Austria is set to become the only western European country with a far-right party in government after the anti-immigration Freedom Party and Sebastian Kurz’s conservatives struck a coalition deal to share power almost equally.

In an early policy pronouncement, Kurz, the future chancellor, said the new government would not hold a referendum on European Union membership.

Kurz, who is just 31, and Freedom Party (FPO) leader Heinz-Christian Strache announced their deal on Friday night, handing the far right a share of power for the third time in the Alpine republic, after more than a decade in opposition.

The FPO will take control of much of Austria’s security apparatus, in charge of the foreign, interior and defense ministries. The People’s Party (OVP) led by Kurz will control the powerful finance ministry as well the justice and agriculture portfolios.

“No one need be afraid,” Austrian news agency APA quoted the incoming interior minister and chairman of the FPO, Herbert Kickl, as saying. Kickl began his career as a speechwriter for the late Joerg Haider, who praised Adolf Hitler’s employment policies and led the party to its first mainstream electoral success.

Kurz will head the government as chancellor and the OVP will have eight ministries including his office. The FPO will have six, including Strache’s office as vice chancellor.

Kurz has repeatedly said his government will be pro-European despite including the FPO, which was founded by former Nazis and campaigned against Austria joining the bloc when it was put to a referendum in 1994.

The coalition plans to make referendums more widely available. Unlike France’s National Front, the FPO has backed away from calling for a referendum on leaving the European Union but Kurz obtained a guarantee that a Brexit-style vote will not be held.

“There will be no votes on our membership of international organizations, including the European Union,” Kurz told a joint news conference with Strache.

Kurz’s office will also take over some European departments from the FPO-run foreign ministry to give him greater control over EU matters.

The 180-page coalition agreement listed plans such as sinking taxes and cutting public spending through streamlined administration though it often did not say how such goals would be achieved.

Austria’s parliamentary election two months ago was dominated by Europe’s migration crisis, in which the affluent country took in a large number of asylum seekers.

Kurz’s party won with a hard line on immigration that often overlapped with the FPO‘s, pledging to cut benefits for refugees and never to allow a repeat of 2015’s wave of arrivals. The FPO came third in the election with 26 percent of the vote.

Kurz and Strache held their news conference outlining the agreement on the Kahlenberg, a hill on the outskirts of the capital famed as the site of the 1683 Battle of Vienna, which ended a siege of the city by Ottoman Turks.

While there was no specific mention of repelling that Muslim invasion, the symbolism is clear for two parties that have warned Muslim “parallel societies” are emerging in Austria.

Kurz, however, told reporters: “I did not take the decision on where the press conference should be held…. I would not read too much symbolism into it.”

Strache and Kurz oppose Turkish membership of the EU, a position that polls regularly show most Austrians support.

“We both recognize about 75 percent of ourselves in the program,” said Strache, who accused Kurz during the campaign of stealing his party’s ideas. “That might have something to do with the fact that one or the other maybe took on the other’s policy points before the election.”

Anti-establishment parties have been winning over more voters in Europe, capitalizing on dissatisfaction with mainstream politicians’ handling of the economy, security and immigration.

As convenient shorthand for a brand of politics that has stolen the headlines, populism has been used by academics and journalists to describe a host of movements and their leaders at different times and in different parts of the world that appear, at first glance, to have little in common.

Despite its wide usage in politics, the term remains ill-defined. This is partly because populism is chameleon-like; it changes its appearance depending on what or whom it is attached to.

Most notably, populism has been attributed to right-wing groups and leaders. Top of the list is Trump, who has proposed draconian measures to deter illegal immigrants.

In recent years, however, the term has also been associated with left-wing movements such as Podemos, a Spanish party that wants to introduce voting rights for foreign residents.

While populism has become a buzzword, it is certainly not a new phenomenon. The populist label was attached to a late-19th century radical peasant movement in the USA that sought to reform the political system and gave rise to the American People’s Party.

It has also been used to describe the Narodnik movement formed by a small group of urban elites in 19th-century Russia in a failed attempt to incite a peasant revolt.

Moving forward to the mid-20th century, the term ‘populism’ was used to characterize a new form of political mobilization in Latin America that emerged with charismatic leaders such as Getúlio Vargas in Brazil and Juan Domingo Perón in Argentina.

In Western Europe, populism was a relatively rare phenomenon until the end of the 20th century, when it was associated with the emergence of a new wave of nationalist, right-wing parties with an anti-immigration agenda.

Because the term is often equated with demagogy or political opportunism, populism generally carries a negative connotation. Indeed, it has become a label to denigrate a political opponent. The pejorative, vague and widespread use of the term in the public sphere is perhaps unsurprising given the lack of a definitional consensus in the academic literature.

Scholars have sought to characterize populism as a strategy, a movement, a doctrine, a political style and rhetoric. What unites most (if not all) definitions of populism is the emphasis it places on the centrality of the people.

Populism is a thin ideology that is based on the symbolic division of society into two antagonistic groups: the virtuous people who play the role of the underdog and the evil elite.

Populism rarely exists in isolation; indeed, it usually attaches itself to more refined thick host-ideologies, eg socialism on the left, and nationalism on the right.

In recent years, Europe has witnessed the rise of populist parties at both ends of the political spectrum. Since the onset of the refugee crisis, right-wing populist groupings have been gaining momentum.

Scholars have come up with countless theories to help explain the success of these groups. One way to make sense of the expanding literature is to differentiate between demand- and supply-side explanations.

Demand-side explanations emphasize the factors that help create a breeding ground for right-wing populist parties to thrive. Classical demand-side explanations include so-called ‘grievance theories’, which hypothesize that broad changes in the international environment, such as immigration and globalization, can generate insecurity and dissatisfaction with mainstream consensus politics.

An environment of discontent generates fertile soil for right-wing populists, as they present themselves as a refreshing alternative to mainstream parties, ie traditional party families in Europe, such as Social Democrats, Christian Democrats and Liberals.

While demand-side factors appear necessary for the rise of right-wing populist parties, they do not guarantee electoral success. The supply side, therefore, looks at how such parties harness this demand.

Supply-side explanations may include factors like the media landscape, party organization and leadership, as well as so-called political opportunity structures (institutional arrangements such as the electoral system). For instance, proportional representation (PR) electoral systems generally entail a lower risk of wasted votes (votes that do not help elect a candidate), which makes it easier for emerging (smaller) parties (eg populist parties) to access power.

Against the backdrop of the Brexit vote and the ascent of Donald Trump in the USA, the fear of a renewed swing to the right in European politics looms large in public discourse. In his State of the Union address in September 2016, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, spoke about the dangers of the unprecedented rise of ‘galloping populism’. His statement echoed earlier warnings by European leaders about the rise of populism in response to European crises.

These warnings were not entirely unfounded. In October 2015, the Swiss People’s Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei or SVP) scored a record high by securing nearly 30% of the votes in the Swiss federal elections. In December 2015, Marine Le Pen’s Front National (FN) won the first round of French regional elections. The following year, the German Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) reached double-digit percentages in their first appearance in German state parliamentary elections in several Bundesländer.

With the Brexit vote in the UK and the election of Donald Trump in the USA, 2016 will inevitably be remembered as the year of the populist revolt. This trend may continue in 2017, with important elections coming up in the Netherlands, France and Germany.

In the face of these developments, it is important to put the rise of the populist right into a broader perspective. While support for right-wing populist parties has increased in many countries, these parties still have limited access to power. In fact, there is wide variation in the electoral performances of such parties across Western Europe.

While right-wing populist parties have formed part of (or provided parliamentary support for) national governments in some countries, including Austria, Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands, they have been virtually non-existent or unsuccessful in others, such as Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Luxembourg.

The disparity between Western European countries raises questions about the variation in the electoral fortunes of right-wing populist parties in Europe. Specifically, why do right-wing populist parties emerge and succeed in rallying support in some countries but fail to do so in others?

Amid the media frenzy, we tend to forget about these ‘negative cases’. Heeding Sherlock Holmes’s advice to pay attention to ‘the dog that didn’t bark’, it makes sense to study the puzzling absence of right-wing populist parties in some polities.

As academics, we must continue to strive for a deeper understanding of this phenomenon. Populism is not a disease; it is a symptom of a democratic system that is ailing. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about populism. In small doses, it can act as a political corrective: it can flag up discontent and serve as an antidote to voter fatigue.

If we want to counteract the populist tide, we should start addressing the causes, not the symptoms. We must first tone down our anti-populist rhetoric and find creative ways to revamp our political system. Defaming those who vote for populists will do nothing but provide ammunition to further their cause.


Two ostensibly contrasting schools of thought have rapidly emerged. One ascribes populism’s ascendancy to a cultural backlash towards progressive values, centered among the urban elite. The other attributes it to rising economic insecurity made salient by the increase in income and wealth inequality over time. Both arguments are plausible. In the former, the majority in many countries have developed a minority complex. They feel threatened by rapid cultural changes as compared to the past when their group was even more dominant, both economically and culturally. This has allowed for the emergence of political entrepreneurs who cleverly appeal to our lizard brains by generating fear of the other. The immigration crisis in Europe has made their task much easier.

The second is more of a slow-moving problem produced by decades of stagnant incomes and a declining share of the pie for both the unskilled and the middle and lower classes, who have been left behind by globalization (rise of trade and outsourcing, FDI, global supply chains, global capital flows) and in the skill race (automation via rise of machines, knowledge economy). The problem is exacerbated by a decline in unionization, especially in the U.S., and by the fraying of safety nets following austerity policies post-global financial crisis.

Of course, these two arguments are neither mutually exclusive nor independent. In fact, rising inequality is likely to manifest itself in a cultural backlash over time. A more fundamental question is whether we should care about inequality in the first place. For instance, if the richest 1% experience an increase in absolute incomes while the rest have constant incomes, then this is what economists dub a Pareto improvement and a desirable outcome – some people are better off while others are no worse off.

A useful dichotomy is inequality of outcomes vs. inequality of opportunities. Economists worry far more about the latter than they do about the former. If someone is smarter than me, better trained and educated than me, works harder than me, is more ambitious than me, then I have no reason to complain if they earn more than me. On the other hand, if the other person earns more simply because their parents were richer than mine, then we have inequality of opportunity, in which a child’s destiny is determined at birth. Essentially, we do not want to live in a world with no inter-generational mobility across income ranks.

Inequality can lead to policies that hurt long-term growth. Today we see a backlash against globalization both in the U.S. and in the United Kingdom. The world may well see a resurrection of protectionist policies, especially in advanced economies where higher tariffs transfer gains from capital owners and skilled workers (the beneficiaries of globalization) to unskilled workers (those left behind). This follows from standard trade models and there is empirical evidence that pressures for protectionism are higher in more unequal countries. The efficacy of such protectionist policies is questionable – such policies may create jobs for robots in advanced economies via automation rather than for humans.

Inequality also leads to political instability. My prior work shows that countries with high levels of inequality tend to oscillate between democratic and autocratic regimes, as seen in the graph below. This creates tremendous volatility in policies, deterring investment and eventually economic growth.

As earlier, it’s easy to see that the richest 1% have done well for themselves. The segment that has done even better (in percentage terms) is the one in the middle – this is essentially the rise of India and China that has lifted vast swathes of their population out of poverty. When we celebrate market economies, globalization, and highlight businesses as a force for good, we are essentially focused on these countries and on this segment of the global income distribution. But after the global median, the gains rapidly decrease, becoming almost negligible from the 75th–90th global percentiles. These are the Trump voters, the Brexit voters, the hollowed out of the middle class left behind by the twin forces of technology and globalization. Interestingly, those at the very bottom of the global distribution have done poorly as well. For these countries, poverty alleviation should be the key focus. This helps highlight the complexity of the challenge faced by the world and by different countries.







There are common themes among those social movements that don’t merely broadcast the need for a social change, but actually create long-term impact. Every successful social movement features three distinct leadership roles: the agitator, the innovator, and the orchestrator. Any successful pathway to societal change requires all three.

If you look at the history of any successful social change movement, you’ll see there were moments of really effective agitation, innovation, and orchestration that led to the adoption of the change. Although history remembers some individual actors as highly influential, single leaders rarely change the course of society on their own.

The Agitator stirs the pot by articulating and publicizing societal grievances, rallying an otherwise diverse group of people around a mutual desire for change. Effective agitators are able to draw attention to a problem and convince others that it requires both some corrective action and collective work to bring it about. To demonstrate that the status quo is not acceptable and to mobilize others, agitators thus need to communicate in a manner that ensures grievances are shared and collective and not seen as irrelevant.

Take, for example, marine biologist Rachel Carson, who alerted the public to the dangers of pesticides in the 1950s; Donald Trump, who, throughout 2016, rallied citizens around the slogan “Make America Great Again;” or Teresa Snook, who launched the Women’s March on Washington after Trump’s presidential victory.

The Innovator develops a solution to address the grievances. That means anticipating roadblocks and coming up with alternative paths, as well as justifying those alternatives in appealing ways to engage individuals, groups, and organizations to support them.

An innovator is likely someone who has studied, lived, or experienced something beyond the norms in a given environment and thus is able to create a vision of a different future that nonetheless makes sense to, and captivates, those living within the existing practices and conditions.

Without leaders who can lay out a persuasive path of innovation, a movement will never make it past the agitation stage. If you do not innovate and have a solution to the problem you’ve identified, the movement will die. That’s what happened with the Occupy Wall Street movement. There was an effective agitation; the movement came at the right time—a time when the world was screaming that we needed a different financial system. But there was a lack of innovation. And we ended up coming back to a system that is quite a bit like what we had before.

The Orchestrator spreads the solution created by the innovator, continually strategizing how best to reach and work with people both within and outside the movement, as the movement for change grows in size and complexity. Orchestrators often need to tailor their message to the interests of the various constituencies they are trying to persuade to embrace the change. However, in doing so, they need to strike a fine balance, as they also need to ensure that the overall message around change adoption remains coherent.

Agitation without innovation means complaints without alternatives, and innovation without orchestration means ideas without impact. Each role requires a combination of communicating, organizing, and evaluating. Agitators need to communicate the necessity of the social change movement; innovators need to communicate the validity of their proposed solution; and orchestrators must be able to tailor information to different types of constituents—sometimes different groups all over the world—while still maintaining a cohesive message. Agitators must also organize and launch a collective action against the status quo; innovators must build a coalition of support behind their ideas; and orchestrators must expand and sustain the collective action.

Each of these three roles also comes with its own set of traps:

  • Among agitators: fragmented agitation—triggering multiple areas of outrage that can’t work together as a cohesive cause, and a stalled solution—raising a valid complaint but lacking a remedy to offer.
  • Among innovators: tunnel vision—failing to consider the negative implications of a proposed solution, and impractical elegance—proposing a solution that looks great on a computer screen but is virtually impossible to orchestrate.
  • Among orchestrators: mission drift—losing sight of the envisioned social change, and dilution—watering down the movement to the point that it no longer addresses grievances.

There is advice for avoiding potential traps and how to determine when to play which roles. Keys include continually assessing progress and changes in the environment, as well as the understanding the individual’s sources of power and motivations. Power may come from personal sources (e.g., charisma, expertise); positional sources (e.g., holding official leadership roles, elected or appointed); and relational sources (connections with family, friends, and colleagues). Leaders leverage these various sources of power as they push for change.

Effecting change does not guarantee glory. Behind any successful movement lies a great deal of thankless determination and sweat. Societal change takes time, it takes a lot of work, and most of the time you’re not going to get a lot of recognition. Most movements are full of hidden heroes, if you will. No one may ever know about them. Some of them had to work their whole lives and didn’t see the moment when finally things changed. But they played key roles in agitation, orchestration, or innovation.




A federal judge in Pennsylvania has blocked the Trump administration’s new rule on Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate that exempts employers with religious or moral objections to providing contraception and abortion-inducing drugs and devices to employees through health insurance plans.

U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone said the state was likely to suffer serious and irreparable harm if she did not order a preliminary injunction.

Beetlestone’s order follows a lawsuit filed by Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who told us the ruling was a critical victory for millions of women and families and for the rule of law.

Among the faith organizations affected by the ruling are the Little Sisters of the Poor – who minister to the elderly poor. The pro-life Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) is also affected by Beetlestone’s nationwide preliminary injunction.

“This is a shameful ruling that seeks to continue the Obama-era assault on conscience rights and religious liberty,” SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser told us. “Why should Catholic nuns who care for the elderly poor be forced by the government to provide abortion-inducing drugs in their health care plans?”

“Moreover, moral objectors like my own pro-life organization, SBA List, should not have to pay for life-ending drugs that are antithetical to our mission,” Dannenfelser continued. “There is absolutely no ‘compelling state interest’ in forcing pro-life employers to violate their consciences to provide abortion-inducing drugs. We thank President Trump for standing up for conscience rights and religious liberty and are confident the Administration will fight this ridiculous ruling.”

In early October, the Trump administration announced a new rule that protects the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious non-profits from being coerced by the federal government to provide services in their healthcare plans that violate their faith beliefs.

The new rule provides full protection for Americans with religious beliefs and moral convictions and acknowledges that the contraceptive mandate concerns serious issues of moral concern, including those involving human life.

However, the Trump administration leaves free contraception in place for the vast majority of women since the new rule only covers moral and religious objections.

Former Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius – an abortion activist – and bureaucrats in her department inserted the mandate into Obamacare. Following objections by many religious employers to the requirements of the mandate, the Obama administration devised “accommodations” that only gave the appearance the religious groups would not be either footing the bill for, or passively approving of, the federal government’s mandate of the offensive contraceptive drugs and sterilization procedures.

There’s literally nothing you can do that’s better for the environment than to not produce another resource-sucking, waste-making human being. I am now 72 years old, and I had a vasectomy when I was only 25 years old.  I have never regretted it. The birthrate in Occident is at the lowest in recorded history. From 2000 to present, the fertility rate declined 20%.  Childlessness has risen across all racial and ethnic groups. A quarter of Occidental women end their childbearing years maternity-free.   

The decision to have a child or not is a private one, but it takes place in Occident, in a culture that often equates womanhood with motherhood. Any discussion about the struggle to reconcile womanhood with modernity tends to begin and end with one subject: parenting.

What to expect when no one’s expecting?  It reduces the number of consumers and taxpayers, but it increases the quality of life. Persons who choose not to become parents are finding new paths of acceptance. As their ranks rise, so do positive attitudes about leading a life in which having it all doesn’t mean having a baby.

Stupid legislatures have passed stupid anti-abortion resolutions, asking the public to decide whether the state constitution should define life as beginning at conception! The stupid resolutions mainly state the inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and defended.

Pro-choice activists criticize the new anti-abortion laws, arguing that they violate the US Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortions until the fetus is considered viable, at around 22-24 weeks into a pregnancy.  Treating humans as livestock, stupid legislators, who introduced the stupid personhood resolutions, point out that the main purpose of them is to be a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

90% of people agree on the abortion of embryo, and 60% agree on the abortion of fetus. Embryo refers to the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month.  Fetus refers to the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Ayn Rand points out the capacity to procreate is merely a potential which man is not obligated to actualize. The choice to have children or not is morally optional. Nature endows man with a variety of potentials, and it is his mind that must decide which capacities he chooses to exercise, according to his own hierarchy of rational goals and values. 

The mere fact that man has the capacity to kill, does not mean that it is his duty to become a murderer; in the same way, the mere fact that man has the capacity to procreate, does not mean that it is his duty to commit spiritual suicide by making procreation his primary goal and turning himself into livestock.

To an animal, the rearing of its young is a matter of temporary cycles. To man, it is a lifelong responsibility, a grave responsibility that must not be undertaken causelessly, thoughtlessly or accidentally. 

In regard to the moral aspects of birth control, the primary right involved is not the right of an unborn child, nor of the family, nor of society, nor of God. The primary right is one which, in today’s public clamor on the subject, few, if any, voices have had the courage to uphold: the right of man and woman to their own life and happiness, the right not to be regarded as the means to any end.

Rand notes the task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty, human beings are not livestock. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings. 

The human construct is open to wide interpretation. The dogma that life begins at conception is an utterly false assertion on its face because spermatozoa and ova cells are vibrantly alive long before they meet. Life most assuredly does not begin at conception. There are no discontinuities here as life just persists and inexorably continues and matures.

Left-wing groups such as Planned Parenthood claim women should obtain free birth control and that the Trump administration is forcing women to pay for their own birth control when they choose to have sex. The Obama administration itself, however, actually exempted from its own rule at least 25 million Americans – including large corporations such as Chevron, Exxon, Visa, and Pepsi Bottling, as well as the U.S. military and large cities like New York City – through various exemption allowances, with little pushback from the left.

“We will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied, or silenced anymore,” President Donald Trump said during the National Day of Prayer event in May. “We will never, ever stand for religious discrimination. No American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the federal government and the tenets of their faith.”

“The case is Pennsylvania v. Trump, No. 2:17-cv-4540 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


Muslims have been commanded to terrorize! It says so right here in Quran!



Jihadis have threatened a second Berlin Christmas attack, exactly one year after the first. Jihadis released online images and a propaganda video which also depicted London, New York, and Vienna, promising attacks “soon on your holidays… very soon.” 

The image of Berlin shows an armed terrorist by the Brandenburg Gate with the words: Berlin will burn. There were also images of a bloody knife and Westminster Cathedral in London – a city hit by multiple deadly Islamic State-linked attacks this year. Another edited image shows New York ablaze alongside the words: “We meet for Christmas in New York … soon”. Just days ago, an Islamic radical set a bomb off in the U.S. city.

The attacker was identified as Jihadi 27-year-old Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi migrant living on Brooklyn. He had two explosive devices, one attached to his body. Luckily nobody was killed in the attack.

Also this week, authorities in Berlin raided the homes of suspected Jihadis, seizing evidence and data storage devices. The raids were linked to Anis Amri, the Tunisian migrant who drove a lorry into the Berlin Christmas market one year ago, killing 12 and injuring 56.

Around 130 officers were involved, searching nine addresses. They were searching for four suspects, aged between 18 and 21, Jihadis planning a serious terrorist attack. Three of the Jihadis are in Syria or Iraq and one has received explosives training. The fourth is thought to have assisted them last year.

“The General Prosecutor’s Office in Berlin is investigating four suspects, aged between 18 and 21, who are suspected of membership in a terrorist organization as well as of preparing a serious crime against the state,” a police statement reads.

To beat your enemies, you must understand them intimately. What makes someone willing to die fighting for a cause? Well, lots of things, but what best predicted willingness to die on the battlefront was both devotion to a tight-knit group of comrades—fusion with them—and commitment to sacred values. But the values actually trumped the group, which may be the first time that was shown. Because most of the military sociology and psychology, at least since World War II, has said that will to fight is based on camaraderie and fighting for your buddies.

The greatest mistake the U.S. made in Iraq was underestimating ISIS’s will to fight, and he said it was similar in Vietnam. The will to fight is an imponderable. They are moral values. Sacred values are immune or resistant to material trade-offs. You wouldn’t sell your children or sell out your country or your religion for all the money in China. Another aspect is that they generate actions because they’re the right thing to do, so you’re not really worried about risks or rewards or cost or consequences.

Giving up your life or family for an idea or belief seems irrational. Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man, puzzled over heroism and martyrdom. He argued that if people are inspired by these virtues and can inspire others, that group will win out over other groups. And in fact, since World War II, if you look at insurgents and revolutionary groups, they on average beat out standard police and armies with up to 10 times more firepower and manpower, because those police and armies rely on standard material incentives and disincentives like pay, promotion, and punishment. These guys rely on commitment.

Human beings are inspired by belief in apparently absurd things. Religion or transcendental ideologies, for example. This leap of faith seems to inspire others to great things, and probably is the reason we were able to form large polities. We found people were willing to sacrifice their family for these things.

Think of the origins of the monotheistic religions. Abraham is ready to slit his son’s throat. The very term Islam means submission of tribal and genetic identities. So those things just grab the minds and hearts. Sacred values inhibit deliberative reasoning, so they’re in a sense more efficient in the clutch. You don’t even think about them.

Devotion to a cause also intimidates opponents. When one group perceives the enemy as committed, they are even less likely to make sacrifices for their values.  It would be useful for our politicians and pundits to realize that these people are not crazy, they’re not nihilists or brainwashed or losers. In fact, they argue that we’re the nihilists, because we have no moral values anymore.

Quran describes a sensual Paradise where martyrs are rewarded with 72 virgins with full-grown swelling pear-shaped breasts! And, like all the Allahu Akbar stabbers, it’s just madness. The madness that causes the mad dogs of the Jihad to foam at the mouth and leap at infidel throats. The madness of a mad prophet who commanded his followers to kill all the black dogs before he got around to ordering the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Jews of Arabia.

Every time a horrendous terrorist attack victimizes innocent victims we wring our hands and promise to increase security and take other necessary preventive measures. But we fail to recognize how friends and allies play such an important role in encouraging, incentivizing, and inciting terrorism.

If we are to have any chance of reducing terrorism, we must get to its root cause. It is not poverty, disenfranchisement, despair or any of the other abuse excuses offered to explain, if not to justify, terrorism as an act of desperation. It is anything but. Many terrorists, such as those who participated in the 9/11 attacks, were educated, well-off, mobile and even successful. They made a rational cost-benefit decision to murder innocent civilians for one simple reason: they believe that terrorism works.

And tragically they are right. The international community has rewarded terrorism while punishing those who try to fight it by reasonable means. It all began with a decision by Yasser Arafat and other Palestinian terrorist groups to employ the tactic of terrorism as a primary means of bringing the Palestinian issue to the forefront of world concern. Based on the merits and demerits of the Palestinian case, it does not deserve this stature. The treatment of the Tibetans by China, the Kurds by most of the Arab world, and the people of Chechen by Russia has been or at least as bad. But their response to grievances has been largely ignored by the international community and the media because they mostly sought remedies within the law rather than through terrorism.

The Palestinian situation has been different. The hijacking of airplanes, the murders of Olympic athletes at Munich, the killing of Israeli children at Ma’alot, and the many other terrorist atrocities perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists has elevated their cause above all other causes in the human rights community. Although the Palestinians have not yet gotten a state – because they twice rejected generous offers of statehood – their cause still dominates the United Nations and numerous human rights groups.

Other groups with grievances have learned from the success of Palestinian terrorism and have emulated the use of that barbaric tactic. Even today, when the Palestinian authority claims to reject terrorism, they reward the families of suicide bombers and other terrorists by large compensation packages that increase with the number of innocent victims. If the perpetrator of the Manchester massacre had been Palestinian and if the massacre had taken place in an Israeli auditorium, the Palestinian authority would have paid his family a small fortune for murdering so many children. There is a name for people and organizations that pay other people for killing innocent civilians: it’s called accessory to murder. If the Mafia offered bounties to kill its opponents, no one would sympathize with those who made the offer. Yet the Palestinian leadership that does the same thing is welcomed and honored throughout the world.

The Palestinian authority also glorifies terrorists by naming parks, stadiums, streets and other public places after the mass murderers of children. Our “ally” Qatar finances Hamas which the United States has correctly declared to be a terrorist organization. Our enemy Iran, also finances, facilitates and encourages terrorism against the United States, Israel and other western democracies, without suffering any real consequences. The United Nations glorifies terrorism by placing countries that support terrorism in high positions of authority and honor and by welcoming with open arms the promoters of terrorism.

On the other hand, Israel, which has led the world in efforts to combat terrorism by reasonable and lawful means, gets attacked by the international community more than any other country in the world. Promoters of terrorism are treated better at the United Nations than opponents of terrorism. The boycott divestment tactic (BDS) is directed only against Israel and not against the many nations that support terrorism. The issue of government subsidies for Palestinian terrorist salaries is again in the international spotlight. What began in November 2013, as a barely believable revelation — that taxpayers in Great Britain, the US, and other Western nations were bankrolling terrorist salaries — has now become a universally-acknowledged, impossible-to-deny, and impossible-to-defend embarrassment for governments.

For years, officials dissembled and dodged when the question came up. After a period of silent disbelief, the mainstream media now openly confirms the salaries and routinely refers to the program with ipso factuality. Political challengers on both sides of the Atlantic stridently demand that incumbents terminate foreign aid that amounts to taxpayer-incentivized terrorism. A recent in-depth study in Israel calculates that all terror incentives and rewards paid by the Palestinian Authority over the past four years total a mind-numbing one billion dollars.

As more citizens are victimized in Great Britain, Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere, Western donor governments find their financial involvement with the Palestinian Authority terrorist salary program increasingly indefensible.

Whether things might be changing is anyone’s guess.

Intense public pushback and the spread of terrorism, from “something over in Israel” to atrocities in leading European and American cities, have cracked entrenched governmental refusals to stop the financing. But it has been a long road.

In November 2013, revelations first leapt into global headlines that convicted Palestinian terrorists were receiving monthly salaries paid by the Palestinian Authority using foreign donor funds. The Palestinian “Law of the Prisoner” openly rewards those convicted of even the most heinous attacks with generous monthly “salaries” and phantom jobs with automatic advancement in the PA government.

The salaries increase on a sliding scale. The more carnage inflicted, the longer the prisoner sentence, the higher the salary. Terrorists receiving a five-year sentence are granted just a few hundred dollars each month. The bloodiest murderers are paid as much $3,000 monthly. Checks are sent directly to the prisoner, who appoints a power of attorney to distribute the funds.

In 2013, the first spotlighted salary program operated by the Ministry of Prisoners was estimated to consume some $5 to $8 million monthly, with other benefit programs doubling that sum. In all, some 8 percent of the PA budget was diverted to terror. But that money was the tip of the cash pile.

The chronically bankrupt PA relies upon foreign aid to pay the salaries. and prioritizes the monies received into the salary program before any civic expenditures on health, welfare, education, or infrastructure programs. In every Western country, financial support for terrorism makes such funding illegal. Yet, the UK, EU, and the US, through their fungible aid, effectively act as the chief bankers of the terrorist salaries. Thin attempts by government paymasters in various countries sought to portray the monies not as “salaries” but as “welfare.” Ironically, the PA itself vigorously refuted that claim, bragging that such payments are proud rewards to its cherished fighters, including the type of terrorist that would slash the throat of children in their kibbutz beds. Indeed, the term for the payments is rawatib, which in Arabic does not mean “welfare” — it means “salaries.”

Shortly after the 2013 disclosures, Rep. Trent Franks of the House Terrorism, Non-Proliferation, and Trade Subcommittee became one of the first to grasp the implications. He scheduled a formal hearing on the topic and loudly demanded that Washington cut all foreign aid to the PA. American foreign aid payments amount to roughly $400 million per year.

Likewise, in February 2014, after a House of Commons presentation, key MPs insisted that London halt the roughly £70 to £90 million annually donated to the PA by the British treasury. A formal hearing in the Canadian House of Commons and a session in the European Parliament yielded a similar outrage among a few key legislators.

But most other US, UK, and Canadian legislators were incredulous and felt the disclosures could not be true. No change occurred.

But after a fractious debate in the US, the first meaningful change in the terrorism reward status quo finally occurred. In mid-June 2014, a late-night compromise in Congress resulted in an unpublicized fiscal 2015 budget reduction. The last-minute insertion reduced “the amount of assistance … for the Palestinian Authority by an amount … equivalent to … payments to individuals and the families of such individuals that are imprisoned for acts of terrorism or who died committing such acts during the previous calendar year.”

Seeing $60 million or more disappearing from its coffers, the PA abolished the governmental Ministry of Prisoners, through which the salary payments were made, and began funneling the cash through an outside Palestine Liberation Organization agency known as the “Prisoners Authority.” The Prisoners Authority reports directly to PA president Mahmoud Abbas. Notably, the PA itself is subordinate to the PLO. A transparent re-routing of the same funding of terrorist salaries drawn from taxpayer funds changed nothing for taxpayers. Throughout 2015 and 2016, major media confirmations in the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications — undeniably tardy — confirmed what Jewish and pro-Israel groups had been calling out since 2013 with petitions, single-issue protest websites, advertisements, and litigation efforts.

An exploding universe of researchers, activists, NGOs, and Israeli officials joined the fray. These included the most vigilant Palestinian Media Watch, as well as StandWithUs and NGO Monitor. Each added a disclosure, study, or proof point to the edifice of undeniability.

In February 2015, a rare media intervention lawsuit (similar to a Freedom of Information action, but directed at private litigation) secured some 5,000 pages of US court-sealed PLO terror salary documents. The files proved that senior PA officials — including President Mahmoud Abbas himself — scrutinized the details of terrorist carnage before approving monthly salaries. PA leaders could no longer distance themselves from the salary program.

The first tectonic shift came in March 2016 at the AIPAC annual policy conference in Washington, DC. During the run-up to the conference, numerous pro-Israel groups, led by StandWithUs, reminded the candidates that terrorist salaries must be opposed. Their efforts paid off. Hour after hour, every candidate’s speech, from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton, loudly proclaimed that the PA must stop rewarding terrorists. From that moment on, the mumble and grumble became a public roar.

In September 2016, a group of leading Republicans introduced the Taylor Force Act, named for the 28-year-old Texas student who was killed by a terrorist while in Israel. The proposed Taylor Force Act, stuck in committee, would terminate all PA funding if payment of terrorist salaries continued. The measure has been a rallying call for pro-Jewish groups.

A second ground jolt occurred in October 2016, when British International Development Secretary Priti Patel briefly halted £25 million in aid to the PA, conceding it may have gone to pay terrorist salaries — a conclusion previously denied. Funding quickly resumed with the assurance that only regular PA employees would be paid. Ironically, many of the thousands of staffers on the PA’s employment payrolls hold phantom jobs awarded to convicted terrorists still sitting in Israeli prisons.

On November 1, 2016, just a week before the American election, former Israel intelligence officer Yossi Kuperwasser put all the numbers together for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He documented that the salaries, plus “martyr” payments to families, plus regular terror bonuses, including other related expenditures, had increased to $300 million per year. In the nearly four years since the original 2013 disclosures, the PA had spent a stunning one billion dollars on terror. In 2016, nearly 30 percent of all foreign money received was diverted to the cause of terror.

The true number actually exceeds one billion dollars if other diversions from education, sports, and security funds are tallied. Israel Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, called a press conference at the UN displaying a large poster declaring, “The Palestinian Authority has paid a $1,000,000,000 to terrorists.”

On May 3, 2017, the tense meeting between President Trump and President Abbas pivoted on terror issues. According to a White House statement, “President Trump raised his concerns about payments to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails who have committed terrorist acts, and to their families, and emphasized the need to resolve this issue.”

On May 26, 2017, Norway’s Foreign Minister learned that a women’s center it funded was named for a notorious terrorist who massacred a bus full of passengers. Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Børge Brende declared, “The glorification of terrorist attacks is completely unacceptable.” He demanded the money be repaid.

On June 3, 2017, 277 recently-released Hamas terrorists publicly complained that their salaries had been suspended to appease the Trump administration. Soon, Iran stepped in to provide a special subvention. Two days later, Kuperwasser published an analysis suggesting the PA may at last be genuinely be backing away from the salary program as a concession to Washington. But since, then, Palestinian public opinion, agitation by the Palestinian quasi-NGO “Prisoner’s Club,” and other public pressures have caused Abbas to openly deny the PA will ever stop paying prisoner salaries. When Trump senior advisor Jared Kushner met with Abbas in Ramallah on June 21, the session blew up over terrorist salaries. Abbas vehemently refused to curtail the payments.

As recently as July 2, Abbas publicly proclaimed, “Even if I will have to leave my position, I will not compromise on the salary (rawatib) of a Martyr (Shahid) or a prisoner.”

The next chapter in the saga of taxpayer-funded terrorism will be written by the policymakers of governmental paymasters, undoubtedly in blood.

Edwin Black is the bestselling author of IBM and the Holocaust, and Financing the Flames, which in November 2013 broke the terrorist salaries story worldwide. He filed suit to obtain some 5,000 court-sealed PA terror salary documents, and has testified or presented on the subject in five national legislatures.

Terrorism will continue as long as it continues to bear fruits. The fruits may be different for different causes. Sometimes it is simply publicity. Sometimes it is a recruitment tool. Sometimes it brings about concessions as it did in many European countries. Some European countries that have now been plagued by terrorism even released captured Palestinian terrorists. England, France, Italy and Germany were among the countries that released Palestinian terrorists in the hope of preventing terrorist attacks on their soil. Their selfish and immoral tactic backfired: it only caused them to become even more inviting targets for the murderous terrorists.

But no matter how terrorism works, the reality that it does, will make it difficult if not impossible to stem its malignant spread around the world. To make it not work, the entire world must unite in never rewarding terrorism and always punishing those who facilitate it.


Jihadis keep taking brutality in the name of Islam to new lows. For example, Jihadis have tied up a mother and her four children, including a 9-month-old boy, poured oil over them and set them on fire. The victims’ capital crime was to leave the land occupied by Jihadis. Jihadis used a different means to kill 250 children at a bakery in Syria. They were put in the dough mixer, they were kneaded. The oldest one of them was four-years-old. The woman’s 18 year old son was beaten and then shot to death because he would not renounce his Christian faith. Other mothers have had to witness their children crucified.

In a horrifying example of a mass execution videotaped by Jihadis, 200 children were shot to death by Jihadis in a depraved act of barbarism. A United Nations body dealing with the rights of children issued a report nearly two years ago denouncing the systematic killing of children belonging to religious and ethnic minorities by Jihadis, including several cases of mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children, and burying children alive.

All non-believers are legitimate targets as far as Jihadis are concerned – including children. A Jihadi essay entitled “The Kafir’s blood is Halal for you. So shed it,” seeks to justify the killing of non-believers with citations to the Quran and early Muslim scholars. The essay concluded by telling Muslims who live in the lands of non-believers that shedding the infidels’ blood and killing them is a form of worship to Allah.

When Jihadis are not busy killing children, they use children as executioners. One sickening video released by Jihadis shows a little kid – whom they call a caliphate cub – shooting a Kurd apostate at close range, while what appears to be religious chants can be heard in the background.

Jihadis established institutes for ashbāl (lion cubs) to train and hone their military skills and to teach them the book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam).

A Dabiq article appealed to the early history of Islam to justify its use of children as soldiers: As expected, the kuffār were up in arms about the Khilāfah’s use of ‘child soldiers.’ Yet this was the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), who would allow those capable from amongst the young Sahābah [companions of Prophet Muhammad] to participate in his battles against the mushrikīn [polytheists]. It was two young boys from the Ansār who struck down Abū Jahl in the battle of Badr. And just as the children of the Sahābah stained their swords with the blood of yesterday’s tāghūt, the Fir’awn of the Ummah, so too will the children of the Khilāfah [caliphate] stain their bullets with the blood of today’s tawāghīt, bi idhnillāh.

Indeed, Jihadis adhere to a literal reading of Sharia law, and models its behavior on the examples set by the warrior Prophet Muhammad himself. Killing all disbelievers in the name of Allah and imposing Islam as the only true religion on earth are the common themes in the sections of the Quran written later in Muhammad’s life, which supersede anything written previously to the contrary, and in the writings of Jihadis. Here are a few examples.

Quran 9:5, commonly referred to as the “Verse of the Sword,” commands true believers to “kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them.”

Quran 9:29 states: “Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Quran 9.33 states: “It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).”

Jihadi Dabiq Issue 15 states: We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers… So in the end, you cannot bring an indefinite halt to our war against you. At most, you could only delay it temporarily…we wage war against you to stop you from spreading your disbelief and debauchery – your secu­larism and nationalism, your perverted liberal values, your Christianity and atheism – and all the depravity and corruption they entail.

Jihadi Dabiq Issue 7 states: “Allah has revealed Islam to be the religion of the sword, and the evidence for this is so profuse that only a zindīq (heretic) would argue otherwise…Islam and its justice will prevail on the entire Earth.”

Jihadi acts of brutality, including vicious killings of children, are operationalizing, with the help of 21st century technology, a literal reading of purist Islamic ideology, which began in the 7th century. We finally have a president who is not afraid to speak the truth about the roots of the global Jihadi threat we are facing.

There is a stereotype that young people from Europe who leave for Syria are victims of a society that does not accept them and does not offer them sufficient opportunities. Another common stereotype is that radicalization is still far too often misunderstood as a process resulting from failed integration. But the better young people are integrated, the greater the chance is that they radicalize! This hypothesis is supported by a lot of evidence.

Terrorists seem to be models of successful integration: for instance, Mohammed Bouyeri, the Moroccan-Dutch terrorist who shot the filmmaker Theo van Gogh to death, then stabbed him and slit his throat in 2004. Bouyeri was a well-educated guy with good prospects.

This goes against the liberal belief that to defeat terrorism, Europe must invest in economic opportunities and social integration. Dounia Bouzar, director of the Center for Prevention, Deradicalization and Individual Monitoring (CPDSI), a French organization dealing with Islamic radicalism, studied the cases of 160 families whose children had left France to fight in Syria. Two-thirds were members of the middle class.

These findings dismantle the myth of the proletariat of terror. According to a new World Bank report, “Islamic State’s recruits are better educated than their fellow countrymen”.

Poverty and deprivation are not, as John Kerry said, “the root cause of terrorism.” Studying the profiles of 331 recruits from an Islamic State database, the World Bank found that 69% have at least a high school education, while a quarter of them graduated from college. The vast majority of these terrorists had a job or profession before joining the Islamist organization. “The proportions of administrators but also of suicide fighters increase with education,” according to the World Bank report. “Moreover, those offering to become suicide bombers ranked on average in the more educated group.”

Less than 2% of the terrorists are illiterate. The study also points to the countries that supply ISIS with more recruits: Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey and Egypt. Examining the economic situation of these countries, researchers have discovered that the richer the countries are the more likely will provide foreign recruits to the terrorist group.

Another report explained that the poorest countries in the world don’t have exceptional levels of terrorism.

Despite the evidence, a progressive mantra repeats that Islamic terrorism is the result of injustice, poverty, economic depression and social unrest. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The thesis that poverty breeds terrorism is pervasive today in the West, from French economist Thomas Piketty to Pope Francis. It is probably so popular because it plays on Western collective guilt, seeking to rationalize what the West seems to have trouble accepting: that terrorists are not driven by inequality, but by hatred for Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian values of the West. For Israel, this means: What are Jews doing on land that — even though for 3,000 years it has been called Judea — we think should be given to Palestinian terrorists? And these terrorists most likely wonder why they should negotiate, if instead they can be handed everything they want.

For the Nazis, the “inferior race” (the Jews) did not deserve to exist but must be gassed; for the Stalinists, the “enemies of the people” were not entitled to continue living, and had to die of forced labor and cold in the Gulag; for the Islamists, it is the West itself that does not deserve to exist and has to be blown up.

It is anti-Semitism, not poverty, that led the Palestinian Authority to name a school after Abu Daoud, mastermind of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

The Paris bombings was a blow unleashed by an ideology that does not seek to fight poverty, but to gain power through terror. It is the same Islamist ideology that murdered the Charlie Hebdo journalists and the policemen on duty to protect them; that forced British writer Salman Rushdie into hiding for a decade; that slit the throat of Father Jacques Hamel; that butchered commuters in London, Brussels and Madrid; that assassinated hundreds of Israeli Jews on buses and restaurants; that killed 3,000 people in the United States on September 11; that assassinated Theo Van Gogh on an Amsterdam street for making a film; that committed mass rapes in Europe and massacres in the cities and deserts of Syria and Iraq; that blew up 132 children in Peshawar; and that regularly kills so many Nigerians that no one now pays any attention to it.

It is the Islamist ideology that drives terrorism, not poverty, corruption or despair. It is them, not us.

The whole history of political terror is marked by fanatics with advanced education who have declared war on their own societies. Khmer Rouge’s Communist genocide in Cambodia came out from the classrooms of the Sorbonne in Paris, where their leader, Pol Pot, studied writings of European Communists. The Red Brigades in Italy was the scheme of wealthy privileged boys and girls from the middle class. Between 1969 and 1985, terrorism in Italy killed 428 people. Fusako Shigenobu, the leader of the Japanese Red Army terrorist group, was a highly-educated specialist in literature. Abimael Guzman, founder of the Shining Path in Peru, one of the most ruthless guerrilla groups in history, taught at the University of Ayacucho, where he conceived of a war against “the democracy of empty bellies.” “Carlos the Jackal,” the most infamous terrorist in the 1970s, was the son of one of the richest lawyers in Venezuela, Jose Altagracia Ramirez. Mikel Albizu Iriarte, a leader of the Basque ETA terrorists, came from a wealthy family in San Sebastián. Sabri al-Banna, the Palestinian terrorist known to the world as “Abu Nidal,” was the son of a wealthy merchant born in Jaffa.

Some of the British terrorists who have joined the Islamic State come from wealthy families and attended the most prestigious schools in the UK. Abdul Waheed Majid made the long journey from the English town of Crawley to Aleppo, Syria, where he blew himself up. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the mastermind of the kidnapping and killing of the American journalist Daniel Pearl, graduated from the London School of Economics. Kafeel Ahmed, who drove a jeep full of explosives into the Glasgow airport, had been president of the Islamic Society at Queen’s University. Faisal Shahzad, the failed terrorist of Times Square in New York, was the son of a high official in the Pakistani military. Zacarias Moussaoui, the twentieth man of the 9/11 attacks, had a PhD in International Economics from the London’s South Bank University. Saajid Badat, who wanted to blow up a commercial flight, studied optometry at London University. Azahari Husin, the terrorist who prepared the bombs in Bali, studied at the University of Reading.

Britain’s MI5 revealed that “two-thirds of the British suspects have a middle-class profile and those who want to become suicide bombers are often the most educated.” Most British terrorists also had a wife and children, debunking another myth, that of terrorists as social losers. Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the suicide bombers of July 7, 2005, studied at Leeds Metropolitan University. Omar Khan Sharif had a scholarship at King’s College before carrying out a suicide bombing on Tel Aviv’s seafront promenade in 2003. Sharif was not looking for economic redemption, but to slaughter as many Jews as possible.

Virtually all the heads of international terror groups are children of privilege, who led gilded lives before joining the terror ranks. 15 of the 19 suicide bombers of September 11 came from prominent Middle Eastern families. Mohammed Atta was the son of a lawyer in Cairo. Ziad Jarrah, who crashed Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, belonged to one of the most affluent Lebanese families in Lebanon.

Nasra Hassan, who wrote an informed profile of Palestinian suicide bombers for The New Yorker, explained that, “of 250 suicide bombers, not one was illiterate, poor or depressed.” The unemployed, it seems, are always the least likely to support terror attacks.

Europe and America gave everything to these terrorists: educational and employment opportunities, popular entertainment and sexual pleasures, salaries and welfare, and religious freedom. These terrorists, such as the “underwear bomber,” Umar Farouk Abulmutallab, the son of a banker, have not seen a day of poverty in their life. Paris’s terrorists rejected the secularist values of liberté, egalité, fraternité; British jihadists who bombed London and now fight for the Caliphate rejected multiculturalism; the Islamist who killed Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam repudiated Dutch relativism, and ISIS’s soldier, Omar Mateen, who turned Orlando’s Pulse Club into a slaughterhouse, said he wanted to purge it from what he perceived as libertine licentiousness and apparently his own homophilic wishes.

If the West does not understand the real source of this hatred, but instead indulges in false excuses such as poverty, it will not win this war being waged against us.


Can we really afford to allow Muslim immigrants into the United States who believe that they ought to fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion will all be for Allah? What better predictor of terror risk could there be than those who believe that they must “kill the non-believers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them?” This is the origin of Islamic terrorism. It’s the acid test for every Muslim migrant.

September 11 made me what I am.  The Islamic hijackers call out Allahu Akbar. The Islamic supremacist term originated with Mohammed’s massacre of the Jews of Khaybar and means that Allah is greater than the gods of non-Muslims. Thousands of Muslims cheered the attack in those parts of Israel under the control of the Islamic terrorists of the Palestinian Authority. They shouted Allahu Akbar and handed out candy.

But similar ugly outbreaks of Islamic Supremacism were also taking place much closer to home. On John F. Kennedy Boulevard, in Jersey City, across the river from Manhattan, crowds of Muslim settlers celebrated the slaughter of Americans. “Some men were dancing, some held kids on their shoulders,” a retired Jersey City cop described the scene. “The women were shouting in Arabic.”

Similar Islamic festivities broke out on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, a major Islamic settlement area, even as in downtown Manhattan, ash had turned nearby streets into the semblance of a nuclear war. Men and women trudged over Brooklyn Bridge or uptown to get away from this strange new world. Many just walked. They didn’t know where they were going.

That Tuesday was a long and terrible education. In those hours, millions of Americans were being educated about many things: what happens when jet planes collide with skyscrapers, how brave men can reach the 78th floor with 100 pounds of equipment strapped to their backs and what are the odds are of finding anyone alive underneath the rubble of a falling tower. They were learning about a formerly obscure group named Al Qaeda and its boss. But they were also being educated about Islam.

Islamic terrorism was once something that happened over there. You saw it on the covers of Time or Newsweek back when those were staples of checkout counters and medical offices. But even after the World Trade Center bombing, it wasn’t truly over here. But now it was. The war was here.

Each generation is born into history out of a moment of crisis. We are defined by our struggles. By the wars we fight and do not fight. On a Tuesday morning in September, my generation was born into history. Some of us were born into it better than others.

On September 11, some of us opened our eyes.  The great lesson of that Tuesday morning was that it wasn’t over. It wasn’t over when we understood that we wouldn’t find anyone alive in that twisted mass of metal and death. It wasn’t over when the air began to clear. It wasn’t over when the President of the United States spoke. It wasn’t over when the planes began to fly again and the TV switched from non-stop coverage of the attacks and back to its regularly scheduled programming. It wasn’t over when we were told to mourn and move on.

It still isn’t over. After every attack, Boston, Orlando, San Bernardino, New York, Paris, Manchester, London, Barcelona, we are encouraged to mourn and move on. Bury the bodies, shed a tear and forget about it. Terrible things happen. And we have to learn to accept them. But Tuesday morning was not a random catastrophe. It did not go away because we went back to shopping. It did not go away with Hope and Change. Appeasing and forgetting only made it stronger.

Everything I needed to know about Islam, I learned on September 11. The details of the theology came later. And so did you. “Where were you?” is not just a question to be asked about September 11, 2001. It is an everyday question. What are you doing today to fight the Islamic terrorists who did this? And tomorrow? I found my answer through my writing. Others have made a more direct contribution. But it’s important that we keep asking ourselves that question.

The 9/11 hijackers, the members of Al Qaeda, of ISIS, of the Muslim Brotherhood and the entire vast global terror network, its supporters and fellow travelers asked themselves that question every day. They are still asking it.

From the Iranian nuclear program to the swarm of Muslim Brotherhood organizations in America, from the Muslim migrant surge into Germany to the sex grooming gangs of the UK, they have their answers. Our enemies wake up every day wondering how to destroy us. Their methods, from demographic invasion to WMDs, from political subversion to random stabbings, are many.

A new and terrible era in history began on 9/11. We are no more past it than we were past Pearl Harbor at the Battle of Midway. Its origins are no mystery. They lie in the last sound that came from Flight 93, Allahu Akbar. We are in the middle of the longest war in American history. And we still haven’t learned how to fight it.


The British government has demanded that 50 per cent of all 5,500 public appointments in Britain go to women, and 14 per cent to ethnic minorities. Constitution minister Chris Skidmore unveiled the targets, which the government wants to see met by 2022, as part of the Cabinet Office’s 10-point Diversity Action Plan.

Reverse discrimination has gone wild! But women choose jobs that allow them to have greater flexibility to raise their families—jobs that have fewer hours, less travel and less stress? Women are also likely to remain out of the workforce for some period of time when their children are young.

These women make perfectly sensible choices to turn down some high paying jobs that would be inconsistent with their preferred work-life balance. In the short run this choice limits the kinds of jobs that women are prepared to take, and in the long run, absences from the workforce make it more difficult to keep up with the latest developments in a given field or to acquire the practical experience necessary to advance to higher positions. Women who want to raise children face higher opportunity costs by remaining in the work force, and hence tend to reduce hours over time. The sorting effects in markets thus reflect worker priorities. One of the vices of the standard models for discrimination is that they assume that worker preferences are the same for men and women, when in fact they are not. Wages and occupational choices are not solely driven by employers.

In addition, it is all too easy for these studies to ignore differences in demand. Thus it is common for researchers to sloppily compare studies across fields. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that in the male-dominated profession of information technology, wages are on average 27 percent higher than in human resource management, a female-dominated profession. But it is wrong to conclude that these data offer evidence of discrimination. First, how can these fields involve similar skills when their training and job requirements are vastly different? Second, the data do measure differences in average wages between men and women in the same professions. Third, the higher demand for technical skills could easily explain the salary differentials.

The new quotas, drawn up to engineer the demographics of public bodies like the Forestry Commission and institutions such as the British Museum to reflect the general population, replace commitments made in 2013 by the Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition pressing for 50 per cent of new appointees to be female.

As a result of the previous targets, the proportion of public appointments going to women grew from 34 per cent in 2013/2014 to 49 per cent in 2016/17.

Of the five and a half thousand public appointees currently in post across large institutions and public bodies, 43 per cent are women and 10 per cent are from ethnic minority backgrounds.

This endless quest to find hidden forms of discrimination against women ignores the explicit and persistent discrimination in their favor. Many institutions, public and private, loudly trumpet their insatiable desire for diversity and inclusion, which translates into special preferential programs for recruitment, training, and development of underrepresented groups. To be sure, this groundswell ignores the color- and sex-blind provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which reads: “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…”—the provision ends with an explicit prohibition against preferential treatment in favor of any group.

Skidmore said that while he welcomed the soaring numbers of female appointees since the first targets were put in place, “there’s more we need to do across all aspects of diversity.”

Launching the Diversity Action Plan, which he said “will make public appointments even more open and accessible to all”, the constitution minister said:

“We need diverse ideas and perspectives at the helm of our public bodies, so it is vital that public appointees truly reflect the society they serve.”

Breitbart London has previously reported instances in which the Tory government has made this assertion about diversity, as part of its drive to reduce the number of white men across British institutions.

In its Diversity Action Plan, for example, the Cabinet Office claims: Inclusive and diverse public boards are more effective, better able to understand their customers and stakeholders, and benefit from fresh perspectives, new ideas, vigorous challenge and broad experience.

But, after more than a decade of research into the effects of diversity on teams’ problem-solving abilities, business experts Alison Reynolds and David Lewis have concluded that it is cognitive diversity, not identity-based diversity, which improves a group’s performance. Received wisdom is that the more diverse the teams in terms of age, ethnicity, and gender, the more creative and productive they are likely to be. But having run the execution exercise around the world more than 100 times over the last 12 years, we have found no correlation between this type of diversity and performance.

Explaining that cognitive diversity has been defined as differences in perspective or information processing styles, Reynolds and Lewis said their research showed significant correlation between high cognitive diversity and high performance. But cognitive diversity, they found, is not predicted by factors such as gender, ethnicity, or age.

In a piece published earlier this week revealing that increasing diversity on boards can reduce performance, Ali Akyol, a corporate governance expert at the University of Melbourne, called government regulations aimed at increasing gender diversity frictions likely to make company outcomes worse.




Police in Walthamstow have issued e-fit images of allahuakbars wanted in connection with two homophobic assaults on gay men who were told they were not welcome in the area.

The first attack was perpetrated against a 47-year-old man who was walking along High Street, Walthamstow E17, with his with his partner after a night out.

They were approached by an allahuakbar who asked them if he could take a picture of them, and then asked if they were gay. The two men walked away, but the allahuakbar then grabbed hold of the victim and said ‘you are not welcome’ and grappled with him.

While the victims in this first case were left shaken but uninjured, the second incident was more violent. This even saw a 31-year-old man accosted by three allahuakbars who were unknown to him as he walked along Hoe Street, E17, with two friends.

One of allahuakbars punched the victim in the face and shouted homophobic abuse at him. The punch caused the victim to fall to the floor and the allahuakbar made off. The victim suffered a black eye and cuts and bruises — he did not require hospital treatment. The victims, who were both left extremely shaken after the incidents, provided detailed descriptions of the allahuakbar from which the two e-fits were produced. Based on the descriptions they received, police have not ruled out the possibility that the same allahuakbars were behind both attacks.





Oxford Professor Nigel Biggar is the latest target of an attack from the identity politics-driven left, being set upon by campaign groups for failing to adhere to the notion of post-colonial guilt.

Biggar penned an article in the Times on November 30th entitled “Don’t feel guilty about our colonial history”, where he used historical facts to lay out the case against unrestrained guilt complexes often encouraged by social democrats and the political left.

Hardly uncritical of the mistakes of the British Empire, Prof. Biggar wrote: Political order might seem like a very unexciting value, but without it nothing good can flourish. That’s why indigenous peoples sometimes chose to move into territories governed by colonial regimes, rather than away from them. Thus millions of Chinese took refuge in British Hong Kong during the early years of communist rule in Beijing, and especially the anarchy of the Cultural Revolution. What gave colonial rule popular legitimacy was not democratic elections but its provision of the goods of security and the rule of law.

Since the article’s publication a campaign group known as “Common Ground” — made up of around 100 students funded by other student bodies — have set upon Biggar, labelling him as a bigot and a racist for refusing to capitulate to the long-standing leftist idea that the British Empire should only be remembered for its negative aspects.

The race-driven group which says it aims to “investigate” Oxford University’s colonial past decried Prof Biggar’s column, stating:

As members of Common Ground Oxford, we stand in solidarity with all those condemning Nigel Biggar’s article in The Times on 30th November, ‘Don’t Feel Guilty About Our Colonial History’. The inaccuracy displayed by Biggar, as well as a conspicuous lack of rigour, must not go unchallenged. He implies that colonised societies had no political order prior to colonisation, invoking a racist, hackneyed, and fictional trope about the nature of pre-colonial societies.

Biggar did not state colonized societies had on political order before British colonialism, but wrote that “sometimes” indigenous peoples preferred to live under the provision of security and the rule of law.

The motivations for the attacks on Biggar however may be more than a response to his column in the Times, given his standpoint on social conservatism and his role as a canon of Christ Church Cathedral.

In June, Pope Francis announced Biggar as a philosopher to his Pontifical Academy for Life.

Oxford University has so far stood behind Biggar, with a spokesman stating: We absolutely support academic freedom of speech. The history of empire is a complex topic and it is important that universities consider our global history from a variety of perspectives. This is a valid, evidence-led academic project and Professor Biggar, who is an internationally-recognized authority on the ethics of empire, is an entirely suitable person to lead it.

Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices. Associated social actions may include nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, supremacism, and related social phenomena.

Racial arsonist Al Sharpton is demanding the federal government shut down the historic Jefferson Memorial in the nation’s capital because the long-dead president honored by the monument owned slaves!

Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president, the man who wrote the justly revered Declaration of Independence, is also the man who penned this noble sentence: “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Perhaps he was thinking of future Al Sharptons when he wrote it.

Boiled down, this is a case where one of the most important, heroic, inspirational, intellectually robust, accomplished, and beloved figures in American history is under assault by one of the most repulsive, cowardly, sociopathic, intellectually deficient, unaccomplished, and despised figures in American history.

That anyone would care what a racial-hoax-generating charlatan thinks of Jefferson’s legacy is a revealing and sad commentary on the profound damage that eight long years of Barack Obama’s racial agitations inflicted on America. Sharpton himself is a living example of this ugliness and depravity; recall that President Obama made the vile so-called community leader a trusted confidant and brought his friends, the pro-cop-killer leaders of Black Lives Matter, to the White House as honored guests.

Black Lives Matter is cheerleading the destruction of the republic. In light of recent events, Black Lives Matter Chicago is effectively demanding the repeal of the First Amendment. “After WWII, Germany outlawed the Nazis, their symbols, salutes & their flags. All confederate flags & statue, & groups should be illegal,” the group tweeted.

Something that Sharpton fails to grasp, or may be choosing to ignore, is that applying the ideas or moral standards of today to a bygone age is a very dangerous game that some call presentism. It is a recipe for disaster and it reflects the Whig view of history, a laughable school of thought that holds that progress toward enlightenment and other good things is constant and inevitable. Another way of putting is, things have never been better than they are today and each day things get better. It is not easily reconciled with the onset of the Dark Ages that followed the collapse of the violent but civilizing Roman Empire.

Twelve of the nation’s 45 presidents owned slaves, and eight of them owned slaves while president. Those who owned slaves while president were George Washington, Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Zachary Taylor. Those who owned slaves but not while serving as president are Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S. Grant.

Tearing down statues of presidents that modern-day Americans may not even have heard of – thanks to the union-dominated public education system – benefits no one except maybe for demolition companies, the occasional real estate developer, and direct-mail firms servicing Democrats. No good can come of it.

Why should a city, state, or federal government put statues in public parks?  Doing so addresses no plausible market failure, while using taxpayers funds and, as demonstrated tragically over the past few weeks, generates controversy, polarization, and violence.

This is not erasing history but instead leaving it where it belongs, in the hands of private actors and mechanisms.  Historians, textbook authors, universities, learned societies, the History Channel, and many other individuals and organizations can all present their own views of history and battle for the hearts and minds of the public.  Government statues are government putting its thumb on the scale, which is one step down the slippery slope of thought control.

We’d all have been saved a lot of trouble if the organizations that demanded statues of Confederate generals everywhere had put them on private land instead of in public parks. We’d all be better off if the private owners of the Stone Mountain monument hadn’t sold it to the State of Georgia because they were too cheap and lazy to maintain it themselves.

In the past, had the purveyors of publicly-funded culture instead taken a principled and successful stand against using public lands and funds to push a certain view of history, no one would have to now waste his time sitting through city council meetings where politicians decide who deserves a statue, and who is to be thrown in the dustbin of history. Were we to quit using public parks as showcases for public indoctrination, we wouldn’t have to worry about the Church of Satan erecting a monument in the “free speech area” of a public park — as they recently did near Minneapolis.

The next time someone wants a statue of some politician, artist, or intellectual — whether they be communists, Confederates, or satanists — they ought to be told to buy a nice little plot of land somewhere — perhaps along a busy street or next to an important street corner in town — and put their statue there.

There are only three thousand neo-Nazis or white supremacists. But every student we’ve ever met in America is antifa in spirit, to put it in plain English. They do not allow conservative speakers to address conservative groups on their campuses, interrupt any meeting that does not adhere to political correctness, and have gone so far as to demand that white students leave the campus for three days in order to cleanse it from past white crimes and thoughts. We are talking about elite universities, including Berkeley, where the free-speech concept began in 1964. In other words, there is no free speech in American universities today, and the media and academia are complicit. What gets us is the amorality of the media and of academia, the deception, dishonesty, and race baiting against whites that passes as liberalism.

Encouraged by the media, the extreme left now decides who speaks on campuses and, of course, who appears on television. Fox News has become the equivalent of the enemy of the people during Bolshie time. They attack Pat Buchanan for writing the following: “Looking back over the history of Western Civilization, were not the explorers who came out of Spain, Portugal, France, Holland and England all white supremacists?” For God’s sake, as late as 1955, Winston Churchill was urging to keep England white. Belief in one’s superiority is no crime. Many proud blacks in America laugh at whitey’s weakness in sport and in the bedroom. Many Jews are amazed at white people’s lack of ambition and laziness. And many whites are proud of their heritage—which makes them feel superior as Europeans—and of what dead white Europeans gave to this world.

Like the Bolshie New Man that saw family members betray each other for the party’s good, today’s globalist elite label as neo-Nazis and racist anyone who tends not to go the whole hog for political correctness. Sixty-two percent of Americans do not wish for Confederate statues to come down. Sixty-two percent! Forget it, says the NY Times and other such New Man house organs. As few as forty patriots arrived in Boston with permission to march, but thousands of antifa counterprotesters armed with pepper spray and acid swept them out of the way. Yet the headlines were of neo-Nazis marching where the American Revolution began. New Man lives.

The agents of the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC) have been having a field day ever since Charlottesville: Here, for the whole world to see, as they would have the rest of us think, is proof that “white supremacy” or “racism” is alive and well.

Of course, in reality, the mayhem in Charlottesville proved no such thing. However, the hysteria over it should provoke the rest of us to ask of the self-appointed guardians of racial orthodoxy: How, in your eyes, does your average white person differ essentially from the most vicious of neo-Nazis or members of the Aryan Brotherhood?

In other words, for decades, hard leftists (and some who aren’t all that hard) have spared no occasion to castigate America—or, more specifically, AmeriKKKa—for its incorrigible and intractable “racism” or “white supremacy.” To hear the cogs in the wheels of RIC tell it, all white people are, ultimately, no better and just as bad as the worse of Klansmen and Nazis.

This is no exaggeration. Consider the following:

(1) University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill supplied a keen, if warped, insight into the leftist’s view of Western civilization generally, and America in particular, when, back in 2005, he in effect characterized all of those Americans who perished in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 as Nazis.

Specifically, Churchill called them “little Eichmanns.”

(2) Marc Lamont Hill, an academic and one-time Fox News contributor, agreed with Churchill’s assessment.

(3) Two black American law professors co-authored a piece with the title, “Charlottesville is America Everywhere.” Charlottesville is significant only because it signals the “normalization of the white supremacist movement” in America and “its intimate synergy with the administrative and institutional leadership in Washington D.C.”

What the authors call “white supremacy” is and has always been omnipresent in America. Now, though, it is being normalized once again.

(4) On CNN, Bakari Sellers and Nina Turner told Jake Tapper that the neo-Nazis and “white supremacists” in Charlottesville were just “the tip of the iceberg,” that they are, as it were, just more blatant manifestations of the “systemic racism” and “white supremacy” that are endemic in American life. Examples given include the “mass incarceration” of blacks, Hispanics, and “poor people;” income and wealth “inequality;” and “inequalities” in the quality of education that white children receive versus that received by blacks.

(5) At the Daily Kos, Kelly Macias writes that Charlottesville “served as yet another reminder for us that black bodies, bodies of color, and other marginalized people are not safe in America.”

“White supremacy is violent.” Macias, mind you, didn’t make this remark about Charlottesville. She made it about two white “progressive” activists who attended the same workshop that she attended. A white, female Democrat representative who supports charter schools and vouchers was invited to speak. Some of the black women in attendance decided that she was insufficiently “progressive” and decided to disallow her from speaking. Two white attendees, a man and a woman, shouted at them to allow the politician to speak.

Macias claims to have felt threatened by the white liberals’ demeanor.

(6) The ACLU too sees “white supremacy” as being omnipresent. Initially, it tweeted a photograph of a small white child holding a little American flag. The caption read: “This is the future that ACLU members want.”

A Temple University professor who (surprise, surprise!) specializes in the study of “race, gender, religion, and their intersections,” responded: “A White kid with a flag?!”

ACLU was quick to offer a mea culpa in a subsequent tweet: When your Twitter followers keep you in check and remind you that white supremacy is everywhere.

These are just some more recent illustrations of the left’s insistence that “white supremacy” and “racism” are wedged into every nook and cranny of America. Yet there are plenty of other examples of this worldview stretching back decades.

If you are white and you voted for George W. Bush, you voted for a “racist.”

If you support military action in the Middle East (and beyond), then you are “racist.”

If you voted for George H. W. Bush, then you’re a “racist.”

If you voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, then you are a “racist,” and a “fascist” to boot. (After all, as no less a figure than Coretta Scott King remarked: “I am scared that if Ronald Reagan gets into office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party.”)

If you voted for Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Sarah Palin, then you are “racist.”

If you like and want to fly the American flag, then you are a “racist.”

If you belong to the GOP, then you are a “racist.”

If you belong to the Tea Party, then you are a “racist.”

If you are Christian and conservative, then you are a “racist.”

If you are a Texan caught in Hurricane Harvey then you are a Republican and a Trump supporter who deserves to die because you are a “racist.”

If you advocate race-neutrality or “color blindness,” then you promote policies that are “racist.”

If you advocate for “equality of opportunity,” then you advocate for “racism.”

If you think that immigrants should assimilate to American society, then you are “racist.”

If you deny race, maintaining instead that there is but one race, the human race, then you are “racist.”

This list could be multiplied ad infinitum. If you support capitalism, Israel, the Fourth of July, America’s Founders, The Dukes of Hazzard, Gone With the Wind, Western civilization, drinking milk, or any number of other things, then you support “racism.”

The point by now should be clear: Ultimately, from the perspective of the RIC merchants, i.e. the left, there is no basic difference between the most aggressive and hate-filled of Klansmen or neo-Nazis and the most seemingly innocent of white children. In kind, there is no difference between the color-blind ideal of equality under the law and the swastika, slavery and the free market, a burning cross and opposition to “affirmative action” or the American flag.

The reaction to Charlottesville is moral-political theater. In the left’s mind, we are all guilty of “white supremacy.”

The Racism-Industrial-Complex needs it this way.

Racial discrimination against white people today is as real as the discrimination against black people was under segregation. We can talk about subjective experiences and do statistical correlations about differential outcomes until the cows come home. And that’s what most talk about racism is these days.

That and emotional outbursts, cries of, “Hands up, don’t shoot” and “I can’t breathe”.

But only one racial group in America is subject to a system of codes, regulations and laws discriminating against members of its race when it comes to employment and education.

Affirmative action is an inescapably real and racist as segregated water fountains.

Affirmative action is racial discrimination, not as a matter of opinion, but as a hard objective fact. Racial preferences reward and punish people based on their race. These preferences, no matter how they are disguised, pervade not just one region, the way that segregation did, but much of the country. Diversity is a mandate on campuses and in corporations across the country. And it’s the very definition of racism.

Defenders of affirmative action claim that such measures are necessary. And we can have that debate. But it’s really a debate defending racial discrimination by the government, by the educational system and by many of the country’s biggest corporations. And so before we have that debate, we should clarify that we are debating whether racial discrimination is sometimes justified.

And the side arguing for racial discrimination should not be allowed to legitimize its racism through weasel words like “reverse racism”. Racism is racism. No matter who the perpetrators and victims are.

Justifying racial discrimination is a repugnant idea. The defenders of affirmative action feel that they are justified. But George Wallace and Malcolm X felt the same way. Racists generally feel that they are justified. When their views are socially acceptable enough, they don’t even recognize their own racism.

The condescension, disbelief and contempt at that 55% number come from that willful blindness. And from class differences between white college educated elites and the white working class.

Working class white people are much more likely to feel discriminated against. But the perception of discrimination correlates across races with success and wealth. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to feel discriminated against. African-Americans have the highest perception of discrimination while Asian-Americans are the minority group with the lowest perception of discrimination.

But a majority of every racial group now feels discriminated against. And sizable majorities of every racial group blame the “prejudice of individual people” over government laws for their discrimination.

African-Americans blame individual prejudice over government policy by two to one. Asian-Americans blame individual prejudice by an even higher margin. White people and Latinos both blame individual prejudice over laws. Are we really becoming a more tolerant society when everyone is convinced that they are being oppressed by everyone else? Is this what the new identity politics utopia looks like?

We have become a broken multicultural society where most people are convinced that other races have it in for them. And the only answer that the Dems can come up with is more identity politics.

Democrats used to focus on class. Then they went so far down the rabbit hole of identity politics that they discarded white working class voters and became the party of minorities: no matter how wealthy. That 55% number has been used by the media to link white voters to the rise of Trump. And that’s true. But while the media paints nasty caricatures of its cultural enemies, it misses the ugly mug in the mirror.

Opposing Trump was a wealthy white woman who insisted that she was the real victim. Hillary Clinton didn’t come out of nowhere. Her Democrat predecessor was a wealthy black man whose media lackeys insisted that every criticism of him was racist. You can find that same dynamic across the Dem political machine where the real victims are wealthy, urban multicultural elites. The real victims are Linda Sarsour, Cory Booker, Tom Perez, Keith Ellison and a rash of other powerful figures.

The Dems don’t see anything absurd about a coterie of wealthy and powerful people claiming to be the victims on account of their DNA even as they Uber from one Washington D.C. cocktail party to another. But the carpenter in Iowa, the coal miner in Pennsylvania and the steelworker in Michigan do.

The media has diagnosed Trump’s white working class appeal as cultural. And that’s also true. But the left ignores the role of the culture war that it has amped up against white people. Its immediate response is to ridicule the idea. But in the niggling obsession with parsing every cultural product to find racism, white people remain a safe target by default and by ideological orientation.

Go back a few decades and every group was a fair target. Comedians thrived on breaking taboos. And no one was off limits. Today it’s all limits. And only one group is cultural fair game.

When lefty comedians talk about the social justice of comedy ‘punching up’ at the privileged instead of ‘punching down’ at the oppressed: that leaves two targets, wealthy white people and poor white people. And it’s the latter group that remains a safe and popular target for class contempt.

Is it any wonder that group feels discriminated against? Or that the groups doing the discriminating can’t see past their own cultural biases?

But forget about the jokes.

The denunciations of ‘whiteness’ that began on campus and spilled out into politics and the media would be utterly unacceptable if they were directed at ‘blackness’. White supremacy has been redefined to mean that the existence of ‘whiteness’ is itself a form of supremacism that must be destroyed. This destruction encompasses a culture war and regulatory war, but has been known to turn violent.

When Obama endorsed the racial supremacists of Black Lives Matter even as members of the hate group boasted of invading “white spaces” to harass white people, how was that any different than the winking support that the KKK received from Democrat politicians for its campaigns of racist terror?

When that same administration gave a pass to voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party, how was that anything other than a recreation of the old racist charades of segregation?

Racial discrimination against white people is embedded in laws, it’s reflected in hiring practices and educational opportunities, and pervades the culture. The discrimination perceived by a majority of white people is real. The only counterarguments against it are condescension and contempt by the dominant culture. And that dominant culture is the one that is doing the discriminating.

America isn’t divided racially so much as it’s divided culturally between big, powerful coastal cities and the struggling towns of the heartland. Coastal elites use racial division as a marker of identity. The clash over the anthem is an expression of the struggle between two cultures. On one side is America. On the other kneel the multicultural grievance elites who reject America because they have found the nobler cause of fighting against American racism. Their loyalty isn’t to America, but to diversity.

The elites champion an unceasing battle against ‘whiteness’, yet ridicule the idea that white people might feel discriminated against. They legalize discrimination against white people, yet alternate between dismissing and justifying its existence. And then they act shocked that they lost the white vote.

The media writes up polls such as these as a backlash to a more “tolerant” society. It isn’t tolerance that this is a backlash to. It’s intolerance. Discrimination isn’t tolerance. Not even when you try to justify it as an attempt to balance the scales in order to right an old wrong. It’s the essence of intolerance.

The original sin of civil rights was trying to fight racism with more racism and discrimination with more discrimination. The only thing that trying to fight racism with more racism does is create more racism.

We can have a just society. We can have an equal society. We can have a tolerant society. Or the left can go on fighting ‘whiteness’ and denouncing ‘white privilege’. And then we’ll achieve the Great Intersectional Utopia of living in a society in which everyone feels oppressed by everyone else.




Sebastian Kurz has rejected migrant redistribution quotas, as the European Union remains deeply divided on migration following a summit this week. Kurz agreed with Tusk in rejecting the mandatory migrant quotas, which have also been deeply rejected by Central European member states like Hungary and Poland.

“Tusk is right when he says that mandatory refugee quotas have not worked in the EU, so I will argue that this incorrect refugee policy is changed,” Kurz told us.

Kurz added that it was positive that Tusk and some European countries are committed to a proper external border protection and the use of more EU funds.

On Thursday, the Visegrad Group — a bloc consisting of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic — announced they would be providing €35 million to Italy to beef up the shared European Union border and combat mass illegal migration.

The European Union Commission does not agree with Tusk or Kurz’s stance on the quota issue, with stupid Avramopoulos saying: The paper prepared by President Tusk is unacceptable. It is anti-European, and it ignores all the work we have done during the past years and we’ve done this work together.

Stupid Merkel, who has driven much of the EU’s agenda on migration in recent years, has backed the Commission and distanced herself from Tusk’s statement. Merkel spoke on Friday about the Brussels summit on migration issues within the political bloc, saying: Here, the positions have not changed. Solidarity must not only exist in the external dimension, it must also exist internally, and here we have a lot of work to do.

The niggers and allahuakbars who invade Europe are not refugees, but migrants. A refugee is a person who flees to the nearest safe country, not passing throughout many countries looking for a better life. Europe is committing suicide. An Afghan makes most of his trip overland. He could have stopped in any number of relatively peaceful and comfortable Muslim countries he passed through on the way. He didn’t. He, like the other migrants, insisted on Europe, and, indeed, Western Europe.

Corrupt terrorist Erdoğan plays a political game. Whenever Turkey wants to put the pressure on Europe it turns on the tap and lets more pseudo-refugees through. If Erdoğan really wanted to, Turkey could more effectively control the flows of pseudo-refugees. What we are seeing is a reflection of Turkey’s problematic relationship with EU. In the meantime, Greece’s easternmost islands are paying the price.

Europeans suffer from niggers, allahuakbars, and Gypsies.  Niggers and ragheads terrorize and rape, and Gypsies steal.  The unelected Eurokleptocrats like it this way, because they want to replace the freedom-loving Europeans with obedient morons.

One billion niggers and allahuakbars will try to invade EU in ten years. Many carry HIV and other terrible contagious viruses. Smugglers in cahoots with NGOs make billions of euros every month.  This madness brings uncontrollable crimes, heavy burdens on health systems, and the grand clash of cultures. It will cost Europeans trillions of euros, the loss of their countries, and the loss of their freedom.  This is the end of Graecoroman civilization and the start of the global caliphate. So long Europe!  So long!

In our digital age with the internet and mobile phones, everyone knows about our prosperity and lifestyle. The answer to illegal migration is not fatalistically to sit back and wait for the migrant influx. The answer is, based on a new starting-date, to change EU’s outdated and unsustainable welfare policies, which stem from a pre-globalization era, and in this way actively work to make it less attractive for millions of migrants to venture to EU in the first place.

European leaders do not to care that their continuing migration policies and welfare systems support an entire industry of human traffickers, who prey on the desire of hopeful migrants to reach Europe; the traffickers are making billions. Migrant smuggling has emerged as one of the most profitable and widespread criminal activities for organized crime in EU. The migrant smuggling business is now a large, profitable and sophisticated criminal market, comparable to the European drug markets. European politicians are indirectly responsible for the existence of this industry. Day after day, the Lying Press presents us with the same Fake News: “Refugees saved from danger at sea!” Every word is a miserable lie! There are no refugees. They were not “in danger at sea.” They were not “saved!” They were taxied by corrupt NGOs in cahoots with smugglers.

These are paying passengers, all from Africa or other places where there is no war. These passengers only pay Libyan smugglers such amounts for a seat in a modern NGO ship, because the smugglers can guarantee them that their journey will continue beyond the 12-mile limit on a modern NGO sea-going vessel. The modern NGO ship waits patiently outside the 12-mile limit for the smuggler ship — informed beforehand by their smuggling colleagues — to take the African passengers on board. These passengers from the inflatable weren’t rescued. They were passed from one smuggler to the next, in a perfectly orchestrated arrangement.

Because they are nothing but smugglers, the corrupt German NGOs do not transport their allegedly saved-from-danger-at-sea African passengers to the closest port, as is required and customary in the case of real danger of death at sea. No, because they are smugglers, they smuggle their passengers 500 kilometers to Italy. Then they put out to sea and the whole charade — refugees-danger at sea-saving — starts all over again.

Corrupt NGO ships are acting as a pull factor for people smugglers and migrants attempting to enter Europe illegally. Without the big German ships, the Libyan smugglers would not have a chance to sell their expensive tickets. Why should a raghead or a nigger put his hard-won money into the grubby paws of a dodgy Libyan, if he promises a trip to Europe, but can’t guarantee it? That is why the participation of the Germans is crucial. Without the guarantee of a secure, dependable continuation of the journey, made in Germany, there would be no business for the Libyans. So the notorious German NGOs are the crux and the fulcrum of all the organized human trafficking in the Mediterranean.

So Germans are once again the ones who are dragging the rest of Europe in the wrong direction. It is not only an icy, passive-aggressive woman at the head of their state, whose selfies advertise a folk migration to Western Europe. It is also those people, predominantly Germans, who are organizing, coordinating, and carrying out this folk migration.

Germans must not allow themselves to play the bogeyman of Europe again. They must not allow themselves to be singled out again, and be compelled once more to be ashamed of their wretched contribution to the history of Europe. It is the obligation of Germans to pillory the German smugglers of the Mediterranean, the worthless criminals who are sinning against all of Europe. The perpetrators are in our midst. Let us put a stop to their filthy works!

We are – these days – confronted not only with the old, well-known, quite natural, because gradual and evolutionary, phenomenon of individual migration but with a conceptually different phenomenon of mass migration. This is something else, not only quantitatively. Many politicians and their fellow travelers in the media and in the academy either do not understand this difference or pretend not to. They try to deal with mass migration as if it was the case of individual migration, which it is not. To my great regret, some old-fashioned liberals – who are traditionally against all kinds of borders – are making the same mistake, the mistake of not looking carefully enough and of not differentiating.

Everything indicates that it has become more or less a universal issue. Europe makes mass migration – due to its peculiar institutional arrangements and to its apparent absence of democracy – much easier. Mass migration has become a new, innovative social experiment of our era. The whole European continent has been transformed into an experimental laboratory.

The most important cause of the current mass migration is the radical shift in ideas, not a new, more tragic than in the past situation in countries from where the people migrate. As a consequence, people in many unsuccessful, poor and underdeveloped, broken, non-democratic, ungoverned or chaotic countries got the feeling that they have a right to migrate, to depart to more successful, rich, developed, orderly functioning, democratic countries which – in addition to it – offer generous social benefits to all newcomers.

It is – methodologically – very important to see that the concentrating on failed or broken countries covers only the supply-side of the whole story. This represents a huge limitless migration reservoir. It – in itself – cannot bring about migration. To make mass migration possible, there needs to be also a demand-side.

The demand for migrants – in spite of all the political rhetoric suggesting the opposite – comes from Europe. It was not only the reckless and ill-conceived explicit welcoming gesture made by Angela Merkel and some other leading European politicians in the summer of 2015. This was just the last drop. The European – perhaps more implicit than explicit – demand for mass migration has several distinct, but mutually reinforcing factors – some of them ideological, some systemic, some policy-driven.

The modern or post-modern ideological confusion connected with the ideas of multiculturalism, cultural relativism, continentalism (as opposed to the idea of nation-state), human-rightism and political correctness becomes the principle factor. It destroyed the traditional way of looking at the origin and organization of human society. It replaced the orientation towards a nation (or a nation-state) with continental or planetary thinking. It proclaimed that diversity was more than social cohesion and homogeneity. It sacrificed civil rights in favor of human rights. It changed the concept of rights from negative to positive ones. It incorporated migration among human rights.

Not less important is the fact that Occident has been gradually transformed from a society heralding performance, results and achievements, production and work to a society based on entitlements. Due to it, the economic and social policy has switched from the concept of a market economy to the concept of a social market economy where the adjective social has become more important than the nouns market and economy. Potential migrants understood the significance of this destructive shift very rapidly. They are not coming into Europe as a labor force but as recipients of all kinds of social benefits.

There is one Europe-specific factor. The original, post-second world war concept of the European integration has been transformed with the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties into the concept of unification. It has led

– to the weakening of nation-states and to the fundamental undermining of their sovereignty;

– to the elimination of borders throughout the European continent. Instead of introducing easily crossable borders, the borders were abolished with all kinds of unavoidable consequences;

– to the weakening of democracy and to the creation of a post-democratic, bureaucratically run Europe. It enormously enhanced the role of the European strongest country, Germany, and – symmetrically – it lowered the role of smaller EU member states. It brought about a typical imperial structure of society;

These processes led to the reappearance of old dreams about creating a new Europe and a new European man, someone who would be entirely deprived of his roots in individual nation-states. Migrants are believed to become the ideal input in the pan-European society, hence, the more of them, the better. We don´t suggest that this intention has been openly and explicitly formulated by all European politicians, but this mode of thinking has become – at least implicitly – a driving force behind the current migration deadlock.

Mass migration into Europe – much more than terrorism, which is just a supplementary factor – threatens to destroy European society and to create a new Europe which would be much different from the past as well as from a libertarian way of thinking.

Europe is committing suicide. By the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place the world we had to call home. This cataclysm has two causes: mass immigration and Europeans’ loss of faith in European beliefs, traditions, and legitimacy. Europeans feel guilty about their past; they’re jaded, weighted down by an existential tiredness, a feeling that their corner of the world has run out of steam and that their culture, for which they have insufficient regard, might just as well be replaced by another.

Tory MP Enoch Powell, one of the most brilliant and accomplished men of his time, in 1968 gave an extraordinary prescient oration, the so-called Rivers of Blood speech, in which he warned of the long-term results of UK immigration policy. Instead of prompting the immigration controls that 75% of his countrymen wanted even back then, the speech ended Powell’s career and made his name synonymous with hatred. Three out of four members of the general public were with him, but to the elite he was Hitler – and his instant official disgrace made it impossible, during the ensuing decades, to have anything remotely resembling an honest public debate on immigration. The Muslims kept pouring in, and though most Brits disapproved, they kept their heads down, shrugging silently. What else could they do? They knew that if they spoke up, they’d get the Powell treatment.

Meanwhile, slightly different versions of the same tragedy (or farce?) were being played out across northwestern Europe. Everywhere, the natives were lied to by their politicians and media: the scale of immigration, they were told, was far lower than widely believed; their country had always been “a nation of immigrants”; immigrants represented a net economic asset; crime statistics were inflated; and, naturally, Islam was a religion of peace. Those who criticized immigration – because they saw their culture disappearing, their secular democracy challenged, their taxes going to support indolent, criminal aliens, and their own access to housing and schools cut off by policies that favored foreigners – were called racists and nationalists, were accused of being fixated on skin color, and were ridiculed for failing to have a sophisticated enough appreciation of the value of cultural diversity.

If Britain had Powell’s speech, France had a strange prediction, Le Camp des Saints (1973), in which Jean Raspail envisioned a rapid conquest of western Europe by shiploads of Third Worlders crossing the Mediterranean. Just as Merkel triggered the latest immigrant tsumani by setting out a welcome mat, in Raspail’s book the invasion is set off by an ill-advised invitation by the Belgian government. Le Camp des Saints is deeply unpleasant in its depiction of the immigrant hordes, but although it was almost universally dismissed as racist, it predicted with uncomfortable precision Europe’s response to today’s alien influx – from the dithering politicians to the naively magnanimous churchmen.

The Dutchmen Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, who were demonized for criticizing mass Islamic immigration, ended up slain. Oriana Fallaci’s cry of outrage, The Rage and the Pride (2002), sold millions. How long ago all this seems! Fortuyn and Fallaci gained innumerable admirers. But what difference did any of it make? At certain moments all those years ago, some form of salvation seemed just around the corner. Yet the elites retained their power and kept banging away at the lies. And things just got worse.

Not just worse, crazier. When terrorist acts occurred, they were treated as one-offs, unrelated to immigration or Islam. British police covered up mass rapes of English girls by Muslim men for fear of being called racist. Rape victims kept mum for fear of inflicting visa problems upon their assailants, or, more generally, for fear of contributing to Islamophobia. Courts protected brutal Muslim criminals, some of them illegal aliens, from expulsion for fear they’d face trouble in their homelands – never mind the trouble they’d already caused to any number of European natives. While preachers of sharia Jew-killing were tolerated, if not presented with awards for being exemplary community leaders and bridge builders, critics of those preachers were put on trial. Europeans were told repeatedly that their nations’ imperial histories obliged them to shelter descendants of their former colonial subjects; but no one ever talked this way about the Turks’ own Ottoman Empire. And when Eastern European leaders kept out Muslims – and thereby kept violent crime, welfare costs, and other horrors that were becoming increasingly familiar in Western Europe – EU honchos railed at them to open their borders and share in the nightmare.

Under Communism, Eastern Europeans retained the tragic sense of life that many Western Europeans had long since lost; later, freed from Soviet despotism, they joined the EU only to find themselves being ordered around again – this time, being commanded to open their borders to what they, if not their Western European counterparts, recognized quite clearly as tyranny, though in a form different from the tyranny they had lived under. To these EU diktats they said no, in thunder. Eastern Europe’s experience with totalitarian oppression was so recent and so long that it is still able to discover real meaning in the word freedom – a word that educated Western Europeans have been taught for decades now to pronounce with a sneer.

Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt actually told his people, in a televised speech, that they were themselves uninteresting and that the nation handed down by their forebears for generation after generation belonged more properly to the masses who were currently pouring in from the Muslim world. Any self-respecting people would have been outraged and – well, would have done to Reinfeldt what the British elite did to Enoch Powell. But no, the Swedes just nodded in acceptance. Their betters had been telling them this sort of thing for so long that they were used to it.

We witness the crime of breathtakingly tragic readiness of millions of supposedly responsible adults to betray their country and culture, their antecedents and their posterity, to an alien and minatory invader. The craven European elites have, unforgivably, opened the city gates to let in the Trojan horse.

We – as a matter of principle and quite resolutely – protest against the decision of EU to launch infringement procedures against member states, in connection with their refusal to accept migrants on the basis of Brussels-dictated quotas. We protest against the intentions to punish us and force us into obedience.

Thanks to this step taken by the European Commission, those who did not know it so far, can now see, what is the genuine position of the member states within the European Union, and what kind of intentions the EU top leaders have with us.

What happened is a new, unprecedented move. We don´t accept it. We refuse mandatory settlements of foreigners on the territory of our state. We don´t wish the transformation of our country into a multicultural society of unadaptive communities, as we see them in France and Great Britain today. Not to speak of terrorism that we see happening almost every day, in connection with such massive migration.

We don´t agree with the argument that we have to be there, that we have to be present at the decision making table, that we must be part of the hard core of EU. We have been a part of the EU decision making process for many years, and we know that we do not make the decisions. Our presence there has no real importance. Our voice is being ignored. The decisions are not made by us. They are made about us.

Let us not be blackmailed by threats of termination of EU subsidies. We do not need them, and we do not want them. We refuse both our payments to Brussels, as well as the money coming from Brussels. We refuse the harmful and violently pushed through EU policy as a whole.

This leads us to the only possible and necessary conclusion. The time has come to start preparing our exit from EU. It is the only way to protect and save our state, which we have inherited from our ancestors, and which we have a duty to pass on to future generations as an independent entity.

Migrants carry highly contagious diseases. A failed asylum seeker from Yemen who was given sanctuary at a church in northern Germany to prevent him from being deported has infected more than 50 German children with a highly contagious strain of tuberculosis. The man, who was sheltered at a church in Bünsdorf between January and May 2017, was in frequent contact with the children, some as young as three, who were attending a day care center at the facility. He was admitted to a hospital in Rendsburg in June and subsequently diagnosed with tuberculosis — a disease which only recently has reentered the German consciousness.

Local health authorities say that in addition to the children, parents and teachers as well as parishioners are also being tested for the disease, which can develop months or even years after exposure. It remains unclear if the man received the required medical exams when he first arrived in Germany, or if he is one of the hundreds of thousands of migrants who have slipped through the cracks.

The tuberculosis scare has cast a renewed spotlight on the increased risk of infectious diseases in Germany since Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed in around two million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

A new report by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the federal government’s central institution for monitoring and preventing diseases, confirms an across-the-board increase in disease since 2015, when Germany took in an unprecedented number of migrants.

The Infectious Disease Epidemiology Annual Report — which was published on July 12, 2017 and provides data on the status of more than 50 infectious diseases in Germany during 2016 — offers the first glimpse into the public health consequences of the massive influx of migrants in late 2015.

The report shows increased incidences in Germany of adenoviral conjunctivitis, botulism, chicken pox, cholera, cryptosporidiosis, dengue fever, echinococcosis, enterohemorrhagic E. coli, giardiasis, haemophilus influenza, Hantavirus, hepatitis, hemorrhagic fever, HIV/AIDS, leprosy, louse-borne relapsing fever, malaria, measles, meningococcal disease, meningoencephalitis, mumps, paratyphoid, rubella, shigellosis, syphilis, toxoplasmosis, trichinellosis, tuberculosis, tularemia, typhus and whooping cough.

Germany has — so far at least — escaped the worst-case scenario: most of the tropical and exotic diseases brought into the country by migrants have been contained; there have no mass outbreaks among the general population. More common diseases, however, many of which are directly or indirectly linked to mass migration, are on the rise, according to the report.

The incidence of Hepatitis B, for example, has increased by 300% during the last three years, according to the RKI. The number of reported cases in Germany was 3,006 in 2016, up from 755 cases in 2014. Most of the cases are said to involve unvaccinated migrants from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The incidence of measles in Germany jumped by more than 450% between 2014 and 2015, while the number of cases of chicken pox, meningitis, mumps, rubella and whooping cough were also up. Migrants also accounted for at least 40% of the new cases of HIV/AIDS identified in Germany since 2015, according to a separate RKI report.

The RKI statistics may be just the tip of the iceberg. The number of reported cases of tuberculosis, for example, was 5,915 in 2016, up from 4,488 cases in 2014, an increase of more than 30% during that period. Some doctors, however, believe that the actual number of cases of tuberculosis is far higher and have accused the RKI of downplaying the threat in an effort to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.

In an interview with Focus, Carsten Boos, an orthopedic surgeon, warned that German authorities have lost track of hundreds of thousands of migrants who may be infected. He added that 40% of all tuberculosis pathogens are multidrug-resistant and therefore inherently dangerous to the general population:

“When asylum seekers come from countries with a high risk for tuberculosis infections, the RKI, as the highest German body for infection protection, should not downplay the danger. Is a federal institute using political correctness to conceal the unpleasant reality?

“The media reports that in 2015, the federal police registered about 1.1 million refugees. Around 700,000 to 800,000 applications for asylum were submitted and 300,000 refugees have disappeared. Have they been checked? Do they come from the high risk countries?

“One has the impression that in the RKI the left hand does not know what the right one is doing.”

At the height of the migrant crisis in October 2015, Michael Melter, the chief physician at the University Hospital Regensburg, reported that migrants were arriving at his hospital with illnesses that are hardly ever seen in Germany. “Some of the ailments I have not seen for 20 or 25 years,” he said, “and many of my younger colleagues have actually never seen them.”

Marc Schreiner, director of international relations for the German Hospital Federation (Deutschen Krankenhausgesellschaft), echoed Melter’s concerns:

“In the clinics, it is becoming increasingly common to see patients with diseases that were considered to have been eradicated in Germany, such as scabies. These diseases must reliably be diagnosed, which is a challenge.”

Christoph Lange, a tuberculosis expert at the Research Center Borstel, said that German doctors were unfamiliar with many of the diseases imported by migrants: “It would be useful if tropical diseases and other diseases that are rare in our lives played a bigger role in the training of physicians.”

The German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases recently held a five-day symposium in Hamburg to help medical practitioners diagnose diseases which are rarely seen in Germany. Those include:

Louse-borne relapsing fever (LBRF): During the past two years, at least 48 people in Germany were diagnosed with LBRF, a disease that was unheard of in the country before the migration crisis in 2015, according to the RKI report. The disease, which is transmitted by clothing lice, has been prevalent among migrants from East Africa who have been travelling for months to reach Germany on a single set of clothes. “We had all forgotten about LBRF,” said Hans Jäger, a Munich-based doctor. “It has a mortality rate of up to 40% if it is not recognized and not treated with antibiotics. The symptoms are like in malaria: fever, headache, skin rash.”

Lassa fever: In February 2016, a patient who had been infected in Togo, West Africa, was treated and died in Germany. After his death, a Lassa virus infection was confirmed in another person who had professional contact with the corpse of the deceased. The person was treated at an isolation facility and survived the disease. This was the first documented transmission of the Lassa virus in Germany.

Dengue fever: Nearly a thousand people were diagnosed with dengue fever, a mosquito-borne tropical disease, in Germany during 2016. This is up 25% from 2014, when 755 people were diagnosed with the disease.

Malaria: The number of people diagnosed with malaria jumped sharply in 2014 (1,007) and 2015 (1,063), but declined slightly in 2016 (970). Most of those affected contracted the disease in Africa, particularly from Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria and Togo.

Echinococcosis: Between 2014 and 2016, more than 200 people in Germany have been diagnosed with echinococcosis, a tapeworm infection. This represents in an increase of around 30%. Those affected contracted the disease in Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Greece, Kosovo, Iraq, Macedonia, Morocco, Syria and Turkey.

Diphtheria: Between 2014 and 2016, more than 30 people in Germany have been diagnosed with diphtheria. Those affected contracted the disease in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Libya, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

Scabies: Between 2013 and 2016, the number of people diagnosed with scabies in North Rhine-Westphalia jumped by nearly 3,000%.

Meanwhile, Germany currently is in the throes of a measles outbreak that health authorities have linked to immigration from Romania. Around 700 people in Germany have been diagnosed with measles during the first six months of 2017, compared with 323 cases in all of 2016, according to the Robert Koch Institute. The measles outbreak has spread to all of Germany’s 16 federal states except one, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, a state with a very low migrant population.

The epicenter of the measles crisis is in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany’s most populous state and also the state with the highest number of migrants. Nearly 500 people have been diagnosed with measles in NRW during the first six months of 2017; most of the cases have been reported in Duisburg and Essen, where a 37-year-old mother of three children died from the disease in May. Outbreaks of measles have also been reported in Berlin, Cologne, Dresden, Hamburg, Leipzig, Munich and Frankfurt, where a nine-month-old baby was diagnosed with the disease.

Europe is full of Last men. The point of contention is about a real place, with real peoples, and real nations that have existed for centuries on end, perhaps thousands of years—called Europa. Trends in immigration suggest what can only be termed, a self-imposed European death wish.

Look at any demographic map, preferably an interactive one. Of the 7.5 billion people presently on this earth, the vast majority, mostly in the Southern hemisphere, and who are generally poor and backward, are trying to get to the Northern hemisphere, where there are greater opportunities and overly generous welfare states. In recent polls 7 out 10 people from these lands say, given the chance, they want to flee their plight.

The last decade has seen more refugees, migrants and economic immigrants than at any point in human history: tens, if not hundreds of millions. They are dying in transit, drowning on the Mediterranean Sea and suffocating in the back of trucks.

Human trafficking is big business. The International Organization for Migration estimates that more than 1,000,000 migrants arrived in Europe by sea in each of the last three years, and tens if not hundreds of thousands more, by land. The numbers are astounding and only increasing. Some 5,000 new migrants arrive on the shores of Italy alone every day.

The U.S. estimates it is now populated by millions of illegal and undocumented immigrants. In fact, about one-fourth of the 42.4 million foreign-born people living in the United States today are illegal immigrants – this amounts to roughly 10.5 million, according to an objective study by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Geostrategists cannot comprehend billions (yes, potentially billions) of people moving from South to North. They can’t comprehend the risk or the total effects of this — a world without borders. Yet it is something that globalist political leaders and flat worlders actually seek and actively endorse.

Europe will change. This will happen… is happening, in our lifetimes, with globalist elites endorsing it as benign or even laudatory. The anywhere crowd with no attachment to place, custom or religion, favor such open borders.

The somewhere folks who still have some degree of loyalty to national identity, tradition and religion do not share the same attitude. As the global elites get their way we witness the end of Europe and the emergence of the Last man. The Last man is a description used by Friedrich Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra to describe men tired of life, who take no risks, and seek only comfort and idle security.

They exist without purpose or direction. Their lives are pacifist and comfortable. There is no longer any distinction between strength and weakness, excellence and mediocrity. Social conflict and challenges are defined out of existence. Everyone lives equally and in a “superficial” harmony of no consequence. There is no originality or flourishing social trends or ideas, merely fashions. There is no innovation or creativity. Individuality and thinking are suppressed.

According to Nietzsche, the Last man is the goal that modern society and western European civilization have set for themselves. Those writers who have sought to warn about this have failed to date. Nietzsche warned that the society of the Last man could be too barren and decadent to support the growth of healthy human life or great individuals. The Last man is only possible by mankind having bred an apathetic person who is unable to dream, who are unwilling to take risks, and simply earn their meager living and try to keep warm.

Even having children or concern for future generations is too much of a challenge and inconvenience. Leadership is nothing more than a greater degree of things and creature comfort. They are willing to make any temporary compromise so as to maintain their ease. The Last man, Nietzsche predicted, would be our response to the problem of nihilism.

Is Europe today ever closer to what Nietzsche described? Has European decadence and anomie, adrift from its original moorings and spirituality, and more and more awash in a sea of unassimilated and perhaps unassimilable immigrants, with yet more on the way, brought us to this state?

Others have described the onslaught of Islamist immigrants who come to the west to exploit its wealth and flee the scourge of poverty and war of the places they have vacated. They bring with them cultures of hate and the practice of terror as they find no way to immanentize their eschaton and instead end up hating the very new places they inhabit and the way of life that has sustained it for centuries.

Picture The Jungle, the notorious migrant camp outside of Calais that typifies this result. In their stead, they create separatist no-go zones of sharia law and so-called honor killings and murder. They are discontented, unattached, and strike out in terror — rebelling against life itself. Such horrific events are now normal in places like Nice, Paris, Munich, Madrid, Cologne, Manchester and London.

Our political elites, the very globalists who have opened the borders, say accept this new reality as the way of life, the new normal. It is less challenging to analogize this problem to the older problem of assimilating “European” immigrants.

Put simply, the citizens of Western states have lost their appetite for foreign wars; they have lost the hope of scoring any but temporary victories; and they have lost confidence in their way of life. Indeed, they are no longer sure what that way of life requires of them.

If present trends continue, and every evidence — from Merkel to Macron, from Sweden to Canada suggests it will (Trump excluded) — the migrants will not abate. They will continue to come (mostly single males of young adult status) on mass to open and willing arms.

Make no mistake this is nothing less than the utter and complete transformation of Europe into Eurabia, a cultural and political appendage of the Arab and Afro/Muslim world. This Eurabia is fundamentally anti-Christian, anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Semitic. And with every passing day, we see the further demise of the West, the onslaught of Eurabia (which could not be won at the gates of Vienna in 1683) and the nihilism — of the Last man.

Apparatchik-finger-wagging Dimitris Avramopoulos sounds for all the world like a Communist dictator – like Brezhnev trying to threaten and cajole Warsaw back into the fold. There is still time, said Avramopoulos darkly, to change everything and come back to normality. Normality – a fine Kremlin-worthy euphemism for obedience, deference, docility. Avramopoulos then engaged in a bit of apparatchik-style finger-wagging: noting that, on the migrant issue, most EU states – especially Sweden – have been showing proper solidarity and making enormous efforts in a real European spirit, he expressed regret that other member states continue to show no solidarity and to ignore our repeated calls to participate in this common effort. Solidarity; European spirit; common effort – more cozy euphemisms for obedience.

Avramopoulos explained that EU action against the three recalcitrant countries had reached the stage of infringement procedure, a term that any Soviet commissar would have been proud to have come up with. Although EU claims not to be a superstate, it has plainly arrogated to itself the role of deciding what is and is not reasoned. Poland, Hungary, and Czechia refuse to budge. Matteo Renzi says he’ll use an iron fist to compel the three countries to respect the rules – a handy reminder that Mussolini, at least in his early years, was also a socialist.

Just like Brezhnev, EU insists that it respects national sovereignty. Obviously that’s as much of a lie now as it was then. Like the Warsaw Pact, EU is no voluntary association of fraternal countries; it’s a budding dictatorship, a malevolent colossus, an ongoing exercise in the amassing of undemocratic power and the dissipation of freedom. It’s also a shaky vessel that’s taking on so many non-paying passengers that it’s destined to sink. The Brexiters were right to vote to jump ship. Let’s hope the Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians stick to their guns. The quicker the EU founders and the peoples of Europe regain their sovereignty, the better for them, and the better for the cause of freedom in the world.

The mass migration is a negative phenomenon for both the countries the migrants move in and the countries they move from. The migration brings about rapid changes in the ethnic composition of countries. It creates substantial cultural, social and political conflicts, shocks and tensions. It undermines the for centuries and millennia gradually developed habits, customs, behavioral patterns, ways of life, which define particular, evolutionary formed societies.

We can’t accept the politically correct, but empty rhetorics stressing “mutual respect”, “the acceptance of the identity of ‘the others’”, warnings against a “widespread xenophobia”, etc. We should insist that the current conflict about migration is neither a conflict between humanism and xenophobia, nor between solidarity and egoism, as is argued by some, especially European and American politicians and media. It is either a belief in freedom and in a nation state or the absence of such a belief.

Mass migration can be justified or defended only by the failed doctrine of multiculturalism. We should say loudly that this is a blind alley, a wrong way. For countries to function, they need a minimum (which is not low) degree of homogeneity and unity, not a maximum of heterogeneity (and diversity). The ideology of multiculturalism tries to deny this. Let´s distinguish the spontaneous, evolutionary risen multiculturality in some parts of the world from the aggressive and constructivist ideology of multiculturalism.

We live in Europe which has a specific history and – in addition to it – it has new specifics connected with the EU institutional arrangements. The current migration wave to Europe has been made possible by the fact that the EU borders have been open and unprotected for a long time and remain open even after all what has been happening since 2015. The inability, lack of will or even an intentional behavior of key European politicians not to protect these borders serve as a strong motivation for migration to continue. The European politicians probably still believe in the half-baked and ill-conceived utopian idea of Schengen which has proved to be fundamentally wrong and untenable. Borderless society can´t exist.

Central Europe has a long experience with communism. This is something which sharpened our eyes. The people in the Central and Eastern Europe do not forget communist experiments, similar in nature to the current migration project – including an unauthentic solidarity forced from the outside, the calls for self-sacrifice in the name of the future, and the attempts to create a new species, a new, truly European, man. What is happening today is not far from these failed ambitions. We should never forget that there is a huge difference between small and big countries when discussing migration. For small countries the danger of mass migration is something else than for big countries (or large empires). The big countries should be aware of that.

In addition to it, we shouldn’t mix supply and demand sides of migration. The current migration wave has not been primarily caused by the failure of countries of the Middle East and Northern Africa. Its apparent unstoppability is a by-product of the already long existing European crisis, of the systemic defects of European policies, of the built-in defects of EU institutional arrangements, and of the ideologic confusion and prejudices of European political elites. We consider the current policies of the German and Brussels establishment to be a bigger threat to the future of Europe than the migrants themselves.

Our criticism is not aimed at the migrants. It is aimed at the present day Europe, embodied in its temporary organizational form, called EU. The very causes of the current migration crisis can be found and fixed only in Europe. Blogs like Venitism can come up with the much needed arguments and thus contribute to a more rational and reasonable behavior of European politicians. We used the term “migration project”. We want to emphasize it again. The current migration is not the outcome of a spontaneous, respect deserving human behavior, it is the consequence of an erroneous project of multicultural political elites.

Pseudo-children pseudo-refugees arrive in EU covered by blankets to hide their old age! Children do not have wisdom teeth, because they erupt between the ages of 17 and 25.  So all those pseudo-refugees with wisdom teeth are big liars when they claim they are children in order to get extra benefits in EU.  Europeans are fooled by pseudo-children pseudo-refugees.

The ummah, or international community of allahuakbars, has not responded to the migrant crisis with much urgency, generosity, or compassion. Fahad al-Shalami, a Kuwaiti official, told us his country is unsuitable for migrants because it is expensive and suitable for workers, not migrants. Further, al-Shalami unabashedly stated, migrants posed a threat to his nation. “You cannot accept people who come from a different atmosphere, from a different place. These are people who suffer from psychological problems, from trauma.” Saudi Arabia has 100,000 empty air conditioned tents it refuses to a single migrant.