Sunday, June 4, 2017

Had Enough?

They’re rough. They’re tough. They’re strong. They’re resolute. They’re empowered to fight the good fight against… climate change. It’s the modern version of tilting at windmills.

And they are angry. They are intolerant. They are resisting. They refuse to yield a centimeter of territory in their war against… Donald Trump. Or would that be Donald “Travel-Ban"Trump.

Open borders. Open arms. Welcome all refugees. Turn our nations into a glorious cosmopolitan metropolis. Avoid speaking ill of Islam. Avoid direct confrontation… in Iraq, in Syria… with Islamist terrorists. It was the Obama way. Europe embraced it. Bien-pensant Europeans bowed o the great Obama. Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. Now the human cost of such pusillanimous insouciance litters their streets.

The New York Times intoned yesterday morning that America is no longer the “proud and valiant leader” that it was during the Obama years but has been reduced to being “a whiny bully.” It’s like a feminist who imagines that the more often she says she’s strong the stronger she becomes. Barack Obama, a man who was barely proud to be an America, whose valor showed itself in his cowardly refusal to name our adversary… becomes, in the New York Times… a superhuman hero. You know, the one who was, in his own words, too courageous to fight.

Two days ago Bernie Sanders, paragon of leftist virtue, went to London to tell the assembled Brits that Donald Trump was an embarrassment ... because he was not leading the fight against climate change. Sanders barely accepted that Trump was a legitimate president. But he was horrified that Trump had not bought the accepted scientific dogma. Because, we all know, the biggest problem in the world today is: climate change. 

Where is Winston Churchill when we need him:

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender....

Sounds like the proud and valiant Obama, don't you think?

And Reza Aslan, a host on CNN, tweeted out last night... during the terrorist attack… his rage against… you guessed it… Donald Trump: This piece of shit is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He's an embarrassment to humankind. 

Reza Aslan is down with terrorism. He’s down with his fellow Muslim terrorists. But, he is absolutely outraged, to the point of obscenity, that Donald “Travel Ban” Trump is not leading the fight against climate change. Now, tell me why Reza Aslan still has a job?

The Muslim mayor of London, one Sadiq Khan has said that we have to live with terrorism. Unfortunately, in his city, a city that has enough Muslims and leftists to elect a highly tolerant mayor, the issue is not living with terrorism, but dying by terrorism.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has declared that “enough is enough,” but allow us to suggest that Britain has been infested with enough political correctness that it might not be enough. After all, Britain has tolerated the human sacrifice of over a thousand teenage girls in Rotherham. Why was that not enough? Well, because in the Age of Obama what mattered was not being called a racist. The rest is silence.

A few days before last night’s terrorist attack, Roger Kimball asked: “Have We Had Enough?” He, as many others, have bemoaned the soft reaction of the populace, and especially the social justice warriors, who preach hatred for Trump and tolerance for Muslim terrorists. As I and many others have said, if you react to terrorism with calls for tolerance within the family of humanity, you are telling the terrorists that you submit to them, because you have nothing that is worth defending:

Is the online journalist Brendan O’Neill put it, “It is becoming clear that the top-down promotion of a hollow ‘togetherness’ in response to terrorism is about cultivating passivity. . . . Where’s the rage? If the massacre of children and their parents on a fun night out doesn’t make you feel rage, nothing will. The terrorist has defeated you. You are dead already.”

Kimball reminds us that while Donald Trump went to Riyadh to denounce Islamist terrorism and to help organize a coalition of Sunni Arab nations to fight it, the “proud and valiant” Barack Obama had declared ISIS to be the JV team:

As it happened, it was only a few hours before the slaughter in Manchester that President Trump, speaking in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, outlined his policy with respect to the “evil” part of his formulation: annihilation. What Barack Obama dismissed as a “J.V.” threat just a couple of years ago has grown and metastasized greatly in the intervening months. That is about to change.

Since the Times and other outlets of liberal opinion have been carping about the way a certain president uses language—not without reason, incidentally—let’s point out that if Barack Obama was proud and valiant, these words do not mean anything anymore. The man who scrupulously followed the blasphemy laws that prevented him from speaking ill of Islam was just an ordinary garden-variety coward. One who oversaw the rise and the proliferation of ISIS... which he insisted on calling ISIL.


Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

After a mass shooting, Democrats tell us we must have gun control.

After a terrorist incident, Democrats tell us we must be tolerant.

The Second Amendement is about the individual right of a law-abiding citizen to own firearms for his own defense.

The Democrat view of "tolerance" is telling law-abiding citizens they are the problem. The Dems' prescription is more tolerance, more welcoming, more celebrating, more nonsense.

trigger warning said...

Met Police:

"Run. Hide. Tell."

Sounds like good advice for third graders when there's a strange man wearing a dirty raincoat on the playground.


Lest you think I'm joking,

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

"As the incident was under way, the London Metropolitan police issued an alert through social media channels, warning people in the area to run away from any threat, rather than surrender or attempt to negotiate. If that wasn’t possible, they should instead hide, turn their phone to silent and barricade themselves in before calling police."

Advice for an unarmed citizenry.

The terrorists have guns. The politicians are surrounded by men with guns. The police have guns. The days of the strolling bobby with a whistle and baton are over. I just saw a picture in The Telegraph of two Metropolotan Policemen on London Bridge. Their weapon of choice? The M-4/AR-15 rifle. Sporting, eh?

Law-abiding Britons are targets. The Met think the Islamists so worthy, rational and civilized that they are recommend people not engage, plead or reason with these attackers. Just run, hide, talk. Indeed, Briton's only option is to plead with their elected leaders to make things more secure. In response, the people are told the solution is more, more, more diversity. More tolerance for the most barbarically intolerant. This multiculti fantasy is going along swimmingly. You may not think you're at war with them, but they seem to be atwar with you.

Helpless target vs. member of the militia. That is the difference between a British subject and an American citizen.

Keep calm and carry.

James said...

The great post neo modern professor Mel Brook's take on EU politics, US politics, and reality:
The number is aptly name and Dom is perfect for Eu political leadership. At the 1:12 mark reality and US politics enter stage right and at the 1:35 mark Eu's reaction to terrorism "not in the face< thankyou".

James said...

Oh, I forgot...........Voila!

Anonymous said...

Sam L. said...

NYT? This is how you get MORE TRUMP.

Ares Olympus said...

I see Prime Minister May agrees "Enough is enough".
Today, she has doubled down on that demand, saying: "We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet -- and the big companies that provide internet-based services -- provide."

There will now be a renewed appetite in Britain for tougher internet regulation when Parliament is reopened after the election -- but ISIS propaganda will always find a way to break through and find the troubled would-be perpetrators who know where to look for it.

The Prime Minister will have found it easy to revert to her authoritarian nature by declaring "enough is enough", but it is going to be difficult to translate those words into practise.

I never presumed there was ever any real privacy online, although I don't know all the ways communication can now be encrypted.

IAC recommends an arm citizenry to protect themselves against terrorists. It sounds promising, especially in a knife fight, although less effective for dodging oncoming cars.

So the only guns involved were from police, and I suppose 50 shots, 1 innocent person shot is pretty good aim. I give the police permission to shoot in my direction if someone is actively stabbing people with a knife, but give me a chance to duck, if you can wait a moment.
Police fired 50 bullets at three men who launched an attack on London Bridge on Saturday night, and one member of the pubic was caught in the crossfire.

Ares Olympus said...

p.s. I see above a funny typo from NewsWeek. Perhaps I shouldn't be sourcing my information from them.

Ares Olympus said...

I ses wikipedia has a list of "car ramming" terrorist attacks, lots in Israel, and two in the U.S, suprisingly no deaths. Surely there must be others, but not classified considered terroristic attacks. - 9 injured - 13 injured

Whatever else is true, dodging knives and cars is easier than dodging bullets and bombs. Speeding cars are dangerous for lots of reasons, so pay attention!

blogger on said...

Very interesting reading.

Anonymous said...

Ares Olympus thinks himself funny.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

I often wonder what American Progressive Islamophiles like so much about Islam, other than parading around that they don't dislike Islam. They welcome Muslims. They celebrate Islam. There's no end to their love for all things Islamic.

"Look at me! Look at me! I love all Muslims! I celebrate their religion and culture."

And then we hear about all the religion of peace stuff. This is a silly, radical tilt toward denial. Here they are, supposedly fighting prejudice and hatred, while prejudging and condescending to the intended audience, who they believe to be the phalanx of white Christian barbarism.

Please explain how that helps build bridges and bring people together. I don't care how many Muslim friends you have and whether you have some Islamic art in your home. Am I safe? Because I just saw/read/heard some stuff that makes me think the authorities have no handle on what is going on, and that frightens me.

Do these tolerance-peddlers know anything about Islam? Because every Proglodyte seems to be a newly-minted neo-Islamophile. It's really weird. Islam doesn't seem to tolerate much at all. Not in the Middle East. Not in their Western enclaves. Not in their mosques. Not in their homes. It seems quite totalitarian, actually. How does that mesh with Westen value systems?

Well, the truth is the Progs don't know what's going on. And if this kind of head-in-the-sand, pay-no-attention, everything's-fine attitude keeps up, all the words will eventually be ignored and people WILL take matters into their own hands because they have no confidence in their leaders. After all, who are you going to believe? Who's going to be there for you? The authorities cannot effectively track the threat.

All this toleration posturing makes little or no sense unless it's a way of showing off one's boundless "love" or trying to get attention by demonstrating how utterly indiscriminatie one is about discrimination, theoretically or when it's staring you in the face. We seem to be getting to the point of nihilistic indifference. We are human beings. We judge all the time. Denying this is denying your own humanity. We can be responsible for our judgments and make better decisions, but that doesn't seem to be what this kind of juvenile government/activist propaganda is driving at. It wants us to live in denial. It presents tolerance as a suicide pact. It's hardly rational.

Yet the chorus of voices make it clear the self-congratulatory "brights" demonstrate no intellectual gifts at all. They're the cognitive elite who are hopelessly emoting about how everything they know they learned in kindergarten. These sophisticates are in a deep sense of denial about how these attacks are designed to indiscriminately harm a very discriminately-targeted population. That takes ideological indoctrination (motive), planning and action. These are not crimes of passion... they are pre-planned murder rampages in the name of Allah.

In this echo chamber of tolerance, the morally magnificent tolerators stand up and make excuses for the most intolerant monsters imaginable. And then officials take the podium after the latest attack and scold us not to do anything to Muslims, as though there are mobs at the gates -- the modern Christian barbarian salivating at his chance to invade a local Muslim enclave. It's patently condescending and self-reinforcing: "We authority figures said something to maintain calm, and nothing bad happens... we should/must say more." And then they say more and more and more. No, nothing to worry about here. That's why we're talking about it... again!

People are not as dumb as the government and media types think they are.

James said...

It's a little of a mystery to me too, though I think you've nailed it down pretty well. No Christian denomination, sect, teaching, credo, dogma, etc that I know of is equal to Islam in it's official blessing of violence in the spreading and maintaining of itself. Not even the warrior monks (Templars, Hospitalars, Tuetonics) were into that. They were officially into the defense of the faith. Yet the left that despises and repudiates christian religion, throws itself at the feet of the one religion born of the sword, spread by the sword and maintained by the sword, I don't think lunacy covers it.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC: "Look at me! Look at me! I love all Muslims! I celebrate their religion and culture."

I don't know anyone says this, although Jesus offers "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." And Islam itself recognizes Jesus as a prophet.

It is certainly interesting that many blacks in the 1960s converted to Islam, apparently preferring a stronger prophet than a martyr who apparently justifies people to be sheep. And boxer Muhammad Ali converted to Islam, yet then made himself a conscientious objector against participating in war.

It looks to me that any religion can be used to justify terrorism - political action through violence. And its more tribalism than religion, even if people try to rally together through a religion. Look at how many died in Northern Ireland by people who would call themselves Catholics. I wonder how the priests there faced the daily confessions?

Humans can be angels and devils, but when we reduce people's identity to their religion or their tribal affiliations, we're probably setting ourselves to be better devils.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Oh no, James, it's lunacy. For sure. What is incredibly dangerous in the modern West is that the Left (in all its manifestations) thinks that standing with minorities -- any minority that suffers their pity -- means they're smarter, better, more just and more righteous than everyone else. That, my friend, is the core problem. It manifests everywhere in the elite, fashionable, influential corners of our society because these views are associated with progress, intelligence and morality by people who don't know what progress, intelligence and morality are anymore.its the detachment of meaning from reality -- where narrative trumps what is. They've halted progress, destroyed the human intellect and made morality into a farce... without quality, distinction or goodness. Progressives are destroyers, bound by the meaning the assign to words, not deeds, actions or results. It is rule by sentiments, intentions and vacant belief. It makes me want to puke.

James said...

I agree very much. What I meant with the lunacy remark is that lunacy does not go nearly far enough to describe or cover this behavour.