Trifecta: Paris

There is simply nothing to add to this.

Except perhaps this. And yes, I do see many parallels between Corbyn’s Labor party and a large portion of our own Democratic Party, including its leadership.

Corbyn and his Marxist cronies see a terrorist victory as their path to power

The Labour party now has as its main objective the establishment of a socialist one-party republic. The Leader of the Opposition is a neo-communist, as is his shadow chancellor. They associate with neo-communist groups, like Owen Jones’s People’s Assembly.  The people Jeremy Corbyn is recruiting as his advisers follow in this tradition. They seem to see terrorism on British streets as a possible path to power.

Of course, as I have written before, they cannot openly admit their communism as the use of the c-word has invited ridicule since the fall of the Berlin Wall, if not before. The MPs of the Parliamentary Labour Party, most of whom did not vote for Corbyn even if some actually nominated him, are seen as irrelevant compared to the thousands of members, old and new, and the trades unions that are ranged in support of the new Labour leader. This is despite the fact that as MPs they have been elected by ordinary voters and not card-carrying union or party members and thus have the greatest democratic mandate within the party.

Labour’s rulebook makes it all but impossible to topple an incumbent Labour leader, a glaring but obviously socialistic omission compared to the party rules of the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, which have both allowed MPs to oust clear vote-losers in a timely and efficient manner. Indeed, Corbyn is proposing a change in the rules to make it certain that he cannot be ousted, or if he is, he is replaced by a fellow-thinker.  Nominating Corbyn in the name of ‘widening the debate’ has been a disaster and an act of insane socialist doublethink by those MPs who did not support him.

Wanting to establish a socialist one-party republic is not a new aim of the Labour party. Leading figures of the Labour movement have wanted the establishment of a left-wing dictatorship before. The 1983 manifesto was more or less explicit about it. Back in the 1970s, the only dispute was exactly who would be in charge once this ‘socialist utopia’ had been established. Writing in The Spectator in 2009, Douglas Eden of the University of London tells of an argument between two hard-left Labour grandees:

I can still recall the knock-down argument at Blackpool between Jack Jones and Ian Mikardo, representing the union and parliamentary wings of the pro-Soviet Left respectively, as to whether the coming far-left government of their desire would be run by the TUC General Council (or Soviet?) or the Parliamentary Labour Party. They infuriated each other, and left the meeting without shaking hands or resolving the argument. The revolution was not in question — its proponents were arguing over who should control post-revolutionary power.”

Source: Paul T Horgan: Corbyn and his Marxist cronies see a terrorist victory as their path to power


I will tell you want Isis don’t want. Overwhelming western military force

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, left, and France's President Francois Hollande arrive at the Elysee Palace in Paris, Monday, Nov. 23, 2015. French President Francois Hollande and British Prime Minister David Cameron have paid a visit to the Bataclan concert venue in central Paris, which saw the worst carnage of the Paris attacks that killed over 120 people. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, left, and France’s President Francois Hollande arrive at the Elysee Palace in Paris, Monday, Nov. 23, 2015. French President Francois Hollande and British Prime Minister David Cameron have paid a visit to the Bataclan concert venue in central Paris, which saw the worst carnage of the Paris attacks that killed over 120 people. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

This! Where, in God’s name, is the fire from our governments? We have been attacked (still again) and while David Cameron and François Hollande are making some of the right noises, and doing some of the right things, it seems to me to be rather half-hearted. We are not going to defeat IS from 29,999 feet, the only way is at the muzzle of a rifle. This is from Laura Perrins, and is directed to the British people and government. She’s right, and it applies with major emphasis to the American people and government as well.

Isis don’t do trigger warning; they just do triggers. It is time to get angry.

If you do not feel angry, very angry, about the Paris atrocity then there is something wrong with you. However, as Brendan O’Neill pointed out, at every second turn we are told to calm down because to show any other emotion other than sentiment is ‘what the so-called Islamic State (Isis) want!’

True to form, in The Times on Saturday Janice Turner told us, ‘Keep our words cool.’

No I don’t think I will, thanks. What is there to be cool about? The same paper rightly made space to remember all 130 people who were gunned down by these Islamist Scumbags, so accurately described by Andrew Neil. […]

Herein lies my exasperation; that this at times sentimental show is aired in place of genuine anger towards these barbaric killers and in particular the liberal governing elite and intelligence services who let it happen. Long ago countries used to build defences to keep the enemy out – our elite invited them in with their useless mad, no border policy.

Notably the Left have a new slapdown, one cannot ask any hard questions because to do so is ‘doing Isis’s job for them.’ […]

What is wrong with these people? What part of ‘I hate you and your entire way of life that I want to blow you to bits’ don’t they understand?

It is not our foreign policy, our non-existent refugee policy (refugees welcome!) multiculturalism or indeed a more demanding form of integration they hate. It is our existence – a liberal society, freedom of speech and religion, and the Christian heritage – that they hate. They wish to destroy this and return to “a seventh–century legal environment, and ultimately to bring(ing) about the Apocalypse.”

Apocalypse – not hug a refugee – Apocalypse. Go negotiate with that.

Source: Laura Perrins: I will tell you want Isis don’t want. Overwhelming western military force

Not to say that a good many Brits don’t get it. I was quite amazed to see this on the BBC. I wanted to stand up and cheer.

The only reason that won’t happen is if Pogo is right:

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Moe Lane over at RedState had some parallel thoughts:

Are you afraid of terrorism? Or just simply angry about it?

We call this ‘projection,’ where I come from.

After the attacks in Paris, the world is again challenged by fear.

I suppose that I should be used to this, after a decade and a half of listening to well-meaning fools uttering it, but; I’m not. Or at least I’m not willing to let it remain unanswered, out of sheer weariness if nothing else. If I’m weary of anything, it’s being told that I’m scared, just because some editorial writer on the NYT is scared and so he* thinks everybody is scared, too. […]

So if the alternative to fear is not hate – if hate is merely a subset of fear – then what is the true alternative?  Why, it’s anger. I didn’t get scaredabout the enemy after 9/11; I got mad at them.  How dare those people come halfway across the world to strike at a city that I loved and murder my fellow citizens and try to kill people just like me. How dare they insert their literally medieval fantasy ideology into my daily life. The terrorists had no justification, and they had no right.  And they made a hideous mistake back then, because while an angry man might make mistakes, those mistakes pale in comparison with the mistakes that a fearful man will make

Source: Are you afraid of terrorism? Or just simply angry about it?

That’s my take. I may die in this mess, although I doubt it, but you know something, I’m going to die anyway. What’s to be afraid of? It’s far better to die on your feet than to live on your knees, hoping for some scraps from your master’s table, especially when he’s a seventh-century thug. As always the Bible has guidance for us. From Ecclesiastes.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

And, once again, it has become a time for war.

Jeremy Corbyn (and Others) aren’t anti-war. They’re just anti-West

Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is from The Spectator (UK), and it’s about Jeremy Corbyn (the head of the Labor party). I think the author, Nick Cohen, is precisely on point. But I don’t think Corbyn is the only one. I would posit that anyone taking that position, and that includes all of the Democratic candidates for President and Obama as well, is in the same place.

To me, at least, it disqualifies all of them from leading our governments, a leader should have the well-being of the led as his first priority, and these people obviously do not.

Before the bodies in Paris’s restaurants were cold, Jeremy Corbyn’s Stop the War Coalition knew who the real villains were — and they were not the Islamists who massacred civilians. ‘Paris reaps whirlwind of western support for extremist violence in Middle East’ ran a headline on its site. The article went on to say that the consequence of the West’s ‘decades-long, bipartisan cultivation of religious extremism will certainly be more bloodshed, more repression and more violent intervention’.

This flawless example of what I once called the ‘kill us, we deserve it’ school of political analysis takes us to the heart of Corbyn’s beliefs. Even his opponents have yet to appreciate the malign double standards of the new Labour party, though they ought to be clear for all to see by now.

Whatever its protestations, Corbyn’s far left is not anti-war. Pacifism may not be a moral position in all circumstances but, in my view at least, it remains an honourable belief, rooted in Christian teaching. Corbyn does not share it. He does not oppose violence wherever it comes from, as the BBC’s political editor claimed this week. When anti-western regimes and movements go to war, his language turns slippery. Corbyn never quite has the guts to support the violence of others, but he excuses it like a gangster’s lawyer trying to get a crime boss off on a technicality.

He defended the Russian invasion of Ukraine by saying the West had provoked the Kremlin. His spin-doctor, Seumas Milne of the Guardian, the nearest thing you can find to a Stalinist in the 21st century, joined the leaders of Europe’s far-right parties at Putin’s propaganda summits. Meanwhile Corbyn and John McDonnell have defended the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas. Like many on the far left (and right), they are pro-Assad. So committed to Syrian Ba’athism are Stop the War that they tried to stop Syrian refugees from Assad’s terror speaking at their meetings.

Source: Jeremy Corbyn isn’t anti-war. He’s just anti-West » The Spectator

But let’s simplify it a bit. Here’s Bill Whittle o do exactly that.


As Kipling said:

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

This Column Is Exactly What ISIS Wants

paris-attack-friday-13 (1)This insane silliness is beeing heard all over the formerly free world.

Because when we argue for the annihilation of terrorists, the terrorists win.

President Obama was in Manila yesterday getting worked up about the only thing that really grinds his gears, the GOP. “I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric that’s been coming out of here,” he said of Republicans, who were demanding a pause in the influx of Syrian refugees.

Oh, c’mon! Not one? I can. In fact, I can think of a bunch, because ever since Paris was attacked by a group of religiously unaffiliated men who happened to also yell “Allahu Akbar!” before randomly shooting civilians, liberals have offered an array of conceivable causes for the proliferation of terrorism. There’s Republican rhetoric, of course. Climate change. People drawing mean cartoons about Islam. Blowback for various wars Americans have started without any provocation whatsoever.

The problem is that no matter what the GOP says these days it is “doing exactly what ISIS wants” — the most popular platitude this side of ‘those Syrian refugees are just like Baby Jesus.’

ISIS wants war, you say? Well, it doesn’t matter how many civilians it beheads or how many mass graves it fills or how many Western cities they terrorize, we’re not going to give into those bastards! Because when we annihilate the terrorists, we’re doing exactly what they want.

Source: This Column Is Exactly What ISIS Wants

Maybe we should quit worrying so much about what ISIS wants, and concentrate on what we want, say and end to ISIS. If we did that it might be clearer what the path forward is.

Then there is this, Powerline:


One of my friends in intel in Europe said tonight they got one cell in France but they believe there are others in Belgium, Spain, Germany and “other countries.” Their big worry at the moment is the possibility that these guys are trained or training to do swarm attacks on soft targets in major cities, where 2-4 guys drive to a location, shoot everyone in sight, then drive to another location, repeat, etc., until the police catch up to them. Since the police are always responding to the last place hit, there’s a certain amount of luck involved.

I commented that we’re very unprepared for that and he said the Europeans are even more unprepared, especially the British, where the cops don’t have guns (most of them). Imagine if you had three or four carloads of guys driving around to predetermined locations, shooting and scooting, how quickly the law enforcement response would be overwhelmed. It is, I have to say, a very low tech but rather daunting, not to mention frightening possibility.


That is, I suspect, a tactic that is going to be hard to counter, and as they said, especially in Europe, which long ago became supposedly a gun-free zone. Or as we call them here, ‘a target’/


Cerberus: Potemkin Village Europe postures in face of the Islamic threat

6007542-3x2-940x627I’ll eventually have some thoughts on Paris that go beyond “God be with you, and we are praying for you”. But not yet. I suspect though they will closely parallel the two articles from The Conservative Woman that I’m featuring this morning.

We have been here before, too many times: 9/11, the Madrid train bombings, the Bali bomb, 7/7, the Mumbai killings, the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the slaughter of British tourists on a beach in Tunisia, and countless assaults on civilians in the benighted cities of the Middle East. Each time, in the West, the response is much the same. Expressions of shock and horror by the survivors and their fellow citizens; condemnation by political leaders engaged in a quest for yet more superlatives to express their revulsion; tightened security; a hunt for the perpetrators of the atrocity and their accomplices; revelations of police blunders that enabled the attackers to strike; and vague talk of military action against the terrorist masterminds.

All this we are witnessing in the aftermath of the inhuman cruelty of the Paris shootings. President Hollande has accused Islamic State (IS) of an “act of war” against France and vowed a “merciless” response. Security has been stepped up in cities across Europe. Special forces are on the streets on London. EU leaders have issued a joint statement pledging to crush IS by all means possible.

Tearful young Parisiens attempt to console one another by hugging in the streets. But no amount of candles, flowers and teddy bears or cries of defiance will change anything. “We are young, educated and liberal. This is what they hate”, declaimed the headline in The Sunday Times. But that fails to get to the heart of the matter. They hate us because we exist. And they have done these terrible things because we are weak.

France and by extension other Western nations have been badly served by their political masters. Nearly 15 years ago, in response to the 9/11 al-Qaeda assault on the Twin Towers, which claimed nearly 3,000 lives, the West, led by America, embarked on the war on terror. But as the war turned sour, failing to produce the instant victory demanded by the video games generation, public support ebbed and the resolve of presidents and prime ministers faltered. The boys were brought home, creating the power vacuum in the Middle East that led to the rise of IS and the mayhem on the streets of Paris this weekend.

Had America maintained the near 200,000 troops it had in Iraq during the 2007 surge would we now be witnessing the implosion of Syria and Iraq and the migrant exodus that threatens to overwhelm Europe and bring in its train a fifth column of young jihadists ready, willing and able to emulate the brutality on show at the Bataclan concert hall?

After Charlie Hebdo in January,  political leaders such as Hollande, Merkel and David Cameron led a march of millions of people through Paris to parade their defiance of the jihadi killers, their love of freedom and their solidaity. Je suis Charlie, was the cry, just as today we hear, in more troubled and muted tones, Je suis Paris.

But is a mass emote all they can do? Isn’t this all about them and not the poor young men and women mercilessly gunned down on Friday night? More pertinently, do our leaders think that all they have to do is parade their virtue – their sorrow, their sympathy, their compassion, their humanity – and all will be well? Can you imagine a Churchill or a Thatcher responding to an atrocity like Charlie Hebdo or this latest horror with empty gestures of defiance?

Source: Cerberus: Potemkin Village Europe postures in face of the Islamic threat

Not to mention:

Yesterday morning I awoke to the news that there had been some terrible event. At first, I wasn’t sure what it was and that bafflement lasted  through my breakfast.  Apparently, according to Radio 4, something terrible had happened to some Muslims in Paris. The Today programme said  there had been a terrorist attack, many people were dead, and an earnest voice said that, ‘Muslims of Europe are now in danger.’

I heard other voices saying the right wing in France was about to go on the rampage and wondered if there had been an Anders Breivik style massacre. Others said that multiculturalism was now under serious threat. A Muslim commentator, Egyptian German, Dr Asiem El Difraoui, discussed the impact the attacks on Paris may have on French politics:

‘We are a couple of weeks away from regional elections. We know that the extreme Right is emerging as a very strong party,’ he said, highlighting the concerns he shares with the BBC and the Liberal/Left.

‘I really hope that France is not going to react hysterically,’ he went on, explaining: ‘Paris is in shock. It’s much too early to draw conclusions.’

Which conclusions was he waiting for, one wondered. By about 8.30am the fog of liberal obfuscation had faded and I was clear, like everyone else, that this was the terrorist attack by Isil in the heart of Europe, long promised by them. One hundred and twenty seven young people had been shot dead,  one hundred more were critically injured. They were not Muslims at all, but Christian and secular, out and about at a rock concert, a football match and drinking in popular bars.

It was clear that the co-ordinated attacks had been committed by well trained young men who took time coolly reloading their assault rifles and Skorpion sub-machine guns. Nothing, certainly not the French security services employed by President Holland’s Socialist government, had stood up to their determination to kill and maim the ‘infidel.’

Source: Mass migration and multiculturalism drive us further apart.

Incidently that French air strike, good as it was, was about two-thirds the size of The Doolittle Raid. That needs to happen several times an hour. My guess is the French don’t have the ordnance to do much more, and nobody but the US/UK have the logistics to get there, unless of course the fired up the trucks and told Turkey to lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

But given the West’s leadership, I doubt it matters, they haven’t the guts to even name the enemy.

The Alarming Signposts that this Could Be a Crazy Year

This is interesting, and amongst all the theories floating around describing events, it makes as much sense as anything else. Does that make it true? Nope, neither does it make it false. Like global warming, global cooling, climate change, it’s a theory, although this one doesn’t have several trillion dollars of rent seeking money attached. It’s a hypothesis, neither proved nor disproved. We shall see.

I was fifteen, it was 1968, and seeking refuge from adolescence and the turmoil of the times, I often curled up with science fiction. When your world spins apart, you can find some respite in alternate worlds. And so I did – until one story wrenched me back to the chaotic present.

It was “The Year of the Jackpot,” in which Robert A. Heinlein stunningly foresaw it all.

The story had been published in 1952, but it conjured up the annus mirabilis/horribilis that I could see flashing before me every day: nudity in public, nudity in the churches, transvestites, draft-dodgers, cigar-smoking feminists, bishops promoting sex education, ludicrous lawsuits, a “startling rise in dissident evangelical cults,” and the Alabama state legislature proposing to abolish physics (not the teaching of physics, no, they wanted to repeal the laws of nuclear physics). Heinlein even predicted that weird antiwar protesters would be arrested in Chicago and disrupt their subsequent trial. In the story, a bespectacled statistician (they always wear glasses) discovers that all varieties of human behavior move in waves, and now (as he plots on graphs) all the waves are cresting at once. “It’s as clear as a bank statement,” he warns. “This year the human race is letting down its hair, flipping its lip with a finger, and saying, ‘Wubba, wubba, wubba.”‘

Source: History News Network | The Alarming Signposts that this Could Be a Crazy Year

Or as some of us might have said back in 1968, ‘Beaucoup dinky dau, redux’. I bet some of my readers recognize that!

P.J O’Rourke has a new book out, it’s called Thrown Under the Omnibus, and it’s an anthology of his earlier works, a greatest hits album, as it were. So if you have his books, it may be a bit repetitive, but it’s a great introduction to the author who has been compared to S.J. Perlman on acid as well as H.L. Mencken, that’s some heady company. Here’s a few quotes:

On the fall of the Berlin Wall:

They may have had the soldiers and the warheads and the fine-sounding ideology that suckered the college students and nitwit Third Worlders, but we had all the fun . . . in the end we beat them with Levi’s 501 jeans. Seventy years of communist indoctrination and propaganda was drowned out by a three-ounce Sony Walkman. A huge totalitarian system with all its tanks and guns, gulag camps, and secret police has been brought to its knees because nobody wants to wear Bulgarian shoes.

On the differences between the parties:

Democrats are in favor of higher taxes to pay for greater spending, while Republicans are in favor of greater spending, for which the taxpayers will pay.

Why conservatives being called Nazis never bothered him:

I don’t let it bother me for one simple reason. No one has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal.

Not to mention this:

It is true that Republicans are squares, but it’s the squares who know how to fly the bombers, launch the missiles, and fire the M-16s. Democrats would still be fumbling with the federally mandated trigger locks.

I’ve been reading, and laughing with, O’Rourke since he was a liberal, and I just bought this book, I like greatest hits albums, often they are the concentrated essence of what we loved.

%d bloggers like this: