Burying The Lede While Paris Burns

There hasn't been much attention in the U.S. media over the riots in Paris following a win in a major soccer match. Gateway Pundit provides some coverage of the chaos in its article, "Paris Burns: PSG Champions League Victory Sparks Second Straight Year of Riots, Looting, and Arson." But you have to get close to the bottom of the article before you come across a hint of why the rioting and looting is so much worse over the last several years:

The disturbances have reignited a broader national debate over mass migration, demographic shifts, public order, law enforcement, and the limits of existing policies. Many voters increasingly question why such scenes continue to repeat themselves year after year.   

These scenes repeat year after year because France has imported so much of the third world while simultaneously taking a laissez faire attitude toward their acting out. 

     Ruminating about the riots, the host of the Richard the Fourth YouTube channels wonders if Europe needs a strongman (presumably Oswald Spengler's Caesar figure) to save it. He uses Ecuador and its mass incarceration of criminals as an example of what must be done to control the criminal elements. 

VIDEO: "Europe Needs a Strongman to Save Her"
Richard The Fourth (15 min.)

Finding A Handgun That Fits

 Massad Ayoob discusses how to determine if a handgun fits you, specifically looking at trigger reach. 

VIDEO: "Handgun Dimensions Decoded"
Massad Ayoob - Facts and Firearms (12 min.)

More On The Police Assisted Murder Of Henry Nowak

Nowak, as you may remember, was a British youth stabbed repeatedly by a non-British thug, Vickrum Digwa, then handcuffed and left to drown in his own blood by the British police. Spiked has more about this case and the cause of Nowak's death in its article: "Henry Nowak and the savagery of state wokeness." Digwa has been found guilty of murder; his mother, who removed the murder weapon from the scene and hid it, has been found guilty of "assisting an offender." 

As savage as the knifing was, it was what happened next that has shaken Britain’s soul. Digwa’s mother arrived and spirited away the murder weapon – it was later found hidden in the family home with 20 other Sikh swords and knives. Digwa then accused Nowak of having racially abused him. He said Nowak used a racist slur against him, punched him and knocked off his turban. These were ‘wicked lies’, the court heard during his murder trial. Yet there was a group of people on the scene of this atrocity who believed Digwa’s vile libels against the youth he had just fatally lacerated: the police.     

The author goes on to explain why the police believed Digwa and let Nowak die.  

    We all know why Digwa’s evil lie was believed and why wounded, gasping Henry’s pleas for help went unheeded – it’s because the word ‘racism’ acts like a magic spell on our ruling class. It’s like a rhetorical narcotic. The minute they hear it, they morph, like woke Manchurian candidates, into wide-eyed searchers for the merest hint of that greatest sin in our morally deracinated times: white privilege, and prejudicial speech. Their aim becomes not the discovery of truth but the demonstration of virtue. On that street in Southampton, once the word ‘racism’ had been uttered, the role of the state’s representatives suddenly and radically changed: it was no longer to investigate a potential crime but to obsequiously act out a moral script.

    Having prostrated themselves so fully before the new regime religion that falsely calls itself ‘anti-racism’, the police were virtually programmed to believe the ‘brown man’ and be sceptical of the ‘white man’. No doubt the critical race theory that pumps like a toxin in the veins of the establishment kicked in, meaning that the Sikh who had so ruthlessly wielded his sword instantly became the victim, while the target of his red-mist knifing – the white boy – became the oppressor. The state’s intoxication with the hyper-racialised politics of victimhood has driven it ever further into a quagmire of dogma where cool moral judgment is all but impossible. 

Read the whole thing.  

The Muslim Way Of War

Iran is pretending to pursue peace negotiations simply as a reprieve to regain their military strength: "Iran digs out underground missile sites during cease-fire with US: report." From the lede:

    Iran has dug out a majority of the entrances to its underground missile bases that were buried by joint US-Israeli strikes during the height of the war, satellite images show.

    A recent probe of 18 missile facilities hit during the war shows that at least 50 out of 69 tunnel entrances have been reopened since the cease-fire went into effect in April, CNN reported.

    The fast work indicates that Iran would be poised to fire a lot more long-range missiles across the Middle East if the war restarts amid tense peace negotiations.  

This strategy is termed hudna. The Middle East Forum gives this explanation of it (footnotes omitted):

    The concept of hudna deserves a close look: It is not a Qur’anic term, nor is it the only Arabic word for a cease-fire or truce; others include: muhadana, muwada’a, muhla, musalaha, musalama, mutaraka, and sulh. But hudna is the most prominent. It is the first word used in Muslim history to mean cease-fire, specifically in the context of the seventh century Truce or Treaty of al-Hudaybiyya, often termed the Sulh al-Hudaybiyya (peace of al-Hudaybiyya).

    Named after a village outside Mecca, the truce came six years after Muhammad and his followers abandoned Mecca for Yathrib, today’s Medina. This move, known as the hijra (emigration) is of enormous significance for the classical understanding of jihad, inasmuch as it sets a pattern of retreat followed by regrouping and rearming, which permits an attack on the territory previously left behind. In March 628 C.E., Muhammad and his followers sought to return to Mecca to perform a pilgrimage. At Hudaybiyya, Muhammad “marched till he reached al-Hudaybiyya which lies at the limit of the Haram [sacred territory of Mecca] area at a distance of nine miles from Mecca.” Muhammad and the rulers of Mecca, most of whom had yet to convert to Islam, negotiated a truce, the essence of which was to permit the Muslims to return unarmed on pilgrimage each year for the next decade. It came to an end two years later, however, following an infraction by a tribe allied to the Meccans. In 630, Muhammad entered Mecca with a small, armed force and took the city peacefully. Hudna, in other words, amounted to a temporary truce.

There is no such thing as a lasting peace with Islam--it is always temporary until they believe they have sufficient strength to challenge you. Or, as the Times of Israel has succinctly explained:

    Simply put: within Islamic tradition, it is considered morally acceptable to make peace treaties (Hudna) when in a position of weakness, and to break them once the balance of power shifts in one’s favor—just as the Prophet did.

    Western observers often fail to grasp why Muslim negotiators push for temporary ceasefires (often ten years long, mirroring the Prophet’s example). They’re then surprised when such agreements collapse suddenly. This isn’t seen as dishonorable, rather, it follows a deeply rooted cultural and religious precedent.