Billboard That’s Supposed to Attack Trump Proves the Point About Muslims in America


– 18 October 2016 –


Janus-smallA billboard in heavily-Muslim Dearborn, Michigan attacks Donald Trump for his supposed bigotry. The sign translates as “Donald Trump, he can’t read this, but he is afraid of it.”

Nearly all of the 330,000 people who drive past the sign each week can’t read this sign either. The sign will remind many of them that we have too many Muslims in the United States, that they pose a threat to our security and our identity by their very presence here. To top it off, the sign’s white Arabic scribbles on a black background bears a resemblance to the ISIS flag.


They’re only making a political statement, you racist bastards.

Via RT:

The campaign was bought by the Nuisance Committee and cost $4,850.

“We came up with it because we believe that Donald Trump’s hateful rhetoric is not based on reality. It’s based on fear,” Melissa Harris, a Nuisance Committee spokeswoman, told the Detroit Free Press. “And we think that irrational fear is what’s driving his anti-immigrant message.”

At the bottom of the billboard is the web address, which features a timeline of Trump’s previous statements about Muslims.

[. . .]

The Nuisance Committee is co-founded by Max Temkin, whose grandfather Ira Weinstein was shot down over Germany during a World War II combat mission and was interned in a POW camp. At the camp, Weinstein and other Jewish POWs banded together to form a “nuisance committee” to irritate their Nazi captors in ways that wouldn’t get them killed.

The group said “the comparison between Trump and Hitler is intentional.”

More Jews against Donald Trump. They sense a popular threat to their “open society” from people who are tired of a decadent, valueless society full of foreigners meant to displace us.

What’s actually funny about the Jews’ resistance is that Trump himself probably doesn’t pose a serious threat to their order. He’s not going to reverse the moral decline in the country, as he accepts homosexuals and trannies. He loves blacks and plans to create even more programs to falsely elevate them. He might stop illegal immigration, but who cares should they enter through a “big, beautiful door”. A Trump victory could mollify American whites into accepting today’s status quo. (Will I still vote for him? Yes. He’s a gamble. She’s a sure loss. Plus there’s the “fuck you” factor.)

A Trump loss on the other hand will only keep the pressure of resentment rising. The next phase of this resentment will likely make Donald Trump appear as milquetoast as the Tea Party.

If Hillary wins in November, she’d better start that nuclear war quickly before she has a civil war on her hands.


Putin Neutralizes Obama’s Air Strikes in Syria


– 5 September 2015 –


Janus-smallA month ago, Obama authorized U.S. airstrikes in Syria to protect American-trained “moderate” rebels in the Syrian Civil War from all threats, including from Assad’s loyalist fighters.  This almost assured an eventual excuse for us to directly attack Assad’s strongholds and force the destruction of yet another truly moderate and secular Muslim government in favor of more unstable rule by radical Islamists.

Now Vladimir Putin—also in the name of fighting ISIS—has sent Russian ground troops to Syria and is preparing to build a military base to defend Assad’s rule:

Russia is building a military base in Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s heartland, according to American intelligence officials, in the clearest indication yet of deepening Russian support for the embattled regime of Bashar al-Assad.

The anonymous officials say Russia has set up an air traffic control tower and transported prefabricated housing units for up to 1,000 personnel to an airfield serving the Syrian port city of Latakia.

Russia has also requested the rights to fly over neighbouring countries with military cargo aircraft during September, according to the reports.

The claims, which will raise fears that Russia is planning to expand its role in the country’s civil war, will ratchet up tensions between Moscow and Washington over the future of Syria and its brutal ruler.

Mr Obama on Friday met King Salman of Saudi Arabia to repeat their demand that any lasting settlement in Syria would require an end to the Assad regime.

It leaves the US and Russia implacably opposed in their visions for Syria.

The U.S. is committed to a policy of Middle Eastern destabilization—and apparently radicalization—either out of  gross incompetence or, more likely, the deliberate creation of Muslim monster states like ISIS.

There are at least three reasons for the United States and other Western nations to promote such a policy:

  1. The rise of lawless, radical territories across the Middle East—like those seen in Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq—will eventually provide justification for the United States and other Western-oriented globalist powers to destroy the radicals that were empowered by the Islamist regimes.  Radical governments act as honey pots for radical citizens, and the radical citizens can later be identified and exterminated.
  2. The average, go-along-to-get-along people in the lands ruled by radical Muslim fundamentalists will grow to despise even so-called moderate Islam in favor of the globalist secular order, if only because such an embrace will seem like the only alternative to insanity.  The globalist hope is to create a watered-down, feel-good Islam that accepts the secular world order.  (Good luck!)
  3. The terrorism and wars against radical Islam, greater than those seen so far, can be used to further erode real civil liberties in the West and to crack down on nativists and patriots who resist the secular global order.

Of course, there is another reason why the U.S. wants to destroy Assad: Israel wants us to.

Israel has long used Jewish influence in the United States to promote Israeli interests by using American money and American power.  Why else would the U.S. even care about Syria?  For years Syria and Israel have failed to get along, and this only grew worse in the few years before the Syrian Civil War.  Syria also possesses a strategic alliance with Iran, another major enemy of Israel.  The destruction of the Assad regime in Syria, or at least Syria’s marginalization through its long civil war, gives Israel a freer hand in any attack against Iran.

After some initial progress, Assad’s forces in Syria have steadily lost territory over the past year, most notably with the loss of Palmyra to ISIS on May 25.  By the beginning of August, Obama had hoped to finally finish him off.  But, as usual (thankfully), Obama (or his immediate handlers) didn’t act decisively enough.


Assad’s forces have lost significant territory in the past year, particularly the city of Palmyra in the central part of the country.

Now a bold move by Putin to bring in Russian troops, even if they are in reality only a token force designed to look like a larger force, will force the West to think twice about directly attacking Assad, even in defense of rebels.  The West could risk a war with Russia in which we would appear to be the aggressor.  From Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief:

Ever since the US began targeting Syria for regime change, Russia has only supplied Syria with replacement arms and ammunition—nothing new that would allow Assad to effectively combat the US backed rebels nor the Israeli Air Force which intervenes regularly against Assad’s air defenses. What I’ve consistently said over the years is that all the Russians have to do to stop US and Israeli intervention in Syria is to put a squadron of first line fighters in Syria and man them with Russian pilots, plus add some Russian Special Forces on the ground. The US isn’t going to risk WWIII by directly attacking the Russians (they want Russia to start it so the globalists look innocent). But this week, something dramatic may have changed—an Israeli news channel announced that a Russian fighter squadron will arrive in the next few days, followed by Special Forces to take on ISIS. I’ll have to see further evidence before I know it is real, but this could really put another wrench in globalist plans for both Syria and Iran if Russia shows some muscle.

By sending soldiers and pilots to fight ISIS when the United States won’t, at a time when the European Union is overwhelmed with Syrian and other refugees, Putin looks like a hero while protecting Russian interests in Syria.

Putin does risk drawing his forces into a war that could drag out for years.  He cannot directly attack U.S.-backed rebels for the same reason the United States is now unlikely to attack Assad’s: neither side is ready for war with the other.  But the ISIS forces should scatter quickly in the face of a real war against them, their members rushing to blend in with the locals while their empire vanishes in a puff of smoke.  If Putin acts quickly enough, ISIS may break and Assad may gain the upper hand against his Western-backed rebels.

While Putin is no saint, he is at least fighting the Islamic State, unlike the United States who is cynically using these barbarians to overthrow Assad.

Refugee Crisis: The EU is the Problem, Not the Solution

A sailor from HMS BULWARK hands out water to rescued individuals on a Royal Navy Landing Craft.

– 28 August 2015 –


Patulcius-sqThousands of refugees are reaching Europe every day, by land or by sea, a problem caused in part by policies imposed by the European Union.  The UN helpfully suggests that the solution to Europe’s problem is more power to the European Union:

One of the approaches the UNHCR has been championing has been funding and rolling out a land version of Mare Nostrum, a year-long naval and air operation set up by Italy in 2013 to tackle the increased immigration to Europe. 150,000 migrants were rescued during the operation.

“Now we have a coordinated response by Europe to rescue people at sea and it has successfully saved most of the people that landed in Italy. That is a success story and a way that shows that Europe can act together but as a mayor of an Italian town told me: “We need a Mare Nostrum for land too,” Spindler said.

The refugee agency is also advocating that European countries have a “more equal share of the responsibility” when it comes to receiving and accommodating migrants and refugees.

“At the moment, some countries are receiving very large numbers of refugees and migrants, while others are receiving very few. We would like more to be done, otherwise it creates situations where people or countries feel that they are being unfairly treated or not helped enough,” Spindler added.

The equal distribution of the refugee burden throughout Europe won’t help with the refugee crisis; that only manages the symptoms of the problem.

If there is any benefit to such a policy, it is that no citizen of a EU country can remain neutral to the idiocy of European Union policy with regard to refugees, a policy that has guaranteed the current refugee crisis:

Asylum is granted to people fleeing persecution or serious harm in their own country and therefore in need of international protection. Asylum is a fundamental right; granting it is an international obligation, first recognised in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the protection of refugees . In the EU, an area of open borders and freedom of movement, countries share the same fundamental values and States need to have a joint approach to guarantee high standards of protection for refugees. Procedures must at the same time be fair and effective throughout the EU and impervious to abuse. With this in mind, the EU States have committed to establishing a Common European Asylum System.

The refugee crisis in Europe arises from two general issues:

The first is the push factor.  The abysmal policies of the United States and NATO in dealing with ISIS, which in turn stems from foolish operations in Iraq and Syria that allowed ISIS to flourish, have contributed to the majority of the refugees that are fleeing to Europe from their war-torn homelands.

The second, and more important, issue is the pull factor.  Refugees aren’t fleeing to India or Russia; they are seeking the European Union’s suicidal policy on refugees.  Europe takes excellent care of refugees and only rarely sends them back.

If families who live in a shanty town see that the mansion a few miles away will feed and clothe them, and take care of them for life, if only they can hop the wall, is it any surprise that these poor families would do so?  Never mind that the resources of the mansion’s owners, great as they may be, will be quickly exhausted by the newcomers to their household.  Never mind that the newcomers, when they become sufficiently large and ungrateful, will take over the mansion and turn it into the shanty town that they left.


If the European Union no longer serves the interests of its constituent nations, then it deserves to collapse like the Tower of Babel, which their Parliament resembles. Ironically, just as Babel fell because of the confounding of language, so might the EU collapse from the confounding of foreigners.

One of the main tasks of a country is the enforcement of its borders and the protection of its citizens.  The EU fails miserably on both accounts.  What is the point of EU membership for its constituent nations?  A supposedly better economy?  If the refugees keep pouring in, even that debatable premise will fall apart.

If the European Union wants to prove its worth, it should build up its militaries, militarily and financially support Bashar al-Assad in Syria and King Abdullah II in Jordan, as well as the Iraqi authorities (such as they are) and possibly the Kurds, and eradicate the cockroach ISIS army.

Then the EU should expel all of these Middle Eastern refugees from Europe back to their homelands, including populations that have lived there for decades.

And if the lands in North Africa are so terrible for their citizens, Europe should assert its dominance there as well, establishing strong leaders who will keep their unruly peoples in line and who will remain friendly to European interests.  Or not.  But the refugees should be deported there as well.

In any case, Europe must stop accepting these refugees and providing cushy lives for them.  When the boats pick them up, they should drop the refugees off where they departed.  If the Turks and Moroccans don’t like it, let them try to do something about it.

Those refugees who the Europeans decide to keep, for whatever reason, should be considered wards of the state and put to work until such a time that they can be removed.  They must not be allowed to live and work or move freely in EU territory.  I understand and agree that these are fellow human beings who should be treated with respect, but they came to Europe and must expect to serve European interests so long as they are present.

Do these recommendations sound like the policies of a fascist?  This is the bed that Europe has made.  If Europe wants to survive as Europe, the time has long passed for faint-of-heart, passive-aggressive measures from disconnected committee bureaucrats.  The times are too desperate now for genteel parliamentary debates and orderly public discourse.

The question is: do Europeans have the will to survive anymore as a distinct civilization of nations?

Not yet, but the presence of savages at every doorstep, along with economic chaos, might drive the average European to act—with or without the European Union—whether the sissies in charge like it or not.

Some Thoughts on Moderates and Extremists, Beliefs and Actions


– 24 August 2015 –


Clusivius-sqIn any group of people, there are those who advocate moderate views and those who push more extreme views.

Normally there is a whole spectrum of views between extreme wishy-washiness on one side and die-hard militancy on the other, but most effective organizations are led by people who possess views that are extreme enough to be decisive but moderate enough to be responsible.

Of course, there is a difference between moderate to extreme action versus moderate to extreme beliefs.

Moderate actions are those that involve compromise and less-direct, less-thorough tactics to advance goals.  Extreme actions are those that refuse to compromise or show mercy towards opponents, and they use more direct or thorough tactics.

Moderate beliefs either deliberately compromise on ideological points to make them more mainstream, or they are formed through only a casual interest in the ideology itself.  For these reasons moderate believers are often considered traitors by those with more extreme views.  Extremist beliefs are more pure and uncompromising, demanding a rigid orthodoxy and all-consuming thought.

You can have moderate believers who advocate extremist action, and you can have extremist believers who advocate moderate action. Of course, usually extremist believers advocate extremist action.

Former U.S. president Gerald Ford is an example of a moderate Republican who advocated moderate action.  While taking a soft line on liberal issues such as the failed Equal Rights Amendment, he took indecisive positions in foreign affairs such as the Middle East conflicts and, particularly, the disorganized U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.  For this perceived weakness, Ford was an unrespected leader both in the United States and abroad, and probably he will be as well-remembered in a hundred years as Chester Arthur is today.

John McCain is a moderate believer in the tenets of the Republican Party but more of an extremist when it comes to applying his beliefs.  That is why he he would crush patriotic “crazies” and push for war with Russia while vehemently promoting a soft view on homosexuals, illegal immigrants, and socialists.

Bill Clinton was a political extremist on the Democratic side who ended up favoring moderate action to advance his goals.  When first taking office, he advanced his extreme liberal views on abortion, gun control, health care, and homosexual acceptance in the military.  But after the Democrats took a beating in the 1994 election, Clinton took a more moderate tone for the remainder of his time in office.


Almost anyway.

And now we have Obama, an extremist all around.  Enough said about him; I don’t want a headache tonight.

ISIS is perhaps today’s quintessential extremist group that favors both total extremist Muslim ideology and absolute extremist action.  ISIS seems particularly extreme because Islam is by its nature an extremist religion, so their bleeding edge will gush quite a lot of blood.

The most conservative Amish sects, by contrast, hold extremist views in today’s society and they also demand extreme outward adherence to their beliefs in order to remain in good standing with their brethren, but because of their mild Anabaptist ideology, the Amish can be peaceful while living an extremist existence.

It is good for any group of people to have this range of thoughts and viewpoints.  One might even consider it a group survival mechanism.  In peaceful times of plenty, somewhat moderate views can be better suited to preserving that peace.  In times of conflict and scarcity, extremism is more useful.


Patulcius-sqBut moderates who are willing to betray their own beliefs in the name of peace have no place in the leadership of a functioning society.

They are worse than the enemy outside the gates!  Let such people wax toilets and milk cows!


ConcussusWell said, Patulcius.

But you’d be wise to keep their despicable grubby human hands off my cows, if you know what’s good for you!

Dilemma for the Syrian Rebels: Assad and ISIL are Squeezing Them Out


– 13 August 2014 –


Patulcius-sqNurtured by the West, the poor Syrian rebels, so-called moderates, worry that they cannot hold out much longer against Assad and ISIL, who are squeezing against their stronghold of Aleppo.

From Fox News:

Rebel commanders in Aleppo told the Journal that they are stocking up on food and other supplies to prevent the type of starvation-inducing siege that forced them to surrender the city of Homs earlier this year, and warn that losing Aleppo could be the death blow to the revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that began in 2011.

“We’re about to lose Aleppo and no one cares,” Hussam Almarie, a FSA spokesman, told The Wall Street Journal. “We won’t be able to recover the revolution if this happens. And we’ll lose the moderates in Syria.”

“And we’ll lose the moderates in Syria.”  I suppose a spokesman for the FSA would want to keep his organization’s Western suppliers assured that they are the only moderate force in Syria.  Moderates who want to simply overthrow the ruling government.  Isn’t revolution one of the more typical programs of moderate reformers?

Western governments love the idea of a moderate Muslim government, those peace-loving, secular Muslims who crave Western-style democracy and social liberalism.  Like the token Republican Black conservatives in the US, such Muslims aren’t taken seriously by their peers and they are usually held in contempt.


State of Syrian Civil War as of 8 August: Assad forces in Pink, the Rebels in Green, and ISIS in Gray. Aleppo is at the top of Syria towards the northwest.

If we wanted moderate leadership in Syria and Iraq, we should have left Saddam Hussein in power and supported the Assad regime in Syria.  It is the monarchies in the Middle East that have managed to moderate the excesses of their fanatical populations.  Every time we’ve encouraged one of these tyrannies to fall in the name of democracy, the local people have willfully chosen a Jihadist government.  We should have just left the Ottomans in power 100 years ago.

If we’re going to meddle in the Middle East, let us support monarchs and dictators who will keep their people in check.

  • May 2018
    S M T W T F S
    « Feb    
%d bloggers like this: