"Fortified, Yet defenseless, The West Suicidal Response to Terrorism.

 I tend to agree, the people of old from the West, would have just eradicated the scrounge from their country, but now they refuse to mention for fear that they might "offend" or be called a "racist" or an islamophobe"...Oh the horror.....the shame.   When regular people are fighting back like that 12 year old girl did in scotland did because she was tired of her and her sister being harassed by "Migrants" and nobody in power would do anything about it, they would turn a blind eye, unless you made a mean tweet or some other social media post, then the full weight of the British judicial system would fall on you.  Me personally, I have concerns about travelling to the former Great Britain because they would lock me up because of my social media post

   The same thing is going on in the rest of Western Europe, the Europeans are afraid to call out the Muslim invaders for what they are, and the common people know but the people in power don't listen to the "Riff-Raff", and any deprevations done by the "refugees" are not experienced by the power class so the S-A's continue, the r*apes continue, in england they have the pakistani grooming gangs and nobody does anything about it...."we can't appear intolerant...mind you".  In a couple of generations, the conquest of Western Europe will be complete, and the people in Eastern Europe will have a hard time stopping the flow of refugees from the west.  I won't live to see it.  The people that built the Sistine Chapel and other great works are being replaced by people that can't build mud huts effectively.

Yeah I shamelessly clipped this one also.

Michael Smith

13h ·

When terrorists strike, Western governments have perfected a predictable playbook: retreat, restrict, and reassure the public that their growing helplessness equals safety. This defensive surrender, while wrapped in the language of security, represents a catastrophic misunderstanding of how free societies survive existential threats. We’re building a modern Maginot Line—and pretending it’s victory.

The Maginot Line failed because France chose expensive static fortifications over adaptable strength. The Germans simply went around it. Today’s security theater follows the same doomed logic. Birmingham installs “hostile vehicle mitigation bollards and upgraded CCTV at strategic locations” to keep the city centre safe. The Australian Prime Minister responds to violence by demanding even tighter gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens. These aren’t solutions—they’re admissions of defeat dressed up as policy.

Consider what this approach actually accomplishes. Bollards protect one street while terrorists strike the next. CCTV cameras create perfect footage of atrocities for the evening news. Gun control ensures that when violence erupts, victims are guaranteed to be defenseless for the critical minutes before police arrive—if they arrive at all. We’re not making citizens safer; we’re making them more photogenic victims.

This is the bunker mentality in action: harden specific targets, disarm the public, expand surveillance, and hope terrorists don’t notice the obvious workarounds. But terrorism succeeds precisely by exploiting vulnerability and spreading fear. When governments respond by rendering citizens even more dependent on protection that cannot be everywhere at once, they validate the terrorist’s central message: you are helpless, your leaders cannot save you, and your way of life is indefensible.

The alternative requires acknowledging an uncomfortable truth: in a free society, security is a distributed responsibility, not a service governments can provide through concrete barriers and security cameras. This means empowering citizens to respond to threats rather than training them to cower and wait for rescue. It means recognizing that capable, trained civilians are force multipliers, not liabilities to be managed.

History demonstrates this clearly. Israel’s security model, forged through necessity, emphasizes armed citizens and immediate response over passive measures. Switzerland’s approach reflects similar wisdom: a prepared populace is itself the deterrent. These societies haven’t eliminated terrorism, but they’ve fundamentally changed the equation. An attacker facing potential resistance from multiple directions confronts a vastly different scenario than one assured several minutes of unopposed slaughter.

The standard objection—that armed civilians would cause chaos—reveals the bankruptcy of current thinking. This argument demands that citizens remain helpless while assuming they’re too incompetent for anything else. But proper training and clear legal frameworks address these concerns far better than policies guaranteeing that only criminals come armed. The real question is whether we trust free people with the responsibility of freedom, or whether we prefer the comforting illusion of safety through submission.

Each bollard installed, each surveillance camera mounted, each restriction imposed on law-abiding citizens represents a choice: are we free people capable of defending ourselves and our communities, or subjects to be managed and protected by an apparatus that demonstrably cannot be everywhere at once? The bunker mentality chooses the latter while pretending it’s the former.

True security in a free society doesn’t come from fortifying targets and disarming citizens. It comes from distributed resilience—the recognition that strength resides in the fabric of civil society itself, not in fixed defenses that can be bypassed or overwhelmed. When Birmingham installs more bollards—and inventing Orwellian names for them like Hostile Vehicle Mitigation barriers—and Canberra demands more gun restrictions on top of some of the strictest in the Western world, they’re not solving the problem. They’re building their own Maginot Line while congratulating themselves on their prudence.

The Maginot Line was expensive, impressive—and ultimately useless— because it was static and rigid. Our current response to terrorism follows the same failed playbook. Strategists bank on the enemy following their playbook.

The question is whether we’ll recognize this before the cost becomes unbearable, or whether we’ll continue fortifying while surrendering the very freedoms that make our societies worth defending.

"The Left's Cynicism Blinds Us to Real Threats."

 

I shamelessly clipped this from Farcebook while taking a "Microbreak" from work ;) . A guy named Michael Smith wrote this, I follow him on that blighted platform.

2d ·

The left’s reflexive dismissal of conservative warnings creates a cognitive filter that obscures rising violence and extremism.

I stumbled upon something important over the weekend while writing an essay I called “A Review of a Review.” At the time, I thought my insight was about the subject matter itself—a book review by a leftist critic examining another leftist’s work, where the reviewer attempted to agree disagreeably with the original author’s premise. No matter how vigorously leftism engages in its internecine warfare, its practitioners somehow always unify around one core belief: they aren’t really the bad guys. Capitalists and capitalism are.

But the real discovery lay elsewhere. Both the book under review and the review itself expressed a foundational assumption of contemporary progressive thought: there are essentially no legitimate issues raised by the right. To the left, the real issue is the right itself. Political combat becomes purely a contest for power, waged through marketing, messaging, and advertising—a perpetual campaign to find an advantage lasting just long enough to survive the next election cycle.

This revelation returned to me this morning as I considered recent events: shootings at Brown University, the Bondi Beach attack in Sydney, Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the coordinated Transtifa attacks on churches and schools, and the virulent pro-Hamas, anti-Israel protests poisoning our campuses. Suddenly, the pattern clarified. The cynicism I identified in that book review doesn’t just describe progressive intellectual discourse—it actively obscures our ability to recognize and respond to genuine threats.

When the left treats conservative concerns as mere political theater, it creates a dangerous cognitive filter. If progressives—and this emphatically includes our media institutions—genuinely believe that issues only exist because the right amplifies them for electoral advantage, then those issues cannot be understood on their own terms. They become artifacts of political manipulation rather than problems demanding serious attention.

Consider the implications. Antisemitism isn’t evaluated as resurgent hatred with deep historical roots; it’s dismissed as a Republican talking point designed to divide Democratic constituencies. Radical Islamism isn’t examined as an ideology committed to violence against Western institutions; it’s reframed as blowback from American foreign policy. The phenomenon of troubled individuals claiming trans identity and committing acts of violence cannot be discussed candidly because doing so risks offending progressive pieties about gender ideology. Even discussions of untreated severe mental illness devolve into debates about healthcare access rather than confronting the reality of dangerous individuals circulating freely in our communities.

This isn’t merely an academic problem. When threats are systematically minimized or recontextualized as political opportunism, we lose the ability to assess risk accurately, allocate resources appropriately, or demand effective preventive action from our institutions.

If we truly understood the magnitude of these threats—if we could see past the obscuring lens of progressive cynicism—we would not be perpetually surprised by stabbings, immolations, acid attacks, assassinations, and ideologically motivated massacres. We would recognize the warning signs accumulating around us. We would demand that our educational institutions stop indoctrinating students in hatred of Israel and Western civilization. We would insist that our legal system stop releasing violent offenders and mentally unstable individuals back onto our streets. We would require our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to take seriously the networks of radicals operating openly in our midst.

The genius of this progressive epistemic closure is that it makes the left unfalsifiable. When crime rises, it’s because Republicans won’t fund social programs. When antisemitic violence surges on college campuses, it’s because Republicans weaponize accusations of antisemitism to silence legitimate criticism of Israel. When radical gender ideology produces troubled young people who commit violence, we’re told that the real danger comes from conservative refusal to affirm their identities. The actual evidence before our eyes—the patterns of violence, the networks of extremism, the institutional capture by dangerous ideologies—all of it dissolves into Republican scaremongering.

This dynamic creates a perverse situation where progressives can simultaneously claim moral authority for their “compassion” while enabling the very conditions that produce mass casualties. They can advocate for policies that predictably increase violence and disorder while blaming conservatives for noticing and objecting. They can dominate institutions that indoctrinate students in radical ideologies while insisting that the real threat comes from the political right’s rhetoric about these problems.

The cost of this cynicism is measured in bodies. Every time we’re told that concerns about radical Islam, revolutionary trans activism, or campus antisemitism are merely Republican electoral strategy, we lose an opportunity to prevent the next attack. Every time legitimate security concerns are dismissed as bigotry or fear-mongering, we allow the networks of radicalization to operate more freely.

We need a return to epistemic humility and honesty. We need institutions willing to acknowledge that threats can be real even when conservatives identify them. We need a media capable of investigating problems rather than reflexively defending progressive orthodoxy. And we need citizens courageous enough to trust their own observations over the comforting narrative that reduces all political conflict to a cynical game of electoral advantage.

Until then, we’ll continue to be surprised by the predictable consequences of threats we refused to take seriously.

"Who Ruined Europe"

 

I have blogged "A LOT ABOUT EUROPE" if y'all want to spend several hours going through 13+ years + worth of blog post, LOL, some have stood the test of time....others ...not soo much.  This article pertains mostly to the snide Eurowheenies in Western Europe.  The Eastern Europeans have their stuff together, especially Poland.

    I clipped this off "Farcebook"

Daniel Foubert

WHO ruined Europe?

Yes, EVERYONE did it:

1. Angela Merkel, the physicist who forgot Newton’s Third Law: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. She looked at the European energy grid, decided nuclear power was "scary," and replaced it with a direct pipeline to the Kremlin. She basically invited the fox into the henhouse, handed him a napkin, and then retired to write a memoir about "stability." She effectively dismantled the continent’s borders with a single press conference, inviting a migration crisis that broke the social contract, all while muttering "Wir schaffen das" as the infrastructure crumbled under the weight of her moral vanity.

2. Emmanuel Macron, a man who thinks he is the reincarnation of a Roman deity but runs the country like a McKinsey consultant trying to downsize a bakery. He believes he can solve the war in Ukraine by talking Vladimir Putin into a coma with four-hour lectures on Enlightenment philosophy. He is currently auditing the concept of "French culture" to see if it can be streamlined.

3. Adolf Hitler, the failed watercolor enthusiast who took an art school rejection so personally he decided to redecorate the continent with high explosives. He single-handedly ruined the toothbrush mustache, the name "Adolf," and the concept of "German efficiency" for the next thousand years. He set the bar for "bad neighbors" so high that everyone else gets a participation trophy just for not invading Poland.

4. The Habsburgs, the ultimate proof that you should really branch out on Tinder. They treated the gene pool like a private VIP section and turned their family tree into a wreath. Their grand strategy for ruling Europe was "Let’s marry our cousins until our chins are so large they have their own zip codes." They spent 600 years acquiring half the planet through weddings, only to lose it all because their driver took a wrong turn in Sarajevo. They held an empire together with duct tape and aggressive waltzing until it collapsed under the weight of its own genetic defects.

5. Napoleon, who tried to turn Europe into a family franchise (Bonaparte Bros. & Co.) and accidentally invented "Nationalism" because people needed a specific word to describe exactly how much they wanted him to leave.

6. The English, who spent 500 years playing "Balance of Power" (read: sabotaging everyone else), then got drunk, and view the continent not as a cultural partner, but as a place to send stag parties to vomit in historic fountains, proving that while they lost the Empire, they kept the audacity.

7. The Germans, who believe that if you execute a terrible idea with sufficient efficiency, it becomes a stroke of genius. They don't have "individual opinions," they have "factory settings." They marched in perfect lockstep to shut down their nuclear plants in favor of burning brown coal, calling it a "Green Transition"—which is the intellectual equivalent of cutting off your own legs to lose weight, then praising the precision of the saw. They are convinced that running full speed into a brick wall is fine, provided the wall is DIN-certified and everyone does it together.

8. The Russians, who think "international borders" are just typos on a map that need correcting with tanks. They provide Europe with its two favorite historical exports: existential dread and freezing to death. They operate on a political philosophy of "If I can't have it, nobody can," which is why they are currently turning the East into a parking lot.

9. The EU, a retirement home for failed national politicians. It is a Kafkaesque labyrinth where 10,000 people in Brussels spend six months debating the legal definition of a carrot while the building is on fire. It is funded by your VAT, presided over by unelected bureaucrats with excellent dental plans, and produces more paper than a forestry company.

10. The WEF, the unelected board of directors for Planet Earth. They ruined Europe by promoting policies that hollowed out the middle class in the name of "stakeholder capitalism." They fly in on private jets to tell factory workers to lower their standard of living, effectively turning the continent into a feudal system where the serfs own nothing, eat bugs, and are told to be happy about it.

11. George Soros, the currency speculator masquerading as a secular saint. He ruined Europe by treating entire national economies as casino chips, famously breaking the Bank of England for profit and then using the winnings to fund the erosion of the nation-states. He operates the "Open Society" less like a philanthropy and more like a universal solvent, pouring billions into NGOs designed to dissolve borders, traditions, and social cohesion. He is the unelected architect of a post-national Europe, a man with a god complex who believes he can engineer civilization from a hedge fund desk, viewing distinct cultures as "obstacles" to be liquidated like a distressed asset.

12. Immigrationists, who looked at the fall of Rome and thought, "You know what the problem was? Not enough diversity." They believe borders are just social constructs, like manners or solvency, that stand in the way of a vibrant, chaotic utopia where everyone holds hands while the welfare state collapses under the weight of good intentions.

13. Ecologists, upper-middle-class art critics who think the best way to lower global temperatures is to throw pumpkin soup at a Van Gogh. They are fighting Big Oil by creating massive traffic jams on the M25, forcing thousands of cars to idle for four hours.

14. The Socialists, who think "economics" is just a vibe. They believe that if you tax the rich enough, money will magically appear from the ether to pay for free unicorn rides. They ran out of other people's money in 1989 but haven't checked their bank balance since, preferring to pay debts with IOUs and "solidarity."

15. The European Establishments, shadowy clubs of people who all went to the same three boarding schools where they majored in "Condescension" and "Failing Upwards." They decided that "competence" was an outdated concept that interfered with their lunch schedule and are professionally surprised by outcomes that everyone else saw coming five years ago.

16. Weak Men, who turned masculinity into a permanent apology tour. These are men who treat assertiveness as a microaggression and testosterone as a hazardous material. They are so terrified of offending a woman that they have evolved into a species of sentient doormats, viewing their own spine as an optional accessory that might upset the HR department. They smile through their own emasculation, nodding along to policies that erase them, and would rather watch their civilization burn than risk a slightly awkward conversation at a dinner party. They didn't just open the gates to the barbarians; they apologized for the lock being too oppressive and offered to carry their luggage.

17. Feminists, who proved equality is real by showing that women can be just as disastrously incompetent as men. They replaced "The Patriarchy" with "Girl-Bossing the economy into a ditch". They doubled the pool of eligible ruin-bringers, which is statistically impressive.

18. The Woke, the morality police who will cancel you for using the wrong pronoun for a hamster but don't know how to change a lightbulb. They are busy deconstructing the colonial implications of a cheese sandwich while the power grid fails and the industrial base crumbles into dust.

19. Darth Vader. He represents the ultimate bureaucratic dream: a faceless, unelected technocrat who can strangle dissent from across the room without ever raising his voice. He tried to federalize the galaxy through terror, proving that a centralized superstate works perfectly right up until a farm boy in a glorified crop duster exploits a regulatory loophole in your thermal exhaust port to blow up the whole economy.

20. Saruman, the patron saint of Heavy Industry and deforestation. He tried to modernize Central Europe with a sensible policy of "machines over trees" and was cancelled by a bunch of angry walking broccoli.

21. Sauron, the original advocate for a unified Europe under one (literal) eye. He was a visionary industrialist who favored heavy surveillance and deregulation of the orc labor market, but his foreign policy regarding Gondor was a bit aggressive for the UN Security Council.

22. Satan, who is actually in therapy for impostor syndrome. He looked at European politics and realized he simply couldn't compete with this level of self-destructive creativity.

"Democrats Paid BLACK LIVES MATTER If Trump Won the 2020 elections"

 

I clipped this from SSG , This also was mentioned by the  ILOH at one of my favorite Websites, and he asked a question about people who were good at catching fraud.  Larry was an investigative accountant, and catching people stealing money was a specialty and he was pretty good at catching what he called "Red Flags" and there are a bunch of them, basically statistically impossibilities and he would ask others to vet what he comments and there are others that are more into number crunching than he is and they got more into it and they also agree with what he said and expounded on it.  you can check out on his website for more information.  The problem is that the media is totally in the tank for Biden and are burying the story because it is not in "their" interest to broadcast it. 

   

  I had heard rumblings about this back in 2021 about the "pay to play" that the donks had pushed, I had always said that the Antifa and the BLM rioters are the footsoldiers of Soros, and they would use them to support a political cause because to the left, political violence is a volume knob to turn up or down depending in the political situation, but to us on the right side of the aisle....

     

          The left wants to totally control the levers of government, they want to have total control over you and yours because they are the compassionate ones and they by their education, are totally superior to us "Dirt People", they want us to keep working and being productive to support the system so they can skim off it lord over us like the nobles of old.

 The endgame is to totally strip the power of the middle class because we are the checks and balances on those that would seek to rule us by imperial fiat.   We are considered the modern day Kulaks and the modern left wants to break us like their hero Stalin did to the Kulaks of old.  The Modern left wants to demonize us, harass us, ridicule us and strip us of our 2nd amendment rights so they can do to us like Stalin did to his "Kulaks"

Here is a quote from a rant I did back in 2015 before Donald Trump was even on the radar and Hillary was warming up for her coronation because it was "Her Turn".

In Rules for Radicals, several themes persist throughout Alinsky’s lessons to future community organizers. The most notable is his use of symbol construction to strengthen the unity within an organization. Often, he would draw on loyalty to a particular church or religious affiliation to create a firmly structured organization with which to operate. The reason being that symbols by which communities could identify themselves created strongly structured organizations that were easier to mobilize in implementing direct action. Once the community was united behind a common symbol, Alinsky would find a common enemy for the community to be united against.
The use of common enemy against a community was done to promote another theme of Rules for Radicals, nonviolent conflict as a uniting element in communities. Alinsky would find an external antagonist to turn into a common enemy for the community within which he was operating. Often, this enemy would be a local politician or agency that had some involvement with activity that was causing detriment to the community. His goal was to unite a group through conflict with an external antagonist. Once the enemy was established, the community would come together in opposition of it.
     This management of conflict heightened awareness within the community as to the similarities its members shared as well as what differentiated them from those outside of their organization. The use of conflict also allowed for the goal of the group to be clearly defined. With an established external antagonist, the community’s goal would be to defeat that enemy, whether it be a politician, policy, or opposing agency.

     I have mentioned in the past that the modern SJW's are Marxist and they are doing what history taught them.  I will  make a historical point..remember the external antagonist that is required for the SJW's?

According to the political theory of Marxism–Leninism of the early 20th century, the kulaks were class enemies of the poorer peasants. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin described them as "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten on famine.” Marxism–Leninism had intended a revolution to liberate poor peasants and farm laborers alongside the proletariat (urban and industrial workers). In addition, the planned economy of Soviet Bolshevism required the collectivisation of farms and land to allow industrialisation or conversion to large-scale agricultural production. In practice, government officials violently seized kulak farms and murdered resisters; others were deported to labor camps.

    According to the political theory of Marxism–Obamaism of the early 21th century, the white people were class enemies of the poorer peasants. Barack Obama described them as "bloodsuckers, vampires, bitter clingers, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten on white privilege.” Marxism–Obamaism intended a revolution to liberate poor urban people and farm laborers alongside the cube dweller. In addition, the planned economy of Globalism Bolshevism required the collectivization of assets to allow  the future green economy or conversion to large-scale clean energy production. In practice, government officials violently seized white middle class assets and murdered resisters; others were deported to FEMA camps..

     It isn't much of a stretch, I see history replaying before me, I see the same thing that Lenin and later Stalin did to break the power of the kulaks whom were land owning peasants.  In the modern sense, they need to break what they call the political power of the middle class to guarantee their power.  If they can use social pressure to make a law to seize the assets of people that are considered "class enemies".  Remember the 401K's that millions of people have....most of them are middle class and white.  That is an example.  That is billions of dollars sitting in there where the government can't touch it....But the government can change the rules, then seize it....You doubt me?  look at Greece, Cyprus and other places.  The government seized assets for the "Common good".  See a parallel?  the outrage you see against whites is just an excuse for plunder on a wide scale.  The government in the name of social justice and equality can and will seize assets....They will use the social outrage, the same thing Lenin and Stalin used against the Kulaks to further the transforming of Russia into the Soviet Union.  The enemy of the political elites are the middle class, the SJW's are useful idiots being used to create a have and an have not society.  The middle class is a check on the power of the political elite.  The elitist would have a complete society that depended on them for sustenance. Once you control their sustenance, you control them....then you can do whatever you wanted.  That is the Endgame."

    to todays article.

      Why this doesn't surprise me, that the democrats were neck buried with the BLM movement, I remembered them sending the DOJ community axtivist to "Help with the organizing for the Ferguson riots and earlier with the Trayvon protest.

Mike Benz stated that the Democratic Party anticipated Black Lives Matter mobilization if Joe Biden called for protests, particularly in the event President Donald Trump won the 2020 election.

Benz said Democrats assumed Black Lives Matter would respond to such a call but believed further testing was needed to assess how reliably the group could be mobilized during an election crisis.

Benz said the party viewed large-scale demonstrations as increasing the stakes and believed it was necessary to strengthen ties with Black Lives Matter in order to ensure responsiveness.

He described what he characterized as a deliberate effort by Democrats to secure loyalty through financial and political concessions.

“And they just assumed that black lives matter would mobilize in the event of a Biden call to take to the streets. But they said, well, we’ll need to do more testing. We just assumed they would in this war game. We should robustly test their likely receptivity so they can be mobilized at election time in case Trump clearly wins the election, the scale of recent demonstrations has increased the stakes for the Democrat party to build strong ties with Black Lives Matter and be responsive to the movement’s demands,” Benz said.

According to Benz, Democrats discussed providing substantial financial support to Black Lives Matter in order to secure that loyalty.

He specifically referenced a figure of $50 billion and linked the funding to business and labor organizations.

“Give black lives matter what they want. Give them $50 billion in Chamber of Commerce money,” Benz said.

Benz further claimed that a private agreement between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO played a role in managing protest activity during that period.

He said the agreement was referenced in a Time magazine article by Molly Ball and was connected to decisions surrounding protest activity.

“If you remember, Chamber of Commerce signed the secret deal with the AFL CIO.

That was the crux of the Molly Ball Time magazine article to have the protesters stand down when it was announced by one so,” Benz said.

Benz stated that from June 2020 through November 2020, Democratic leaders discussed plans at senior levels to provide favors to Black Lives Matter with the expectation that those actions would later result in political cooperation.

He said the goal was to ensure that the organization would respond to calls for mass protests if Trump prevailed in the election.

“Between June 2020 and November 2020, the Democrat Party openly planned the highest levels to do favors for black lives matter, so that black lives matter would owe them favors and be responsive to a Biden call to take to the streets, to street protest Trump out of office if he won 52-47 in a landslide Electoral College victory,” Benz said.

Benz characterized these discussions as a strategic effort to prepare for election outcomes Democrats viewed as unfavorable.

He said the planning was tied directly to concerns about a clear Trump victory and the role that organized street protests could play in challenging the result.