OSCE Warsaw: “Islamophobic” Intervention Interrupted

2018 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Monday, 17 September 2018

Working Session 11
Fundamental Freedoms I, Including Freedom of Expression

The following intervention was read yesterday by Debra Anderson, representing Mission Liberty. Ms. Anderson was discussing the attempts by Somali Muslims to implement sharia in Minnesota when she was interrupted by someone — not a member of the OSCE staff — who said that her intervention must be shut down, because it was Islamophobic.

Interestingly enough, the OSCE moderator did not terminate the intervention, but reprimanded the person who interrupted, and allowed Ms. Anderson to continue.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

Stephen Coughlin at OSCE Warsaw: Is Pointing Out the Facts Bigotry?

2018 Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Monday, 17 September 2018

Working Session 11
Fundamental Freedoms I, Including Freedom of Expression

The following intervention was read yesterday at the OSCE conference in Warsaw by Stephen Coughlin, representing Unconstrained Analytics.

The principle topic of the intervention was the Turkish religious affairs directorate Diyanet (official government website, Wikipedia entry), which claims jurisdiction over all Turkish Muslims in Europe unto the nth generation, and which is said to be crucial for assuring calm and lawful behavior by ethnic Turks in urban neighborhoods throughout Europe. Maj. Coughlin’s principal point is that discussing such matters is now considered “bigotry” by the OSCE’s Code of Conduct.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

For more on the OSCE’s Code of Conduct, see “The Successful Subversion of the OSCE”.

For links to previous articles about the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, see the OSCE Archives.

Did We Forget?

Seventeen years is a long time.

Or it is for younger people; for someone of my advanced age, events of seventeen years ago seem like just the other day. Assuming I can remember them at all, that is.

September 11, 2001 is one of those days I can remember quite clearly: what I was doing, the course of events during the day and for the next few days. I assume it’s the same for many people in my age bracket: those hours are now permanent markers, stuck fast in the brain until the final dissolution removes everything.

In contrast, consider someone who has just graduated from high school. He was just a tiny infant back then, so everything he knows about 9/11 — assuming he is aware of it at all — he learned from his parents, or his teachers, or the TV, or his phone.

A young woman who just graduated from college this past spring is not that much better off. She was probably aware that the adults around her were upset and acting strangely. She probably saw some confusing and disturbing images of destruction and panic on television. But other than that, her knowledge of 9-11 would be from her elders, the TV, her phone, and her college professors.

The cohort who took their doctorates last spring — with a median age of what? 26, maybe? — fare slightly better. They were in grade school at the time, and in the days following surely they heard discussion in class from teachers who had not yet fully assimilated the politically correct line on what happened in Manhattan and Washington on that beautiful fall day.

And so it goes, on up through the age groups until you reach us geezers, who definitely remember. Or at least some of us do.

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

I saw a hash tag yesterday: #NeverForget911.

My reaction was immediate and cynical: It should read #WeForgot911.

But how much forgetting has really taken place? Of those who were adults in the fall of 2001, how many paid attention, assimilated the memories, and incorporated them into a meaningful structure that was permanently retained? And how many simply went back to the way they had lived before, letting 9/11 become a brief blip in an otherwise undisturbed succession of life experiences?

I don’t know the answers to those questions. My intuition tells me that many younger people — who have been subjected to far more relentless indoctrination than I ever have — regard 9/11 through the politically correct lens that their education and the media have so painstakingly constructed for them.

My intuition also says that those of us who were over fifty when it happened probably retain a slightly less propagandistic memory of it. But only slightly, most of us — my generation stares at the vidscreen a lot, too.

For some of us, however, the events of September 11, 2001, were the beginning of seventeen years of close investigation of Islam. Back then I had read V.S. Naipaul’s Among the Believers. But nothing else. The Sword of the Prophet by Srdja Trifkovic was to come later. The writings of Robert Spencer later still. And then Reliance of the Traveller and Steve Coughlin. And much more in the years since.

In seventeen years I have learned enough to know that the dominant Western cultural narratives about Islam are simply false. If you do your investigations with due diligence — and especially if you follow Maj. Coughlin’s advice, and read sources written by Muslims, intended for a Muslim audience — you learn the extent to which you have been lied to and misled by your own leaders, who themselves have listened to the whispers of Muslim Brotherhood infiltrators.

The construction of what became the current Narrative began shortly after 9-11 with President George W. Bush, the man who inspired us all when he stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center. Islam was proclaimed to be the Religion of Peace (and eventually the “Religion of Peace and Love”, by Condoleezza Rice). A great religion had been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. The words “Islamism” and “Islamist” were coined to provide good cover for our friends, the nice Muslims, the “moderate” Muslims. The word “Islamophobe” gained greater and greater currency to describe those who refused to swallow the Narrative.

And so on and so forth, until we arrive at the present day, seventeen years later, when it is no longer possible to publicly assign the problem to Islam itself. Islam unmodified, without prefixes or suffixes. The core ideology, which is not religious, but political. A totalitarian ideology which has world domination as its long-term goal — 1,400 years and counting.

You can’t say those things and expect to hold onto your job, even if it’s with a private corporation. If you wear a slogan like that on a t-shirt, you risk a public beating.

And there are more Muslims now in all Western countries, and more official or unofficial rules against offending them, more public recognition of their sacred days and customs and sensibilities.

Yes, #WeForgot911.

At least enough of us did to facilitate the eventual victory of the Sword of the Prophet.

The War Against the West? Still Going Strong!

In the following essay our Dutch correspondent H. Numan provides a refresher course (or introductory course, in the case of newly-minted “Islamophobes”) about the history of Islam’s continuous war against Europe.

The war against the West? Still going strong!

by H. Numan

The war for the West isn’t going to start any day soon, as most people seem to think. It’s already underway. Or more accurately: it has never stopped since 622 AD. Most people only know a little bit about some major conquests, and not a lot of those. Nothing about the many countless smaller battles and wars that continued almost non stop. Some people know about the Battle of Roncevalles or Roncevaux in 788 AD, mainly because of the Song of Roland. Fewer people know about Charles Martel, who defeated the mohammedan invasion decisively earlier in France. Fewer people still know about the many invasion attempts deep into France almost to the Swiss border. And it didn’t stop there. Of course here at Gates of Vienna we know about the siege of that city in 1683.

Did you know that hussars were a Hungarian answer to Turkish invasions? I’ll bet you win a lot of drinkies in the bar if you challenge your friends with that one. Not the first time the Hungarians bore the brunt of the attack.

We don’t learn about it. It’s not politically correct. You have to figure everything out for yourself. If you read up, as I did, you will notice our war began in 622 AD and never really ceased. All you can hope for is for a Chamberlainian ‘peace for our time’. Not for your children, certainly not for your grandchildren. Islam is very much like cancer. You have to eradicate it completely. Otherwise it will grow back. Usually much stronger and far more aggressive. The virus very much learns from past experiences. Let one single cell be, and you are mortal peril. That’s a bold statement, but regretfully, it’s the truth. Dr. Bill Warner counted over 700 battles for Europe, from 622 AD until today.

“But we can live in peace with muslims; we have done that always,” whine politically correct dhimmis — left and right. No, we didn’t. But we don’t read about it. You have to dig for it. We didn’t in the past, as you can’t learn everything from history. The relatively unimportant parts were left out. Those parts are coming back to hound us now.

That’s why we discovered America. After the end of the crusades — which we lost — Constantinople had fallen to the Turks. They now controlled the Silk road to China. The sultan wasn’t interested in continuing trade, not even at extortionate rates. An alternative route had to be found. Sailing along the coast of Africa was highly dangerous, because of the Barbary coast pirates (next paragraph). That is one of the reasons why Columbus tried to sail to the west. It was at least an indirect consequence of the crusades.

We have to do it all over again. This time not with spices but with oil. There is a lot of oil in the world, but most of it lies below Arab countries. Back then our need of spices was used to strangle the West, now they do it with oil. When spice prices got high enough, it became commercially viable to take the dangerous and expensive sea route instead of the overland route. Likewise, we will have to find alternatives for Arab oil. Shale oil becomes an economical alternative if OPEC holds onto its monopoly. The same for alternative energy sources. History repeats itself.

Forgotten are the many Barbary wars we had to fight. Not only Dutch fought them, but the West in general. Like England and France. Even America had to. Your founding fathers were just as dumbfounded about mohammedanism as we are today. Few people are aware that the area of the North African coast was known as the Barbary Coast for centuries. Its rulers extracted tribute for allowing ships to trade along the African coast and into the Mediterranean. That tribute was jizya. Our Michiel de Ruyter had to fight several battles and wars against them. So did your Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson once asked a Barbary representative why they couldn’t leave people alone and why they levied such high fees and never kept their side of the agreement. The muslim was very much surprised. Why, you have to pay jizya, of course. You are a non-believer. We can do anything we want with unbelievers. He even said the ultimate goal was world domination. Yes, even back then. He didn’t commit Taqiya, which is unusually rare for a muslim.

Continue reading

The Pakistani Veto

Geert Wilders has cancelled the Draw Mohammed contest:

Right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders has canceled a planned ‘draw Muhammad’ cartoon contest in the Netherlands after Islamic terrorists threatened to attack the event.

The announcement follows a threat by a Pakistani Muslim who posted a video to Facebook vowing to assassinate Wilders before he was arrested.

“The threats resulting from the cartoon contest are running out of control,” Wilders said in a statement posted to Twitter. “Now other people are in danger because of extremist Muslims who see not only me but the Netherlands as a target.”

“If innocent people are murdered then they and no one else are responsible. To avoid the risk of victims from Islamic violence, I have decided to cancel the cartoon competition,” he added.

Wilders made the decision to cancel the event after an Islamist posted a video to Facebook announcing he was in the Hague and ready to kill the Dutch politician.

Tweet by Geert Wilders:

Here’s the video (thanks to C for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling):

As everyone who reads Gates of Vienna knows, Geert Wilders has lived with tight security protection since 2004. It’s too bad Pakistanis — or any other majority Muslim country — can publicly tell the world about life-threatening attacks against those in the West they disagree with, ensuring a shut down of the venue.

Fox News has the latest.

We saw what these miscreants did in Denmark, and then in Texas. Now they repeated the same game plan in the Netherlands. Threaten, attack, and silence. What other country would be willing to host this contest? Which country is free enough?

What Mohammed? What Koran? What Mecca?

The following video is an excellent introduction by Dr. Jay Smith to the deconstruction by Western scholars of the Koran, Mohammed, and Islam itself. Using hermeneutics, textual analysis, archaeology, and other modern disciplines, he demonstrates that the three principal elements of Islam could not possibly be factually true in the way they are traditionally expounded:

1.   Mohammed                                                            
2.   The Koran
3.   Mecca
 

The archaeology and relevant historical documents simply do not support the traditions of Islam. Something happened in Arabia between the 7th and 10th centuries, but it certainly wasn’t what is described in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira.

A large part of Dr. Smith’s analysis focuses on the qiblas in the oldest mosques, which did not point to Mecca, but to Petra, in what is now Jordan. He explains the likely significance of the switch from Petra to Mecca, which was prompted by the conflict between the Abbasid and Umayyad dynasties in the late first millennium. He also explains the political necessities that likely motivated Abd al-Malik to invent and backdate Mohammed, the Koran, and Islam itself:

Hat tip: acuara.

Brigitte Bardot is a WAYCIST!

The retired movie star Brigitte Bardot has made a name for herself in France — and been prosecuted several times — for her animal-rights activism and her vigorous opposition to Islam. The following video refers to an event in which both of her principal concerns intersect: the annual slaughter of animals by Muslims during Eid al-Adha.

The young “French” culture-enricher in this video directs some angry remarks at Ms. Bardot because of her tweet about Eid, and asserts that she and people like her cause WAYCISM.

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

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Surrender, High Treason and Language Fatigue

Surrender, High Treason and Language Fatigue

by Seneca III

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier has declared Germany “is a nation of immigrants and will remain so”, asserting: “There are no half or whole Germans, no biological or ‘new’ Germans”…

“Racism and discrimination violate human dignity and damage our democracy,” he continued, claiming: “Immigration has taken place because we have repeatedly asked people to come — a situation which will continue to be true in the future.”…

“There are no Germans who are ‘on probation’ and having to earn their rights in society again and again because their [citizenship] could be revoked on the basis of alleged misconduct,” the president said, insisting that there are “no half or whole, no biological or ‘new’ Germans; there are no first— or second-class citizens, no right or wrong neighbours.”

From: Breitbart London — German President Declares There Are ‘No Native Germans, We Are a Nation of Immigrants’ by Virginia Hale, 25th August 2018

Perusing the global media on a daily basis, one becomes so weary of the endless iterations of the deconstructionist oxymora ‘Racism!’, ‘Hate Crime!’, ‘Human Dignity!’, ‘Discrimination!’, ‘White Privilege!’, ‘Cultural Appropriation!’, ‘Alleged Misconduct!’ ‘Xenophobia!’, ‘Islamophobia’ and the rest of the juvenile effluent spewing from the mouths of the butterfly horde of the emotionally incontinent and intellectually destitute.

That these disinformation peddlers should populate every nook and cranny of Europe’s Political Estate, its Enforcement Arms, Academia and what once was known as the Mainstream Media but is now nothing more than a set of comic books for the vicarious entertainment of the perceptually retarded should profoundly alarm all rational native citizens. Collectively, this assault on and insult to our intelligence is nothing less than the implantation of poisonous mind-worms, the spawn of a malignant ideological plague that eventually will leave the Black Death looking like a minor outbreak of infection.

In the UK the overriding problem is none of those spurious assertions; it is the current imbalance between population density, available space, sustainable resources and a commonality of purpose created by Europeans for their use according to their needs, not as a source of bottomless largesse for the human detritus of every failed, unrelentingly primitive society on planet Earth.

It comes down to understanding the reason why, five hundred years ago, Europe began to race ahead of the rest of the world in the creation of viable self-sustaining nation states, engineering, art and technology. The reason is that the intellectual development of Europe was far more advanced than that of the rest of the global population outside of Oriental Asia, and if we are to make it intact through these times of enforced reverse evolution we must recognize that reality.

Geography, history and chance conjoined to evolve the advanced humans of Europe; the lack of melanin in our skin is an evolutionary adaption to climate. It is not a creator of privilege, but simply a reaction to diminished levels of ultraviolet radiation. It is pointless castigating Europeans for being white; in all situations what goes on between the ears of Homo sapiens sapiens is the defining factor, not the hue of the dermal envelope that contains them.

Continue reading

Is Partition a Viable Option?

UPDATE: I thank you all for an interesting range of comments; there’s plenty of good discussion to read. However, I think most of you may have missed my primary question, which is NOT about what is likely to happen, but whether partition is a viable option in Western Europe.

I don’t have any idea what is likely to happen. I just don’t think partition à la India or Gaza is a viable option. It’s not just that I don’t think it will happen, but that it can’t possibly work in the event that some misguided government (or supra-national power) attempts to implement it.

On last night’s post about the BBC, RonaldB left a comment concerning the possible eventual partition of Britain into separate Muslim and non-Muslim states. That got me thinking about the issue of partition, which has been discussed here in the past from time to time.

The most Islamized country in Western Europe is France, so the first of any partitions is likely to occur there. Marseille in particular comes to mind. But Britain, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany are close behind.

This was my comment in response:

One thing to bear in mind about partition: the new “stans” will consist primarily of urban residential areas, with no significant manufacturing plant or other productive assets. There will be no agricultural land, and the commercial base will be negligible. Unless the other side of the partition agrees to continue the delivery of jizya, the new emirates will be unable to support themselves. The kuffar would basically have to do what Israel does with Gaza: supply electricity and other necessities for free, or for a nominal charge.

I suppose a partition agreement could include the mandatory eviction of landowners from portions of prime arable land, which would then belong to the new entity. But even then, the new owners would hardly be likely to use it effectively — Muslims have a history of destroying agricultural land through bad husbandry; it seems to flow naturally from Islamic practices.

I don’t see any way in which partition could work for them. I think they will require full submission, with dhimmitude and/or enslavement for the former owners in perpetuity.

I can’t think of an outcome for all this that isn’t very, very ugly.

In recent times, we really only have three models for partition to draw on:

Continue reading

Has the BBC Changed its Mind About Mosques and Terrorism?

Tommy Robinson has been a relentless critic of what is being preached in mosques. The BBC has just as relentlessly demonized him for his point of view.

Could that be changing?

Vlad Tepes pointed out this BBC report linking Islamic preaching and the mosque in Manchester to the violent message contained in Islam, which the BBC had avoided at all costs up until that point:

And here are excerpts from the accompanying article:

Manchester Mosque Sermon ‘Called for Armed Jihad’, Say Scholars

A sermon at the mosque where the Manchester bomber worshipped called for the support of armed jihadist fighters, according to two Muslim scholars.

An imam at Didsbury Mosque in December 2016 was recorded praying for “victory” for “our brothers and sisters right now in Aleppo and Syria and Iraq”.

Scholars Usama Hasan and Shaykh Rehan said it referred to “military jihad”.

The imam, Mustafa Graf, says his sermon did not call for armed jihad and he has never preached radical Islam.

The recording the BBC obtained is of Friday prayers at the mosque six months before Salman Abedi detonated a suicide bomb following an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena in May 2017.

Abedi and his family regularly attended the mosque and his father sometimes led the call to prayer.

I didn’t agree with Vlad’s take on the report. I saw this as a strategic and temporary retreat by the Beeb and the British establishment.

Here’s a digest of our discussion on skype:

Baron:   It’s an attempt to cauterize the wound for Muslims, by elevating those “scholars” and making a scapegoat of the imam.
    I wish Steve Coughlin or Bill Warner had been there to ask those scholars some pointed questions.
    This is a skilled shot at strengthening the grip of Islam, to keep it from being fully exposed. It’s their strong fallback position, a tough line of defense. A very smart strategic move.
Vlad:   But its a full line of defence behind their primary line.
Baron:   It doesn’t threaten the ascendancy of Islam at all.
Vlad:   Well, the real danger is that the Beeb will gain authority amongst skeptics by this.
Baron:   Yes, that, too.
    I’m telling you: This is the BBC mounting an effective strategic defense of Islamic Britain. The structure and functioning of Islam in Britain will remain untouched. One mosque and one imam will be sacrificed for the good of the whole.
    And most importantly, this enshrines Muslims themselves — the “scholars” — as arbiters of what jihad is, and what is meant by certain terms and passages in Islam. That precludes any independent analysis by anyone not already sympathetic to Islamic ideology.
    This is very clever, very skilled propaganda.
 

Sure enough, in a follow-up article the next day, the BBC walked back even the weak dishwater that its “scholars” had offered:

Continue reading

Pierre Manent: Beyond Radical Secularism

Thomas Bertonneau’s latest essay is a review of a recent book by the French political scientist Pierre Manent.

Pierre Manent: Beyond Radical Secularism — How France and the Christian West Should Respond to the Islamic Challenge

Reviewed by Thomas F. Bertonneau

Pierre Manent (born 1949), a former student of Raymond Aron’s who currently holds a professorship in political philosophy at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, has over the years written a dozen books devoted to the discussion of the liberal-modern dispensation — its origins, its basic assumptions, and its limitations. Unsurprising in a student of Aron’s, Manent is moderately right-leaning, at least in a contemporary French context, in that he defends classical liberalism, disparages the authoritarian liberalism that has replaced it, advocates for the legitimacy of the nation-state, and turns his considerable skepticism on the European Union. Like a number of his contemporaries on the French Nouveau Droit, Manent insists that by the compelling force of their history and culture, France and its European sister nations are Christian nations and that they derive the fundamental decency of their political arrangements at least in part from a specifically Christian view of man and the world. In his expository style, Manent qualifies as quintessentially French: He argues his theses with thoroughness and subtlety and eschews any rhetoric of provocation. His prose gives an impression of coolness, calmness, and steadiness, qualities that incline a reader to concede the argument, if only while he is reading it.

In Beyond Radical Secularism — How France and the Christian West Should Respond to the Islamic Challenge (2016), Manent, compelled by the outbursts of Muslim violence in his country, turns his attention to the question of Islam and France. Not only in style, but in his approach to the Muslim question, Manent differs from others such as Guillaume Le Faye, Eric Zemmour, or Alain de Benoist. To their intransigency — which only responds to Muslim intransigency, after all — he proposes a type of meliorism. He is a measured optimist. His book, divided into twenty numbered chapters, none exceeding five or six pages, bears close inspection.

Even Manent’s title has a function in his argument. The first of its elements suggests a need to transcend radical secularism, the existence of such a necessity implying the inadequacy of radical secularism, whatever that might prove to be. Manent soon enough explains what it is, of course. In its second element, Manent’s title makes a reference to France and the Christian West, once again with an important implication namely that France and the Christian West differ in their nature from radical secularism and should perhaps not be identified with it. Contemporary Euro-skeptical discussion, furthermore, generally associates radicalism with Islam, but Manent’s title indirectly raises the question whether the Muslim problem might stem from a collision of two stubborn radicalisms — Islam itself and the postmodern, radically secular anti-nation. An important preliminary gesture of Manent’s argument entails his critique of the postmodern anti-nation, into which the France of Tradition has morphed. Despite Manent’s cool, calm, and collected manner, the reader will not miss the urgency and the frequent rapier-like penetration of that critique.

What is radical secularism? Manent defines radical secularism as the opinion, pervasive in modern Europe since the end of World War Two, that views religion merely and strictly “as an individual option, something private, a feeling that is finally incommunicable.” Manent argues, however, that this opinion is not native to those who hold it, but rather is the result of a propaganda regime in place for many decades. “The power of this perspective over us,” Manent writes, “is all the greater because it is essentially dictated by our political regime, and because we are good citizens.” It belongs to the bland conformism of the modern — or postmodern — person that he wishes to participate in such self-lauding phenomena as “enlightenment” and “progress.” Not even “the acts of war committed in early 2015 in Paris” seem to have shaken that conformism, which confirmed its blandness with a brief rush of emotion followed by a return of the characterless routine. France finds itself in a state of “paralysis,” Manent concludes. Its program, from the presidency down through the institutions right to the conformist mass of citizen-individuals, appears to be to see nothing and to do nothing. The Muslim problem exists, according to Manent, because the French state is weak and cannot produce the secularity, which would integrate Muslims, and which it declares as its program. Whereas “the State of the Third Republic had authority” and “represented that all held sacred,” as Manent argues; “our state [the Fifth Republic] has abandoned its representative ambition and pride, thus losing a good part of its legitimacy in the eyes of citizens.”

Manent continues: “Our state now obeys a principle of indeterminacy and dissipation.” Indeed, the French state, committed to the European Union, is programmatically self-minimizing. This trend attaches to another: The rising hostility to and elision of national culture and national identity. Manent points out that “the work of the state… has tended to deprive education of its content, or empty these contents of what I dare call their imperatively desirable character.” Under the Third Republic, pride in the achievement of one’s nation — or at the very least, the explicit acknowledgment of those achievements — expressed itself robustly and informed the national curriculum. The existing curriculum, in the name of multiculturalism, has elbowed the lesson in what it means to inherit the French nation out to the margin of the page or out of the textbook altogether. “How can we begin from the beginning,” Manent asks, “and gather children together in the competent practice of the French language, when we have done so much to strip this language of its ‘privilege?’” Given that secularity itself is such an empty concept, how might teachers teach secularism, the primary principle supposedly of the state — say, to Muslim students who crowd France’s urban schools? One can teach the heritage of a nation, but one finds himself hard-pressed to teach a self-evacuating notion. “Under the name of secularism we dream of a teaching without content that would effectively prepare children to be members of a formless society in which religions would be dissolved along with everything else.”

Continue reading

O Canada!

This mosque in Ottawa lost its status as a charity for hate speech against Jews, gays, and women.

As the narrator, Alexandra Belaire, points out, they have many verified incidents of hate speech plus one member who tried to join ISIS (who is now sitting in prison), and yet they haven’t been brought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal?? Hey, if it was good enough for Mark Steyn, why isn’t it suitable to stitch up these guys?

You’ll notice some wind interference, but it was shot by Vlad Tepes, so blame him, eh? Turning on the caption feature eliminates any problems with comprehension. That’s why it’s here…for your edification.