Category Archives: West fights back

Polish MEP: “Let get real, we are talking about muslims”

Posted on by

 

Richard Henry Czarnecki ([?r??art ?x?nr? t??ar?n?t?ski], born 25 January 1963 in London; pol. Ryszard Henryk Czarnecki) is a British-born Polish politician who is a Member of the European Parliament for the Lower Silesian and Opole constituency from Law and Justice. Prior to 2008, he was a member of the Self-Defense party.

He is part of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, and is a substitute for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and a member of the Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe. Member of the “Group on South Asia”,”South Asia Peace Forum” and “Forum for Balochistan” in the European Parliament.

(Thank you Ava Lon for the heavy lifting on this one)

After London Bridge attack, Republican congressman: ‘Kill them all’

Posted on by

This from iNews:

A US congressman has said that anyone who is a “radicalised Islamic suspect” should be killed. “Every conceivable measure should be engaged to hunt them down,” said Republican Clay Higgins, from Louisiana, in the aftermath of the London Bridge terror attack. Writing on a Facebook page belonging to his campaign one day after seven people were killed in the capital, the congressman elected in 2016, said: “Hunt them, identify them, and kill them. Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all.”

This appears to be the Facebook post:

I think its safe to say that Robert Mitchum would agree with him.

And so would the majority of people back in the day when you could identify an enemy who were a clear and existential threat to you, and actually fight back to win.

Compare what this congressman says, to the UK government, who consistently avoid doing or saying anything that might actually be effective, preferring instead to reenforce the enemy narrative while doing a little catch-and-release, political theatre after each attack.

Trudeau in Canada of course is even more bizarre with his “If you fight them they win” detraction from reality.

This man needs visible support even if it seems that there is risk attached to that support. This is a war fought first, and even foremost, on cultural grounds and we are losing that aspect of it, so the kinetic one isn’t even necessary for the enemies to win.

If we manage to give ourselves permission to actually fight back, we win in no time flat.

Remember how one man with a stick in Berkeley changed the dynamic with ANTIFA everywhere after that.

Now, police keep ANTIFA in check, remove masks at some locations and arrest them when they commit crimes against public order. This started once it became clear that the rest of us might actually be ready to defend ourselves.

Teen-day in the Polish Parliament did not go as the leftists planned

Posted on by

At Poland’s regular Teen Day in Parliament, a number of speakers came to discuss matters of importance to the MPs but it didn’t go as the left had hoped. This young teen pulled the full Raegan on them including the speech ender, Cartago delende est, where Carthage is now Brussels.

Gates of Vienna has more.

As a reminder, today’s two top stories in terms of major events were actually nothing of geopolitical importance.

The attack on the airport complex in Manila was in fact an angry gambler that wanted half his money back from the casino. Robbing a casino for half your loses is an odd combination of reasonable and psychotic I might add.

And the Vatican fire was actually at an auto-scrap yard in Rome.

 

Trump makes strong statements

Posted on by

The debate on this will be endless. I suspect we all know what he means, and I suspect we all know what he expects. The Saudis better pay attention. They have 4 years less a few months to make it happen. For the moment, they seem happy as hell to have a man in the White House who is not an Iranian proxy as they see it. But they seem to be having the riot act read to them.

Here is the Clarion page on this.

Item 3:

3. That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews and the slaughter of Christians.

Most of the speech used vague, relative terms like “terrorism” and “extremism.” The focus was almost entirely on ISIS and Iran. But then came this paragraph. President Trump identified the enemy not just as Islamist terrorist groups, but the Islamist extremism foundation necessary for those groups to manifest.

Of special note is the line about “persecution of Jews.” This was not stated with some moral equivalence about how Israel shares blame for stifling the nationalist aspirations of Palestinians. No, Trump identified anti-Semitism as a central problem outside of the context of Israel. That omission is powerful.

The identification of the enemy as Islamist extremism is refreshing, but as Dr. Daniel Pipes points out, “one statement does not a policy make.” Even Obama uttered the word “jihadist” on a few rare occasions.

The framing of the enemy as Islamism should have been the focal point of the speech, rather than waiting until the middle and the end to use the term. What should have followed was a strategy, with the sticks and carrots, to uproot the sustainers of the ideology so it dissipates into history. A question is left hanging, “Now what? What changes?”

This appears to be a video of the whole speech:

Although I have not seen it all yet, I look forward to comparing it to Obama’s Cairo speech,    of which I did an analysis some years ago.