gun-Runners, and the European Commission

And sometimes the gun-grabbers and the gun-runners are the same person.

The following two articles — one from Poland about events in Belgium, and the other from Switzerland — illustrate the hypocrisy and corruption surrounding the push for tighter gun control in Europe. Interestingly, the push for gun-grabs follows the same sort of process as it does in the USA: every violent criminal or terrorist incident is exploited by gun-controllers to further restrict the right of citizens to possess firearms. The process even extends to Switzerland, which, although not an EU member state, is required by the Schengen agreement to modify certain parts of its legal structure to “harmonize” with the laws of the EU.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for translating both these articles. The first is from the Polish site Trybun.org.pl:

European Commission expert arrested for illegal arms trade

November 3, 2016

An expert for the European Commission who is promoting the limitation of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens has been arrested for illegal arms trade. The organization EU Gun Rights reports on Twitter.

More details at wmeritum.pl:

According to the organization EU Gun Rights, Jean-Luc Stassen, an expert for the European Commission who promotes limiting gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, has been arrested for illegal arms trafficking.

Stassen was arrested on Thursday, October 27 on charges of forgery, using of forged documents, and embezzlement. The arrest took place after the police searched his home. While searching the house police found a firearm that had earlier disappeared from the police armory, together with 260 other units. There are reasons to believe that Stassen “tampered” with the Belgian central register (Central Weapons Registry / CWR), by deleting the entries in the system on firearms to be destroyed. Pieces appropriated in this way were then distributed on the black market.

Jean-Luc Stassen is a well-known figure among European regulators of the access to firearms. He worked on the preparation of the draft directive to limit access to weapons for EU citizens. He has served in many committees and advocated the necessity of confiscation of, among others, automatic rifles, after last year’s Paris massacre.

Andrzej Turk, president of the Civic Movement of Weapon Lovers (ROMB) reacted to the matter: “Short comment. Message shocking. This fact illustrates what are the real objectives and intentions of the people involved in the obstruction of access to the firearms for the law-abiding Europeans,” he wrote on his website trybun.org.pl

Source: trybun.org.pl, firearms.united.com

The second article is from LesObservateurs.ch:

Swiss Guns. Swiss Parliament: Free weapon for honest Swiss citizens. The EU will decide …

Update on Petition

The train is running

6 November 2016 — In the days ahead, the European Union must make a decision on Directive 991/477 / EEC, which governs European laws on weapons… and, as Schengen requires, also Swiss law.

The discussions are going to be difficult, as several countries in the east (Czechia, Hungary and Estonia, in particular) have expressed their opposition to the totally liberticidal project launched by France and immediately adopted by all that Europe has of social-Green-leftist-bobos.

Continue reading

“Law-Abiding People Should be Allowed to Own the Firearm of Their Choice”

I’ve never heard any president, Republican or Democrat, not even Ronald Reagan, say anything like this.

From The Washington Post:

Trump Plan Calls for Nationwide Concealed Carry and an End to Gun Bans

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump — who said he has a concealed carry permit — called for the expansion of gun rights Friday, including making those permits applicable nationwide.

In a position paper published on his website Friday afternoon, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a “total failure.”

“Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own,” Trump wrote.

It’s not a departure from what he’s said on the trail this year, though it does mark a shift from a position he took in his 2000 book “The America We Deserve,” where Trump stated that he generally opposes gun control but that he supported a ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period to get a gun.

“Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like ‘assault weapons’, ‘military-style weapons’ and ‘high capacity magazines’ to confuse people,” Trump wrote Friday. “What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans.”

Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver’s license, Trump said.

“If we can do that for driving — which is a privilege, not a right — then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege,” Trump said.

Hat tip: WRSA.