Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Al Jazeera: "Second confirmed Ebola patient dies in DRC's Goma"

A reader sends this link to an Al Jazeera article on the latest news about the Ebola outbreak. From the article:
      The most recent person to be diagnosed with the disease started developing symptoms on July 22 after arriving from a mining area outside the city, a health official quoted Muyembe, as saying in a statement on Tuesday. 

      Health officials said the second case was not connected to the first patient in Goma who was a pastor who became infected during a visit to the town of Butembo, one of the epicentres of the epidemic. 
Also:
      Jean-Jacques Muyembe, DRC's Ebola response coordinator, said the man died on Wednesday morning, a day after the case was announced.

      "The patient ... died Wednesday morning because he was already weakened and his illness was discovered late," Muyembe told DPA news agency.

      The patient in his 40s may never have known he had the virus, Dr Michael Ryan, the emergencies chief at the UN's World Health Organization (WHO), said on Wednesday.

     He also said the man's potential contacts were being identified and given an experimental but effective Ebola vaccine.

Garlic Festival Shooter Might Have Broken Law

     A Los Angeles Times article (via MSN) claims that a "[d]isturbing portrait emerges of Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter," Santino Legan. The article's main focus, of course, was Legan's mention on social media of the Ragnar Redbeard book, "Might Is Right" (Amazon link) (Free PDF). I started reading this once upon a time, but it was so anti-Christian that I only read a short portion of it before stopping. The author was obviously heavily influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche and his theories on master/slave moralities. Of course, the media does not dwell on the anti-Christian aspect of the work, but instead focuses on what, for its time, was the rather pedestrian position that Europeans, and in particular, the British, by dint of their economic and technical prowess, were superior to all other peoples.

     But it was the following that elicited a chuckle:

      Authorities say Legan bought the semi-automatic rifle used in the shooting legally in Nevada on July 9, less than three weeks before the shooting. The weapon looks like a military-style AK-47. With its standard clip and stocks, it's considered an assault rifle that is banned under California law. ...

* * *

      California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said Monday the investigation may determine that the gunman broke a law by purchasing the weapon in Nevada and bringing it into the state.

      "That weapon could not be sold in California. That weapon cannot be imported into the state of California," he said. "There is a very strong likelihood, as we develop the evidence, that the perpetrator in this particular case, violated California law, on top of the crimes of homicide."

Well, the weapon was imported by the killer into California! It's like they expected that someone planning murder would, otherwise, obey the law. If Legan was a true follower of Nietzsche, the law, of course, would not be an impediment, because laws are only intended for society's slaves.

A Literal False Flag Moment In Hong Kong

For some background and explanations of why the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) might send People's Liberation Army (PLA) troops into Hong Kong, check out this video release about 4 days by China Uncensored (11 min.)


At the time the video was released, the CCP was considering sending in PLA troops, if requested by Hong Kong authorities, because the actions of the protesters, according to one general, challenged the Central Government's Authority. China was, already, blaming the United States for being behind the protests.

      Well, just as if on cue, photos taken from this past weekend's protests showed protesters waiving and embracing the American flag.  Breitbart reported that "[t]he American flag has become a symbol of resistance against China in the ongoing protests in Hong Kong, prominently waved throughout the city this past weekend as police fired tear gas and rubber bullets into the peaceful crowds." Apparently the flags were first seen during a march held on July 21, 2019. Then, later, "[p]rotesters prominently waved American flags in Yuen Long on Saturday during a protest for which police refused to issue a permit[.]" And "[p]rotests continued Sunday despite the violence in Yuen Long on Saturday, this time within the Hong Kong city center. Protesters also waved American flags there. Some carried signs reading 'We need the 2nd Amendment' and 'President Trump, please liberate Hong Kong'."

     Pardon the simile, but this is just like waving a red flag before an angry bull. China has enough unrest that it had to tread carefully on handling the Hong Kong protests while those protests were limited to a matter purely internal to Hong Kong. But the waiving of the American flag and appealing to Trump crosses a line where the CCP would be able to justify its actions as protecting China from a foreign aggressor, and thus stand behind the shield of Chinese nationalism. So, of course, we now see headlines like this: "Chinese forces gathering at Hong Kong border, White House officials monitoring escalation" and "Crackdown Coming? China Gathers Forces On Hong Kong Border Amid Unrest." I have no doubt but that the protesters waiving the flags were acting under the orders of Chinese authorities or acting under the influence of agent provocateurs for the CCP.

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

While the media was hyperventilating over the shooting in California...

... Chicago racked up 4 dead and 40 wounded in shooting incidents over this past weekend according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Of course, some of these--probably many of them--are criminals giving each other the taxpayer relief shot.

      Speaking of which, last week in Chicago, a 26-year old was killed in a drive by shooting. Nothing remarkable about that, except that the dead man, Matthew Gibson, was driving for the shooter, Jake Lee. "Prosecutors say Gibson on Sunday pulled alongside an SUV and Lee, seated in the front passenger seat, began firing at the SUV with a handgun. During the shooting, Gibson was accidentally shot in the head." Lee is facing murder charges.

     Funny enough, the same thing happened a few days earlier, on July 22, 2019. Second City Cop describes what went down:
On 22 July 2019, a 15 year old career Car Jacker/auto thief was arrested around noon in the 22nd district in a stolen vehicle which was stolen from  the south suburbs.  He was screened and given a court date and released to family in the early evening. About 90 minutes later he and 2 other teens were in a stolen newer model jeep. While  joyriding  in the jeep, a pickup pulls up next to the drivers  side where the recently released career Car Jacker was being the wheel. Guns are pointed from each car and the shooting begins. The front passenger begins firing over the driver where the recently released career Car Jacker is behind the wheel. It seems the front passenger failed to inform the driver to duck, and ends his career as a car hacker with a shot to the head.  The front passenger is shot 3 times in the back. The other teen escaped being shot.
Darwin would be pleased.

     Second City Cop referenced another site, HeyJackass!, for statistics on Chicago Crime. Sure, they have boring stuff like statistics on homicides, rapes, and so on, but they also have the important stuff. For instance, Chicago has had 80 cases of people shot in the butt so far this year, and 17 where people have been shot in the junk. Ouch!

Defending Against Multiple Attackers

Given the various videos of gangs of [censored] youth attacking in groups, Greg Ellifritz has put together an article discussing some pointers for dealing with such an attack. Of course, the number one concern is to avoid such an attack in the first instance, so Ellifritz's first recommendation is: "Know where groups of youths congregate in your city.  Do your best to avoid those areas, especially after dark." He has 6 other pointers/suggestions, so be sure to read the whole thing.

Good!

The Daily Mail reports that "Kathy Griffin complains that she was left 'unemployable and uninsurable' by widespread outrage at her infamous photo with Donald Trump's severed head."

Two Mass Shootings, But The Media Is Only Interested In One

You are probably aware of the shooting that took place at the Gilroy Garlic Festival resulting in four dead (including the shooter) and 15 injured. But, as The Truth About Guns points out, you probably didn't hear about the shooting at the 56th annual Old Timers Day in Brooklyn that killed one and left eleven wounded. Both occurred at venues that were "gun free zones," in cities and states that are renown for their strict gun control laws, with heavy police presence at both events. Yet, because the incident in Brooklyn was probably gang related--i.e., black perpetrators--the media took no notice, but instead directed its attention at the one in California which, at first blush, appeared to be perpetrated by a "white nationalist" using an "AK-style" rifle (it was actually a young man that was half-Iranian, anti-Christian complaining about urban sprawl and using an SKS)--coincidentally just a few days after it was widely reported that, in a 2018 interview, Ilhan Omar suggested people should be ‘more fearful of white men’ than jihadists.

      Frankly, we should be thankful that the shooter at the Gilroy Festival was using an SKS inasmuch as it has such poor terminal ballistics. Or, as Martin Fackler wrote about the FMJ 7.62x39, "[t]herefore, many AK-47 shots will pass through the body, causing no greater damage than that produced by nonexpanding handgun bullets."

Suspicious Fires in Baltimore

An article from the Baltimore Sun (via Bakersfield.com) reports that "Authorities [are] investigating 11 fires overnight in Baltimore." A fire department spokesman said "it was unclear if all 11 fires were related to one another and said the cause of each fire is still under investigation." Take a look at the following map of the fires, reproduced from a Daily Mail article, and see what you think:


A New Woodpile Is Up

Ol' Remus continues his discussion of using .22 LR for prepping. Oh, and links to lots of interesting news and commentary.

Monday, July 29, 2019

A Monday Medley of Videos


First up, we have a video that includes footage of a couple crimes and offers some lessons. In the first clip shown,  a man in Tulsa was watering his lawn when he was approached by a couple armed robbers. The victim happened to be carrying a weapon (which is a great example for all of us to follow) and drew a handgun. Something flew from his side, so I think his holster may have pulled loose: something to test because it could have messed up the draw stroke. In any event, one of the armed robbers ran off (and was later shot while trying to rob yet another homeowner). More interesting was the second robber who just calmly turned around and unconcernedly walked back to his car, obviously well aware that a private citizen would not shoot him in the back. The victim/home owner was, as you would expect, charged for aggravated something or the other. The only thing I can think of is that he kept his firearm pointed at the second robber as the robber sauntered off. Which is why, when there are no shots fired and the criminal has left without causing damage, I would think long and hard before involving the police. They aren't going to do you any good in such a situation and, as this case illustrates, could do you wrong.

       The second clip is of a guy on a motorcycle that pulled up and tried to break up a fight between a couple black teens out in front of his house which had drawn a crowd. As you can expect, the result was that a couple of teens in the crowd sucker punched the guy, eliciting howls of joy from the other spectators. Even a lion must be wary when surrounded by hyenas.


"Being Prepared Should Lead To Action"--Active Self Protection (6 min.)

The second video today is also a self-defense video, this time from Brazil. In this one, an armed robber decided to try and rob an off-duty police officer and his wife. Unfortunately for the armed robber, the officer was carrying his firearm, and the robber rapidly assumed ambient temperature. The lesson from this one, though, was that the officer hesitated in using his handgun, and is lucky that the robber didn't shoot first.



The third video today is also a defensive video. In this one, a woman was the victim of an attempted mugging while inside a Walmart. Unfortunately for the attackers, this woman was armed. She was carrying off body in her purse, which made the initial fight a fight for the purse, but she finally got her firearm out, which prompted her two (or possibly three) attackers to flee. While Darwin would approve, the law frowned on her next actions which were to shoot one of the fleeing attackers multiple times, and then chase after a second attacker and take a few shots.


""The Call of Cthulhu" by H. P. Lovecraft"--Horror Babble (1 hr 19 min.). This is a reading of one of Lovecraft's longer stories. This particular story is a classic, and gave the name to his interrelated stories: the Cthulhu Mythos. 


"The Dangerous Tribalism of the Ruling Class"--Black Pilled (9 min.). It's not that they hate you; they just don't care. Remember that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.


"Why Demographics is EVERYTHING!"--Oppressed Media (20 min.). Texas will turn "blue" in 2020 or shortly thereafter. After that point, Republicans will never again be able to take the White House. But the Republican leadership doesn't seem to care (see the video above on "The Dangerous Tribalism of the Ruling Class").


"Will a Return to Faith Heal the West?"--Blonde In The Belly Of The Beast (13 min.)


"Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution with Berlinski, Meyer, and Gelernter"--The Hoover Institute (57 min.). Basically, there are so many possible combinations in even a short protein chain compared to those arrangements that actually work, that it is impossible for Darwinian evolution to account for the mutations necessary to create a new species, let alone life. The Universe simply hasn't been around long enough. Thus, Darwin should join Marx and Freud in the dustbin of 19th Century thinkers that had interesting ideas, but turned out to be wrong.

Friday, July 26, 2019

July 26, 2019--A Quick Run Around the Web

"The Combat Reload"--Max Velocity Tactical (14 min.)
A look at three different techniques, one of which involves simply dumping the magazine on the ground, and two that involve retaining the empty magazine.
      People very often refer to concealed carry as a “lifestyle”. I’m not sure I can agree with that.
          A lifestyle is a behavioral pattern which expresses how someone sees him or herself, and how they want others to see them. Their activities, opinions, and even how they spend their money are all reflected in their lifestyle. In other words, their lifestyle is the dominant feature of their existence; it defines them. 
            A lifestyle is all-encompassing. By admitting to a lifestyle, one is saying “this best expresses who I am, and I will devote my time and energy to maintaining it”.
             Seems a little silly to me to say that a gun on my belt justifies that level of involvement.
          He asserts that carrying a firearm should no more define who you are than the socks you wear, and adds:
                   I know some people are probably tired of hearing me say this, but the firearm doesn’t keep you safe. It simply gives you one way to extricate yourself from a situation that’s gone horribly wrong. What does keep you safe is all that “other stuff”, the things and behaviors that prevent an incident from starting in the first place. Once the gun comes out, the incident has already deteriorated past the point of prevention.
                    I’m all about prevention as a strategy. That’s worthy of a lifestyle.
                These seems to segue nicely into a recent note from Recoil's Concealment magazine on the defensive mindset:
                        Those who live, eat, and breathe guns know that training is the single most important consideration after buying a firearm for home defense or concealed carry. But I’d like to take this idea a step further and suggest training is the primary consideration of defense; the firearm is the accessory.
                         Guns can be a hobby, but armed defense is a mindset. Before anyone steps up to the gun store counter, we’d all be better off if they did so after taking a comprehensive defensive firearm class that cultivates that mindset, challenges them to consider what it’s like to store and carry a firearm every day, makes them aware of how perishable the skill of handgun marksmanship is, and articulates the kind of commitment needed to maintain a level of proficiency that assures the safety of loved ones and bystanders in a violent encounter.
                    I would replace "training" with "knowledge," but noting that "training" is generally the most efficient method to obtain that knowledge. The reason for my change being that most classes focus on drawing and using the firearm, but spend little time on other subjects, whereas there are several good books and videos from which you can at obtain at least a basic understanding of avoiding violence, the law of self-defense, and what is likely to happen afterward.
                    • "The 12 Lessons of ‘Guns and Self-Defense’ by Robert A. Waters"--The Truth About Guns. This is a review of the book, Guns and Self-Defense by Robert A. Waters and Sim Waters. There are 23 stories or incidents recounted in the book (including details of the aftermath), two of which involved citizens coming to the aid of police officers. The reviewer writes:
                            Looking at the other twenty-one stories, it’s easy to see patterns that might be of use to the average citizen contemplating self-defense or to those involved in the gun control debate.
                        1.  Almost all of these attacks on unsuspecting people involved substance abuse in some way.  Either the attackers were flying high on drugs like alcohol, cocaine and meth, or they were trying to get money to buy drugs.
                        2. Criminals can be extremely vicious and care nothing about the damage they inflict on others.  Many of the victims suffered life-altering injuries as well as lasting emotional trauma.
                        3. Violent criminals, much like predators in the animal world, prefer easy prey.  Most of these victims were women, elderly or physically handicapped people at home.  The few who were not tended to work in convenience stores or high value targets like stores dealing in jewels and precious metals.
                        4. All guns involved were handguns, except for a shotgun wielded by a woman home alone.
                        5. Many of the handguns used for effective defense were cheap weapons that are accessible to low wage earners and have sometimes been targets of gun control efforts.
                        6. Since most of the assailants were drug-enhanced and were only shot with handguns, they often had to be shot more than once.  So if you have time, reach for a long gun.
                        7. Few of the defenders had much training, if any. Yet they all survived, and did not shoot any innocent bystanders.
                        8. None of the guns used for defense were locked up. Due to the speed, shock and ferocity of the attacks, the victims would have been unable to deal with locks.
                        9. Violent predators often work together in armed gangs that may require defenders to fire many shots to end the attack.
                        10. All but one of the attackers had a long criminal history marked by repeated prison terms with early release.  Some were on parole or on bail awaiting trial at the time.
                        11. The underlying explanation for these violent assaults is that society does not deal effectively with the three main causes:  drugs, gangs and mental illness.
                        12. Criminals choose the time and place of their attack both to achieve surprise and avoid law enforcement, so prudent citizens must be prepared to defend themselves anytime, anywhere.
                               In practice or a training class, you are not fearing for your life. Especially in classes where you have numerous draws, the draw stroke might get to be routine. Do not lose focus on the reason you are drawing. You will often see shooters gently grabbing their shirt. This leads to having a minimal grip on the shirt or failing to clear the cover garment on the first attempt. Slow motion videos make this easy to identify. Some clothing will be more difficult to defeat than others, but the problem is consistent. Remember, when drawing a pistol we are in a fight!

                             Due to the nature of the reason you are drawing, get more aggressive with your grip on your cover garment. Aggressively ripping the cover garment up and away from the center of your chest will give you positive control and reduce your failure rate. You might rip your shirt, but let’s stay focused on getting to the gun. With a claw grip ripping the shirt to the chin, we can remove the cover garment in a repetitive manner.
                          The most fundamental way to employ this technique is a doorway to a room that contains unknown contents or off the corner of a building. The trick to getting it right is a couple key aspects. For starters, the shooter must give themselves enough space between their body and the wall/structure to extend their weapon to the fullest. Slowly round the corners apex or take it is small segments by side stepping; there are a few methods here. The important part is to not move faster than you can effectively engage targets that appear past the apex point. Like driving a car, you should never go faster than you can see and stop in relation to your horizon line. Take it slow and methodically round the corner while and engaging targets as necessary. Make the most of cover and/or concealment while you do this. I would also advise a low alert weapon position/posture while performing this. Keeping the weapon slightly lowered ensures that the shooter maintains a full field of view and their line of sight is not obstructed.
                            One of the reasons why you shouldn't clear a building by yourself is the need to have someone cover your back and/or multiple points of cover/concealment for an intruder. For instance, I was recently practicing clearing my own home while the family was away. My home has an open floor plan when it comes to the living, dining and kitchen areas. Coming from a hallway, I have to not only worry about someone straight ahead, but someone hidden by a 90 degree corner. Moving into the living room, I have a partial view into the kitchen and dining area, but limited view between those two areas because of a partial wall. As I move to clear that wall, I have not only the issue of someone that might have been concealed behind that partial wall, but now am also exposing myself to someone that might have been in the kitchen, but out of sight from my earlier vantage. To complicate matters further, there is a counter/pass-through for the kitchen that could conceal someone crouching. Anyway, my point is that you may have to pie a corner and then immediately have to do the same in a different direction, and so on.
                            • Sometime, I think last year, I came across or stumbled upon a link to a discussion on ".357 Sig, What's The Point?" The basic premise is that, given the quality of defensive bullets and ammunition, there is little to no performance advantage to using .357 Sig over 9 mm (speaking of the 9x19), but there are some distinct disadvantages. But most of the same considerations also apply to the .40 S&W, as these two articles discuss:
                            Notwithstanding the foregoing, there is one distinct advantage to the .40 S&W right now, which is that there are a lot of high quality used .40 S&W firearms on the market at prices ranging from very inexpensive to very reasonable, including Sigs, Glocks, Walthers, etc. That it can shoot a heavier bullet (i.e., with more momentum) may also make it better for someone in the outdoors that doesn't want to pack a 10 mm or a magnum revolver.
                            • "Ruger Wrangler Review"--Guns and Ammo. Ruger's Wrangler .22 revolver is intended as an inexpensive .22 revolver for plinking or learning to shoot, that resembles the Single Action Army (SAA) revolvers. The barrel and cylinder are steel, the gun's frame is aluminum, and the grip frame is a zinc alloy casting; the cylinder is nicely finished in what I presume is some sort of black nitrate type finish, while the rest of the firearm is cerakoted in black, bronze, or silver. The reviewer really like this little revolver. 
                                 I've had the opportunity to shoot one, and I agree with the Guns and Ammo reviewer: it is fun to shoot, and the single action makes it great for youth to learn or practice. I found accuracy to be acceptable out to 7 yards, which was the furthest I shot with different types of ammunition. The model I'd tried had definite preferences as to ammunition. It did not like the Federal Auto-Match ammo, but did pretty good with Winchester .22 LR 36-Grain LHP. The trigger is a tad heavy when compared to most single-action revolvers, but acceptable considering its intended use as a plinking or beginner's handgun. Cylinder lock up was excellent. The model I tried was "silver," but I have to say that the photographs of the "silver" models seem misleading because at least the model I shot was of a darker shade of metallic grey.
                                 When I flipped through the owner's manual, I was surprised to see that the manual okay-ed dry fire, actually recommending it as a type of practice. I don't think I've ever seen that before in reference to a rimfire firearm, and have always avoided dry firing a .22. 
                            • Since we are on the subject of .22s: "A Look Back at the Browning Semi-Automatic 22"--American Rifleman. These are very nice take down .22 rifles. I've had a couple opportunities to shoot them and found them to be very nice and handy firearms. But they are not cheap. But if the Ruger 10/22 are the Toyota of .22 rifles, the Browning are the Cadillacs. 
                            • In "Preparedness for the Unprepared," Marcus Wynne presents a set of yes/no questions to assess your general level of preparedness, a second set of questions to evaluate the completeness or effectiveness of your 72-hour kit, and a minimum preparedness checklist. From the latter:
                              1.  Water: one gallon per person, per day
                                2.  Food: select foods that require no refrigeration, no preparation or cooking, and little or no water.
                                  3.  Flashlight and batteries
                                    4.  First aid kit
                                      5.  Medications:  especially any prescription or non-prescription medications you or your family require regularly.
                                        6.  Battery operated radio and batteries
                                          7.  Tools:  wrench, manual can opener, screwdriver, hammer, pliers, knife, duct tape, plastic sheeting, garbage bags and ties.
                                            8.  Clothing: seasonal appropriate change of clothes for everyone and sturdy shoes.
                                              9.  Personal items:  eyeglasses, copies of important documents, insurance polices, toys and books for children.
                                                10.  Sanitary supplies: toilet paper, moist wipes, feminine supplies, personal  hygiene items, bleach, hand sanitizer.
                                                  11.  Money:  have cash.  In an emergency, many banks/ATMS may not be open.
                                                    12.  Contact information:  print out current list of family phone numbers, lawyers, doctors, insurance agents.  Include the number of someone out of state you can call to take messages for scattered family members.
                                                      13.  Pet supplies as appropriate.
                                                        14.  Maps of the local area and surrounding areas.

                                                        The other day I mentioned about having to use a finger to push down a pocket-holster to ready a firearm for drawing, and a reader suggested that I check out the pocket holsters from Mika's Pocket Holsters to remedy that issue. The video above describes the features of the holsters.

                                                             The study is a continuation of a hypothesis that Unto K. Laine, Professor Emeritus, published three years ago on the origin of the sounds heard during the displays of the Northern Lights. His theory postulated that the sounds are generated when a magnetic storm causes charges in the temperature inversion layer of the lower atmosphere, to be discharged at an altitude of 70 to 80 metres.
                                                               A recent research paper presented by Laine at the ICSV26 congress in Montreal provides a more detailed account of the sound generation. According to this study, when the Northern Lights occur, the spectrum of the temporal envelope of the crackling noise (or in other words, the rapid changes in the sound amplitude) contain frequencies of the Schumann resonances.
                                                                 The Schumann resonances refer to the low-frequency electromagnetic resonances occurring around the Earth, the strongest of them being below 50 Hz. Laine has now observed that these resonances generated similar rhythmic structures in all the measured crackling sounds.
                                                                   ’Previous international research has shown that a geomagnetic storm occurring during the Northern Lights reinforces the Schumann resonances. For the first time, such resonances have been found to activate the sound generation mechanism in the temperature inversion layer at altitudes of between 70 to 80 metres where the accumulated electric charges give rise to corona discharges and crackling sounds. In addition to the nine lowest Schumann resonances, the spectra also include their difference and sum frequencies or in other words, distortion components. This non-linearity also lends support to the hypothesis of auroral sounds generation,’ Laine says.
                                                              • "Scholars say Philistine genes help solve biblical mystery"--WPRI.com. The article reports that "[h]uman remains from an ancient cemetery in southern Israel have yielded precious bits of DNA that a new study says help prove the European origin of the Philistines — the enigmatic nemeses of the biblical Israelites." This seems to confirm that at least some of the "Sea Peoples" that contributed to the Bronze Age collapse around 1200 B.C. were peoples migrating out from Greece.
                                                              • Speaking of invasions by hostile peoples: "Migrants Brutally Beaten by Mob After Molesting Underage Girls"--Breitbart
                                                                      The incident occurred at around 4 pm over the weekend in the French commune of Draveil with the two migrants, said to be in their 30s, sexually assaulting a 12-year-old and a 15-year-old girl, Le Parisien reports.
                                                                       Immediately after the assault, one of the girls screamed, alerting other bathers who attempted to attack the two men. The father of the young girls also joined in and is said to have beaten them both.
                                                                         One of the migrants managed to escape the crowd and the violence and hid while the other had to be rescued by the pool’s security.
                                                                            “One of the men has a head injury, a broken nose and wrist. The other has cracked ribs and swollen face,” a source close to the investigation said.
                                                                        I realize this is difficult for a lot of Christian fetishists to accept, but the undeniable fact is that people in the United States have not been attacking everything from Christmas to advertising keywords to the definition of Western civilization for decades because they are atheists, or because they just wish to be left alone, but because they specifically hate and fear Jesus Christ.
                                                                        • I made the mistake recently of researching the Yiddish word "goyim" and how it is applied to non-Jews, and came across a lot of interesting material. For instance: "Why Are We So Afraid of Goyim?" by Zak Fleischman at Sefaria.
                                                                          Avodah Zarah 22a:11
                                                                            We do not allow our animals to be in the stables of goyim because we fear that the goyim may engage in bestiality. We do not go near a women goy because she may seduce you. You may not be alone with any goy because they are suspected of wanting to kill you.
                                                                            Note: "The tractate of Avodah Zarah (lit. idolatry) [a part of the Talmud] discusses all laws relating to idolatry as well as many laws regulating the interaction between Jews and non-Jews."
                                                                            • More: And this piece, "Is ‘goy’ a slur?" by Andrew Silow-Carroll, apparently an editor for the periodical, The Jewish Telegraph Agency. He begins his analysis thusly: 
                                                                            My seders, like most, drew to a close with the annual cringe-fest known as “Sh’foch Hamatcha,” in which everyone stands up and urges the Almighty to “Pour out Your fury on the nations [goyim] that do not know You.” The section is a justifiable reflection of historic Jewish anger and wishful thinking, especially during the Middle Ages when the biblical verse was added to the Haggadah. But PC it is not.
                                                                            • "Dating Of Turin Shroud To Middle Ages Was Flawed"--Newser (via AT&T). Back in 1988, scientists from the University of Arizona, Oxford University, and Switzerland's Federal Institute of Technology conducted radiocarbon testing on pieces of the cloth. They dated the linen pieces to between A.D. 1260 and 1390. There has been criticism of the testing since, including over the issue of whether the samples were contaminated. The new complaint, however, is that "only edge pieces of the shroud were analyzed, not the cloth as a whole, though nuns are rumored to have repaired its perimeter in the Middle Ages." In other words, the samples may have dated from the Middle Ages because that is when the edges were repaired.
                                                                            • "Immorality Embraced by So-Called Christian Love"--E. Jeffrey Ludwig at American Thinker. A look at a theory of justification termed "antinomianism".
                                                                              Anne Hutchinson was expelled by the Puritan leaders of Massachusetts in the 17th century for teaching this heresy.  She relocated in Long Island,where she and her children were eventually massacred by Indians.  This heresy teaches that since salvation is by grace, and since Christians are no longer under the Law (of Moses), God’s grace and mercy extends to all in a way that sinful behavior is forgiven by God in Christ.  Holy living, required by the Puritans, was no longer essential in Christ. 
                                                                                Apparently the idea is that since we are all saved, we no longer are required to engage in good works or follow the commandments, but can indulge in whatever sins we want. We are placed here to be tried and tested and improve, but this theory says that we needn't bother with even trying to take the test or become better people.
                                                                                         The most important reasons for the human expansion into space are not the standard things you hear all the time from the space agencies—the jobs, wealth creation, or even new science. It has more to do with human nature and the way we will change as we move into this new frontier. Dr. Charles Laughlin, emeritus professor of Carleton University's Department of Sociology & Anthropology, said that these changes are so important that the establishment of a permanent, self-sufficient, human presence in space will become our most crucial activity over the next century.
                                                                                         This is not merely a science fiction-driven fantasy. Manned space exploration satisfies a basic human drive to engage in geographic exploration in a way no other activity does in today's world. The fact that Star Trek became a global phenomenon suggests that there is far more to the popular appeal to "boldly go where no one has gone before" than most people understand. We need to look to the social sciences—anthropology, history, and psychology, for example—to properly understand this phenomenon.
                                                                                            Laughlin explained that the drive to engage in geographic exploration is an important part of us. It is a characteristic of the way in which the higher orders of the human nervous system function—the awareness of new physical frontiers is essential to the health of humanity. American anthropologist Dr. Ben Finney labeled humans "the exploring animal" and maintained that a withdrawal from the exploration and development of space would put the brakes on our cultural and intellectual advancement. ...
                                                                                        I would note that the discovery and colonization of the New World completely reinvigorated European Civilization in the 15th and 16th Centuries.
                                                                                                A tragic fire aboard a secret Russian nuclear "mini-sub" in the Barents Sea that killed 14 senior sailors has refocused media attention on a little-noticed flash-point of the world: the Arctic. That an important Russian system was being tested or demonstrated was suggested by reports "that among the 14 dead were 7 senior navy captains and 2 'Heroes of Russia.'" The presence of so many Russian navy worthies raises questions because brass do not typically twiddle dials on mini-submarines, but watch them being twiddled until something goes horribly wrong.
                                                                                                  One may speculate endlessly on the true nature of the Russian experiment. But although we may never know the disaster's cause, it is evidently so important that the Kremlin is pushing on. The damaged secret submarine Losharik will be returned to service ASAP to continue whatever it was doing.
                                                                                              One theory is that the submarine, which was designed for deep diving, "may have been on a secret Russian Mission looking to tap into or cut underwater fiber optic or internet cables that span the Atlantic and Arctic sea Lanes." But the article also discusses that this incident may be part of a larger strategy to exploit the Arctic seas.
                                                                                                      The Russian Arctic will see many first-of-a-kind uses of new reactors technology; sea-floor reactors, underwater drones powered by reactors, reactor-powered cruise-missiles, civilian nuclear-powered submarines and small power-reactors on ice-strengthen platforms.
                                                                                                        Among the nuclear-powered drones spawning in the area is the Poseidon doomsday weapon, "a nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed unmanned underwater vehicle ... claimed to be able to deliver a thermonuclear cobalt bomb of up to 200 megatonnes (four times as powerful as the most powerful device ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba" on the U.S. coast. The Barents Observer drolly notes that "32 Poseidon drones will be deployed, 16 with the Northern Fleet and 16 with the Pacific Fleet."
                                                                                                  • "The revolt against the masses"--Spiked. This article, published in 2018, is a look at Fred Siegel's 2014 book, The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class, and an interview with the author. From the article:
                                                                                                        Fred Siegel: People assume that modern American liberalism begins with the New Deal. Or sometimes they say it begins with Woodrow Wilson’s wartime governance. Neither is true. Liberalism begins as a reaction, from a sense among liberals that they have been betrayed by Wilson. People who called themselves progressives would end up calling themselves liberals because they see Wilson’s wartime behaviour, in which he allowed anti-war opinion to be mercilessly suppressed, as contrary to their beliefs. The initial creation of liberalism comes with the creation of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) in 1920. This, to me, places liberals on the side of the angels.
                                                                                                           But then a second element emerges in the formation of liberalism, and that’s the role of HL Mencken. People are stunned to learn that Mencken was the most important liberal of the 1920s. It’s not that Mencken defined himself as a liberal, but he became the hero of college students and others who called themselves liberal. Liberal thinkers had nothing but praise for Mencken in the 1920s (however, by the 1930s, when Mencken opposed Roosevelt, he was attacked by liberals). The key point taken from Mencken is his view of the masses as stupid, as the ‘Booboisie’. Liberalism becomes more than anything else defined by hostility to the middle class, and that includes small-business people as well as the working class. When the 1930s come, the masses are redeemed temporarily in the eyes of liberals, because they are now in good hands, they are in the hands of approved left-wingers like FDR, and therefore not as problematic. But by the late 1940s and early 1950s, the middle class is back in ill-repute among liberals.
                                                                                                           This is not terribly consequential until we get to the Kennedy period, when liberalism goes off the rails intellectually. It has been politically successful, or has appeared successful as in the case of Obama, but intellectually it never righted itself.
                                                                                                      There is a lot there, so read the whole thing. 

                                                                                                      Thursday, July 25, 2019

                                                                                                      Who cares what was the cause? Two more incidents of diversity

                                                                                                            Another day and a couple more articles/video from the Daily Mail on the fruits of diversity. First, we have an article that reports on "Shocking video shows the moment a vicous gang kick and punch a California couple in their own driveway after being asked to leave." Location was Stockton, California. The couple was set upon by a group of five "youths" after asking a couple females that were fighting outside their home leave. The wife was knocked to the ground and most badly beaten and kicked.

                                                                                                           Her husband tried to protect her but had to leave briefly to go inside and call 911 on his cellphone. When he left, they continued to beat his partner.

                                                                                                           He recalled: 'Next thing I know, F-bombs are dropped, they're telling me who do I think I am.
                                                                                                      Don't disrespect the "youth." The wife was white, and the husband appears to be either white or Hispanic, probably the latter since the "youth" showed little interest in attacking him. The attackers were ... well, you can guess. No attempt by the article to even wonder as to a motivation.

                                                                                                            Next up, we have "Shocking moment a gang of 14 teenage boys and girls brutally beat and kick a tourist outside a famed hotel in Washington, DC." Perhaps not so shocking considering D.C.'s demographics.

                                                                                                      Disturbing surveillance footage recorded at the entrance to the Washington Hilton Hotel at around 1am on July 14 shows the group of girls and boys believed to be around 13-14 years old attacking the man as he lies defenseless on the ground.  
                                                                                                       The victim appears to be an elderly white man, and the feral children are ... well, you know. Again, there is no discussion of a motive in the article. It should be, I guess, readily apparent to the reader that this was a case of polar bear hunting. The spitting on the unconscious man by several of the "youth" merely underscores the actual motive.

                                                                                                           Besides the obvious, there are a couple of defensive principles involved here. First, if you are in a fight, you will likely end up on the ground at some point. Second, you don't want to end up on the ground when attacked by multiple people. Get up, try and keep one of the attackers between you and the others; and, if you can't get away, focus your efforts on beating the crap out of the person that appears to be the leader.

                                                                                                           One of the criticisms I would aim at the husband in the first story is that he did not do enough to protect his wife, including just shoving one or two of the attackers around which was completely ineffective. Another would be why he even allowed his wife to go outside in such a volatile situation. 

                                                                                                           The second story illustrates the dangers of transitional spaces and packs of feral children.  I don't know why the guy was out and about at 1 a.m., but he should have been more careful simply because he was in a transitional space. And don't be P.C. -- this guy's alert level should have maxed out when he saw the group lurking outside the entry to the hotel. One thing to notice is how three of the youth moved to box the guy in, including one youth that hurriedly got in front of the man, slowed and then turned around once the attack had been initiated, in order to keep the man from getting inside the hotel.  Note also the general tactic of one person getting the victim's attention, and then another sucker punching the guy from behind.

                                                                                                      Wednesday, July 24, 2019

                                                                                                      Pocket Carry in Trousers

                                                                                                            The Suited Shootist has an article on different types of concealed carry when in a suit or jacket/dress slacks. His favorite method is appendix inside the waist band (AIWB), and he specifically recommends the Keeper’s Concealment Keeper holster with a vest as a cover garment. Another option he mentions are products such as the SmartCarry, Thunderwear, or Runcible Works holster. The author describes these as a "carry system [that] has its own belt that you put around your hips, and then simply put your pants on over top."

                                                                                                            Finally, he suggests pocket carry, but, if wearing dress pants, points out that you need a really small gun. Like a Kel Tec P32. He explains:
                                                                                                      The reasoning is pretty simple: The ballistics of sub-9mm calibers is all less than ideal, and the recoil of the 32 is friendlier than 380 in the light package. Since shot placement is key, shooting the ability to shoot more effectively trumps bullet size. And since it’s less popular, it doesn’t sell out the way 380 does. When it comes to the thinner fabrics of dress slacks & suit pants, the bulk and volume of a j-frame or single stack 9 just isn’t viable. 
                                                                                                      He discusses pocket carry, and its worth reading if you are considering or using pocket carry.

                                                                                                           A significant point, though. The author indicates that pocket carry can be faster than other methods because "unlike with most other methods, you’re able to casually and discreetly already have the gun in hand, shortcutting the draw."

                                                                                                           Having the gun is hand before the draw--what I think of as a "pre-draw"--is important for pocket carry to work. Basically, if you just reach in and start to pull the firearm out, unless you have pants that are tight (such as jeans), you are likely to have the pocket holster come out with it, potentially messing up your draw. My experience is only with the DeSantis Nemesis holsters, but I have used them with three different handguns, and I suspect that the issues are going to be the same for other brands. What I do, if I think I might need to draw the gun and/or are preparing to draw the weapon, is to grasp the handgun's grip, and then use my trigger middle finger to push the holster down just a bit off the weapon--just enough to loosen the holster so if or when I draw the firearm, the holster stays in place. And if I don't have to draw the handgun, I can just release the grip and let it slide back down into the holster.

                                                                                                            That said, I don't usually pocket carry in dress pants because I don't really have a handgun small enough to pull it off without it printing horribly. However, in loose cargo pants or shorts, it can work well--especially if you wear a loose button up shirt that covers the top of your pocket.

                                                                                                      Send Them Back? A Look At Mass Immigration As A Precursor To Civil War

                                                                                                      In his Woodpile Report for this week, Ol' Remus linked to an article that describes one way in which a hot civil war might arise. The article is "Send Them Back" from the Amerika blog. Key part:
                                                                                                            It sounds horrible, but if diversity does not work, the only way to un-do it is to remove the newcomer groups. They need to go back home and apply what they have learned here. For some, reparations-with-repatriation are only fair. But they need to go, and soon.

                                                                                                           We either fix this, or we face a series of bad options like civil war, balkanization, or partition, all of which end the power that the United States has wielded. Diversity has destroyed that; we need it back, so we must end diversity, which means that we must Send Them Back.
                                                                                                      This seems broader than Kurt Schlicter's "... Simple, Effective Comprehensive Illegal Immigration Reform Plan: Go Home." Schlicter wrote, in part:
                                                                                                            Get out, illegals. Go home. Or don’t go home – I don’t care where you go. You just can’t stay here in America.

                                                                                                            This is my elegant, uncomplicated comprehensive immigration reform plan. If we did not invite you in – if you didn’t have the basic courtesy and respect for this country to ask to come here, then get out. And don’t come back – if you snuck into America, you don’t get to come back.

                                                                                                            It’s simple and fair. The fair part is important, because it’s about time that our immigration laws be fair to the only people who should matter when we make our policies – American citizens. 

                                                                                                           Yes, the goal of our immigration system should be one thing – to benefit American citizens. It may scandalize the elite to prioritize our own people, but that’s okay – in fact, I hope they run in 2020 on a platform of putting foreigners first.
                                                                                                      Of course, there would be violent opposition to either plan, whether the broader expelling of non-citizens or recently made citizens, or merely focusing on those that are here illegally.

                                                                                                      A.    Mass Immigration Is Harmful.

                                                                                                            David Frum, writing in The Atlantic, relates that by 2027, the foreign-born proportion of the U.S. population is projected to be 14.8 percent. Under present immigration policies, the U.S. will become majority-minority in about 2044. Even cutting immigration by nearly half would postpone that historical juncture by only one to five years. And, as, he further observes, "[n]obody is seriously planning for such population growth—building the schools and hospitals these people will need, planning for the traffic they will generate." Nor, I would add, as we see in California in particular, is the necessary housing and other infrastructure being built or maintained. The consequence is higher living costs and cost of living.
                                                                                                      Housing costs in the hottest job markets have grown much faster than the wages offered to displaced workers. Simply put, a laid-off Ohio manufacturing worker contemplating relocating to Colorado to seek a job in the hospitality industry is likely to discover that the move offers no higher pay, but much higher rent. An immigrant from Mexico or the Philippines faces a very different calculus. Her wage gains would be significant. And while her housing options may seem lousy to someone accustomed to an American standard of living, to her they likely represent a bearable sacrifice for all the other opportunities offered by life in the United States—and possibly a material improvement over living conditions back home.
                                                                                                      The consequence, as Frum explains, is that:
                                                                                                      Mobility between countries appears to have the perverse effect of discouraging mobility within countries—in effect, moating off the most dynamic regions of national economies from their own depressed hinterlands.
                                                                                                      Keep this in mind, because a strong division between rural and metropolitan areas has effects we will discuss below.

                                                                                                           Part of the problem we face is declining birth rates among natives. Again, turning to Frum's article:
                                                                                                      When natives have lots of children of their own, immigrants look like reinforcements. When natives have few children, immigrants look like replacements. No wonder that, according to a 2016 survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and The Atlantic, nearly half of white working-class Americans agree with this statement: “Things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.”
                                                                                                      According to Frum and research he cites, this alienation within one's own country is a threat that can prompt totalitarian tendencies.  This seems to tie in with the findings by Robert Putnam concerning the inverse relationship between diversity and social capital. From a 2007 article, "Bowling With Our Own," in City Journal:
                                                                                                            Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, is very nervous about releasing his new research, and understandably so. His five-year study shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities. He fears that his work on the surprisingly negative effects of diversity will become part of the immigration debate, even though he finds that in the long run, people do forge new communities and new ties.

                                                                                                            Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

                                                                                                             In the 41 sites Putnam studied in the U.S., he found that the more diverse the neighborhood, the less residents trust neighbors. This proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia. In diverse San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30 percent of people say that they trust neighbors a lot. In ethnically homogeneous communities in the Dakotas, the figure is 70 percent to 80 percent.

                                                                                                            Diversity does not produce “bad race relations,” Putnam says. Rather, people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” Putnam adds a crushing footnote: his findings “may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.”
                                                                                                      Read the whole thing. See also, "The downside of diversity" from The Boston Globe.

                                                                                                             There is evidence that diversity negatively impacts educational outcomes. We, of course, expect that non-English speakers will fair poorly in school, but, as Frum reports, "here’s something more surprising: Evidence from North Carolina suggests that even a fairly small increase in the non-native-speaking presence in a classroom seriously depresses learning outcomes for all students."

                                                                                                             There are economic costs as well. Again, from Frum's article:
                                                                                                            First, adding millions of additional immigrant workers every decade makes the American economy in the aggregate much bigger than it would otherwise be.

                                                                                                             Second, immigration contributes very little to making native-born Americans richer than they would otherwise be. In 2007, in the course of arguing the economic case for more immigration, George W. Bush’s White House tried to quantify the net economic benefits of immigration to native-born Americans. The advocates’ own calculation yielded a figure of $37 billion a year. That’s not nothing, but in the context of a then–$13 trillion economy, it’s not much.

                                                                                                             Third, the gains from immigration are divided very unequally. Immigrants reap most of them. Wealthy Americans claim much of the rest, in the form of the lower prices they pay for immigrant-produced services. Low-income Americans receive comparatively little benefit, and may well be made worse off, depending on who’s counting and what method they use.

                                                                                                             And finally, while the impact of immigration on what the typical American earns is quite small, its impact on government finances is big. Estimates from the National Academy of Sciences suggest that on average, each immigrant costs his or her state and local governments $1,600 more a year in expenditures than he or she contributes in revenues. In especially generous states, the cost is much higher still: $2,050 in California; $3,650 in Wisconsin; $5,100 in Minnesota.

                                                                                                             Immigrants are expensive to taxpayers because the foreign-born population of the United States is more likely to be poor and stay poor. Even when immigrants themselves do not qualify for a government benefit—typically because they are in the country illegally—their low income ensures that their children do. About half of immigrant-headed households receive some form of social assistance in any given year.

                                                                                                              Assertions that federal tax revenue from immigrants can stabilize the finances of programs such as Medicare and Social Security overlook the truth that immigrants will get old and sick—and that in most cases, the taxes they pay over their working life will not cover the costs of their eventual claims on these programs. No matter how many millions of immigrants we absorb, they can’t help shore up these programs if they’ll need more in benefits than they can ever possibly pay in taxes. ... Under the present policy favoring large numbers of low-wage earners, the United States is accumulating huge future social-insurance liabilities in exchange for relatively meager tax contributions now.
                                                                                                      Not discussed by Frum is the cost on the criminal justice system. Frum asserts in his article that first generation immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives, but that second generation and later commit crimes at higher levels. Edwin S. Rubenstein's paper, "The Color of Crime," reviews crime statistics based on race and notes that most minorities' share of violent crimes is well above their representation in the population. Thus, that more fecund immigrants may, in the first generation, commit less crimes is not reassuring as to what later generations will do.

                                                                                                      B.    Will Mass Immigration Increase The Odds of Civil War?

                                                                                                            The short answer is "yes." In a paper entitled "The Nature of Conflict" (PDF, 103 pp.), published in the Department of Economics Working Papers 2015-08, Department of Economics, Williams College, revised Aug 2015, researchers examined civil conflicts following World War II and determined that ethnic differences were a significant contributing factor in most of those conflicts. From the paper:
                                                                                                            The genetic diversity of a national or subnational population can contribute to conflicts in society through several mechanisms. First, genetic diversity may have an adverse effect on the prevalence of mutual trust and cooperation (Ashraf and Galor, 2013a), and excessive diversity can therefore depress the level of social capital below a threshold that otherwise subdues the emergence of social, political, and economic grievances and prevents the culmination of such grievances to violent hostilities. Second, to the extent that genetic diversity captures interpersonal divergence in preferences for public goods and redistributive policies, overly diverse societies may find it difficult to reconcile such differences through collective action, thereby intensifying their susceptibility to internal antagonisms. Third, insofar as genetic diversity reflects interpersonal heterogeneity in traits that are differentially rewarded by the geographical, institutional, or technological environment, it can potentially cultivate grievances that are rooted in economic inequality, thereby magnifying society’s vulnerability to internal belligerence.
                                                                                                            In addition to the aforementioned mechanisms that apply to both intergroup and intragroup conflict, genetic diversity can also manifest a link with intergroup conflict in society through its potential role in facilitating the endogenous formation of coalitional groups in prehistory and the subsequent differentiation of their respective collective identities over a long expanse of time (Ashraf and Galor, 2013b). Specifically, following the “out of Africa” migration of humans, the initial endowment of genetic diversity in a given location may have catalyzed the formation of distinct groups at that location through a process of endogenous group selection, reflecting the tradeoff associated with the size of a group. Although a larger group can benefit from economies of scale, it can also be less cohesive due to costly coordination. Thus, in light of the added contribution of genetic diversity to the lack of cohesiveness of a group, a larger initial endowment of genetic diversity in a given location may have given rise to a larger number of groups, given the level of intragroup diversity. Over time, due to the forces of “cultural drift” and “biased transmission” of cultural markers that serve to distinguish “insiders” from “outsiders” of a group (e.g., language dialects, customs and traditions, norms of social conduct), intergroup divergence in such markers would have become more pronounced, leading to the formation of distinct collective identities along ethnic lines, and thereby, linking prehistoric genetic diversity with the degree of ethnolinguistic fragmentation observed in a given location today. The resultant fragmentation can then facilitate intergroup conflict in society either directly, by fueling excessive intergroup competition and dissension, or indirectly, by creating more fertile grounds for political elites to exploit ethnic mobilization strategies.
                                                                                                      A few well known examples can illustrate this principle. Cam Brown, writing at The American Thinker earlier this year, noted in his article, "After the Boomers Are Gone, the Bloodshed Begins":
                                                                                                            In the case of historical examples, we can point to places such as South Africa, Brazil, and the Rwandan and Yugoslavian debacles of the 1990s as a counterpoint to the belief in a multicultural paradise, as each has had great disharmony and violence between the different ethnicities who live there.  The balkanization of Yugoslavia is a likely outcome facing a large number of Western nations — something that has been the case throughout history.  (Even those of much more similar ethnocultural background have had difficulties assimilating and living together, such as the Irish and Italians who first arrived in the New World with significant tensions and clashes with the already existing citizens of North America.)  Another case in point in history is the former Soviet Union's policy of population transfer, which was meant to break down nationalist sentiment but created various degrees of disharmony throughout its former "empire" (notably in Ukraine).
                                                                                                      * * *
                                                                                                            I want to stress that what is to come may not be as bad, or, if one gets more dramatic, horrific as it could be.  The title of this article was meant to be provocative, not necessarily prophetic.  Undoubtedly, though, there will be varying degrees of stress (social and economic) and disharmony, depending on the nation or region of a nation. ...
                                                                                                            The crux of the matter is that the United States (and Europe, for that matter) are not just facing a future of multiculturalism and "diversity," but are currently being invaded. Steve Sailer has warned, "America is expected to add something like 100-120 million people in four-to-five decades, almost all people of color who have never before been fully assimilated into any First World nation. Every great city is going to look like Los Angeles, and, as Putnam reported earlier, Los Angeles is a textbook example of a multiracial, multiethnic, multilingual city where levels of suspicion and mistrust approach the maximum." Numbers like that are not just a few interesting people moving in, but the replacement of entire populations.

                                                                                                            Military historian Martin van Creveld has explained that war is often associated with invasion, writing:
                                                                                                      At some times, war and migration were essentially the same, as in the great migration of peoples during the first few centuries after Christ, the Arab expansion after 632 AD, the Magyar invasion of Europe, the Mongol invasions of China, and the movements of many African tribes from one part of the continent to another…
                                                                                                      In a 2006 article, Steve Sailer provided another example on immigration being invasion being war, that being Lebanon. He observed:
                                                                                                            ... Lebanon was a successful democracy beginning in 1943, when it gained independence from France. It enjoyed a free press, women's suffrage (from 1953), and a booming economy centered on banks, trade, and tourism.

                                                                                                            And then it all came tumbling down. A hellish civil war erupted in 1975 and flared on and off into the early 1990s, with 100 different militias pounding each other with artillery duels inside Beirut.

                                                                                                           Although it's hard now to remember, during its three decades of stability and prosperity, Beirut was known as the "Paris of the Arab World". ...

                                                                                                             With a superb location at the east end of the Mediterranean, Lebanon's Christian Arabs were Western-oriented, literate, and entrepreneurial. Protestant missionaries from New England founded the American University of Beirut, the premiere university in the Arab world, as long ago as 1866. 
                                                                                                      * * *
                                                                                                           Under French guidance, the Lebanese worked out an ingenious political system. The goal of this "confessional gerrymander" was to restrict all political rivalries to within each ethnic group. The largest and most advanced group, the Christians, always got the top political post, the presidency. The Sunnis, who were second in numbers and wealth, got the number two job, the prime ministership. The rural Shi'ites were left with the speakership of the chamber of deputies.


                                                                                                      * * *
                                                                                                            But Lebanon's “confessional gerrymander” worked fairly well…for while. Of course, it failed to build national parties that transcended ethnicity. But, then, those are rare anywhere.

                                                                                                            The more serious problem: Lebanon's demographics shifted. The constitution was based on the 1932 census, when Christians comprised 54 percent of the population. Regrettably, but predictably, the best educated ethnicity, the Christians, had the lowest birthrate and were most likely to emigrate. In contrast, the poor and backward Shi'ites proliferated—and stayed put.

                                                                                                             As the demographics changed, the original distribution of power among the groups became increasingly contentious. The Shi'ites demanded a new census. The Christians, who predominated in the cushiest government jobs and were guaranteed half the seats in the legislature, resisted.

                                                                                                            Then, immigration became the straw that broke the fragile Lebanese camel's back. ... 
                                                                                                            Palestinian refugees had started arriving in 1948 and sped up after the 1967 Six Day War. Then, in the "Black September" of 1970, King Hussein of Jordan turned on Yassir Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization and booted them out of his country. They relocated to Lebanon.
                                                                                                            By 1973, Palestinians made up one tenth of Lebanon's population, and were radicalizing. They forged alliances with the other outsiders, the Druze. And PLO attacks on Israel brought retribution raining down on Lebanon as a whole, outraging the ruling Maronites.

                                                                                                            On April 13, 1975, four Christians were killed in a drive-by shooting of a church. Later that day, a Maronite Phalangist militia massacred 27 Palestinians on a bus. The country descended into civil war, polarizing along Christian-Muslim lines, but with many strange alliances and rapid betrayals.
                                                                                                             In his article, "On the Coming Civil War," C.B. Robertson explains how a permanent shift in demographics could contribute to a civil war:
                                                                                                            In order to determine whether war is likely, one has to determine whether war is desirable to at least one possible participant.

                                                                                                             Political power is dependent upon the formation of supporting coalitions. These coalitions are composed of demographics which can be dissected and appealed to in an almost infinite variety of ways (women, Christians, men over the age of 45, people who listen to metal, etc). However, three categories of demographic identity seem to overpower all others when push comes to shove, historically speaking. Those are race, religion, and nationality.

                                                                                                             Despite all talk of being a “post-racial society,” American political scientists live and breathe strategies and techniques for getting the “Hispanic vote” or the “white evangelical vote” or the “inner-city black vote.” Obama managed to get 95% of blacks, and it is reasonable to suspect that the Democratic Party selected him in part to appeal to this demographic block, regardless of the personal motives and intentions of candidate Obama himself. As the first Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew said in an interview with Der Spiegel, “in multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

                                                                                                             Political entities like the Republican party and the Democratic party — and the Aristocratic families they are attached to (the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, etc) — live and die on political power, in the way that businesses live and die on demand for their products and services. If the potential payoff outweighs the risk, then they are likely to choose less traditional, or rather, less traditionally acceptable means of acquiring and retaining that power as a strategy.

                                                                                                            Long before the “progressive” movement had taken over the Democratic Party, immigrants and racial minorities were not particularly powerful as a demographic block. Yet as time went on, and the generally more populist and “working class” appeal of the Democratic party drew in more immigrants and racial minorities, non-whites as a block grew as both a source of political power and as a self-identifying demographic within America. The logic of oppositional parties vying for power naturally pits the constituent demographics against each other: men against women, Catholic against Protestant, Northerner against Southerner, and White against Black. This is all “politics as usual,” and while it can build tension, and even violence on occasion, it is not, by itself, a likely source of civil war in most cases, because in normal politics, there is equilibrium. A win for Republicans in one cycle is likely to herald victory for Democrats in the next, and vice versa. When the wins begin to appear permanent, however, the equilibrium is lost. The desperation of the survival instinct — the survival of the party’s political power, that is, not the individuals it constitutes — may tip the scale and make war attractive.
                                                                                                      He continues:
                                                                                                           When the demographic blocs are genetic, rather than based upon intra-national issues, and when there are disparities in birth-rates between these groups, and then massive waves of immigration, the political equilibrium is gone, seemingly for good. In its place is a whole lot of confusion, mistrust, resentment, and in some cases, hatred. And at the center of it all lies control over the most powerful military and economy in the world.

                                                                                                           The Left’s investment in minorities united by their opposition to whites means that more immigration will lead to a permanent victory for the Left. If the Right manages to stem the flow of immigration, or reverse it, then it will win a permanent victory over the progressive Left. The permanence of victory and the high stakes of the game mean that no strategy will be off the table, so long as it works. And history is nothing if not an ongoing demonstration of the viability of warfare.

                                                                                                           In short, war is almost certainly in our very near future.
                                                                                                      Robertson also explains why he believes such a war will be racially motivated rather than based on religion or nationality:
                                                                                                           Why race? Why not religion? Why not nationality? Though the United States is broadly more religious than Western Europe, it is still not religious enough to motivate a war in defense of Christendom. In fact, most of religiosity now seems geared more towards being nice and getting along with everyone than with traditional religious piety. Religion simply isn’t a sharp enough line in the West to dictate the sides in a coming war.

                                                                                                            So too with nationality. America has tacitly granted the outsider’s definition of what it means to be American. This definition includes holding certain values and little else… except it is the values themselves that are in dispute. Thus virtually anyone can claim to be “American” when it is convenient, and oppose it in turn. Race is the only historically major identity left, and we cannot easily slough off our skin and swap it in for something different.
                                                                                                      While I agree with Robertson's general assessment as to Christians uniting to fight against the encroachment of evil, religion won't be a complete non-factor. The Left has invested heavily in the LGBT+ population and using one's opinions about the LGBT+ lifestyle as a significant marker of who is an "insider" and who is an "outsider" or "deplorable".

                                                                                                            Now, as I've discussed before, the coming civil war will not be like the first Civil War of the 1860s. There will not be clean demarcation lines, at least not initially. It will be a war of parent against child and child against parent, neighbor against neighbor, town against town. How? Because, as Robertson argues, the conflict will not be white against black, or some such, but between pro-white and anti-white, which will not fall along neat, ethnic lines.
                                                                                                            As descriptors, “pro-white” and “anti-white” are subtly but importantly different than “white” and “non-white.” An Asian man cannot be white, but he can be pro-white. A white woman cannot be non-white, but she can be anti-white. ...

                                                                                                            Opposition to whites has been tastefully disguised for the last 30-40 years, generally speaking, but it is gradually becoming more overt. In the beginning, it sounded very plausible: abstract articulations that objectified morality — thus separating an individual from any right to take his or her own side in a matter of politics — were applied selectively to whites. “White privilege” and other manifestations of standpoint theory were injected into academic discussions of politics. Many whites were shockingly open to the concept, as if inherited privilege were a bad thing if it did not benefit all peoples of the globe equally. ... In some circles, anti-white sentiment is so commonplace that it’s banal. The future of the Left is probably progressive, and the progressive movement is fundamentally anti-white. This is not a matter of ideology; it’s a matter of acquiring and retaining political power. The progressive left has invested itself in a large demographic set composed of groups with nothing in common except that they are not average white people. If they are not anti-white, they lose.
                                                                                                      C.      What Will A Second Civil War Be Like?

                                                                                                           In effect, we already know to a certain extent because we are already in it. Robertson believes that the physical violence will be subdued, and similar to what we saw in the 1960's and 1970's: protests and riots, an occasional shooting or bombing, and harassment (including lawfare, doxing, and public shaming). I would also not leave out physical sabotage and hacking. But Robertson believes that the real fear will arise over possible harassment:
                                                                                                      The real fear will not be from the violence, but from the ever-present threat of having one’s business or family harassed for signaling — intentionally or otherwise — that you are on the wrong side. Any degree of asymmetry in this harassment campaign will incentivize the general public to side with the more terrifying of the two sides, meaning that despite everyone’s protestations to the contrary, the more intolerant side is likely to win in the long run. Civility is not the way to salvage things; it simply loses.
                                                                                                      Of course, simple harassment can be effective. I recently came across an article at Gates of Vienna explaining the simple techniques used by Muslims to gain control of the public space simply by the act of holding large prayer groups in public spaces to intimidate the native Europeans:
                                                                                                             Mass prayer meetings were organized first in Paris, ostensibly to demand more mosques. A couple of hundred or even thousands of worshipers congregate together on a certain street or square and simply occupy it. An imam leads the prayer. Usually sound systems are brought to accommodate the worshipers. The reasons for those prayer meetings vary. Often to demand more mosques. But on other occasions they demand less nudity (a small prayer meeting was held on a beach in Belgium for that), no dogs, more halal food somewhere, or what have you. Anything goes.

                                                                                                            That prayer meeting on the beach in Belgium was a tiny one. Size, however, doesn’t matter. What they do is effectively take over a street, square, or in this case part of a beach, and do whatever they want. Which, for now, is to scare the doodoo out of passersby by praying. A tactic that works wonders for them.

                                                                                                            Mohammedans know very well what they are doing. They defy the haram governments in the countries they are colonizing. Technically, you need to apply for a license for any kind of demonstration, including a prayer meeting. Since they don’t do that, the police could in theory arrest them. But there is a problem. We are democratic, they are definitely not. How can you even begin to arrest ‘innocent’ people who merely pray? We’re not talking about five people praying together, but many hundreds of people. That’s for starters.

                                                                                                            They know exactly what they are doing, and would love nothing more than for the police to move in for mass arrests or with teargas. Many of the worshipers are women and children. They are there for a purpose, not by accident. Any idea how much violence would occur if the police did try to intervene? I haven’t mentioned real jihadis or ordinary heavily-armed men who are almost certainly among the worshipers. Itching for 72 virgins. They’d like nothing better than provoke a riot.

                                                                                                            So what do the police do? Just like our spineless politicians, they look the other way. It’s not worth it. Or so our political superiors think. Looking the other way worked for fifty years, so why wouldn’t it work now? That’s because giving in a little bit each time adds up to giving in a lot.
                                                                                                           Robertson's opinion has not changed in the subsequent year. In an article from earlier this month, he discusses Samuel Culper's series of videos on a civil war, and writes:
                                                                                                            The basic gist is essentially this: the right-wing presumptuousness of military victory assumes that there will be a “trigger” that will culturally allow actual warfare to take place. However, such a trigger is unlikely to take place, not least because it is in the left’s interests to ensure that it does not. This is why they will likely avoid any potential trigger policies (namely, gun-confiscation bills). Without such a trigger, there will be no real “war,” at least in the conventional sense, and the low-intensity conflict we have been experiencing will continue and escalate with lawfare, psychological warfare, and low-grade political violence, such as Antifa’s domestic terrorism and the Rep. Steve Scalise baseball shooting.

                                                                                                            This is not “war,” but it is not “peace” either. It is not “business as usual,” and it is likely to get significantly worse before it gets any better, although Culper believes it is unlikely to reach the levels of, say, the Spanish Civil War. A more likely comparison is to the Irish “Troubles.”

                                                                                                           This is in line with my own predictions[.]
                                                                                                            But I think Robertson errs if he assumes that the civil war will remain a "cold" civil war. Because there is a built in incentivization to be more intolerant in order to prevail, there is an incentivization to increase violence, especially if one side begins to lose. Thus, the Left's outrage when Conservatives have the temerity to resist, such as the recent chants of "send her back" in response to Donald Trump's recital of the outrages of Somali-born Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. It is an unwelcome reminder that they, too, are mortal. But, perhaps more significantly, is that there is a sizable contingent of the population, whether because they are wannabe Left wing tyrants or because they come from countries that have seen civil wars and guerrilla wars, who are willing to engage in political violence--the contagion theory of civil war. And this contingent increases in size with each day, week, and month that we continue to allow mass immigration.

                                                                                                            Any serious attempts to reverse the effects of mass immigration will be a sufficient trigger for a hot civil war. Neither the Left nor affected populations will stand idly by if their future political power--a power to which they believe they are entitled--is taken from them.