The Multiverse

Yesterday's critique of the Ask Ethan blog was such fun, we should do another. It may seem tedious, but someone has to ridicule the charlatans. The ContraKrugman podcast is run by two economists who refute Paul Krugman - the left's premiere priest of economics - week after week. Their persistence in refuting a false prophet is commendable. Perhaps this blog will begin a weekly recap of all Ethan's nonsense (he seems to post almost daily). Someone needs to be doing it. The only real way to stop the lying liars is to ridicule them consistently and aggressively until they are too ashamed or marginalized to continue. For now, I'll just look at his most recent post.

One of the most solid logical arguments is the reductio ad absurdum. The premise is simple. If your argument leads inevitably to absurdity, it must be wrong. Ethan would like to turn that logic principle on it's head. The absurd must be true. Normal people might interpret this a little different. If cosmic inflation leads to the multiverse with "no way out", it must be an argument against cosmic inflation.

If this is the idea of the Multiverse, I can understand your skepticism at the notion that we could somehow know whether it does or doesn’t exist. After all, physics and astronomy are sciences that rely on measurable, experimental, or otherwise observational confirmation. If we are looking for evidence of something that exists outside of our visible Universe and leaves no trace within it, it seems that the idea of a Multiverse is fundamentally untestable.

But there are all sorts of things that we cannot observe that we know must be true. Decades before we directly detected gravitational waves, we knew that they must exist, because we observed their effects. Binary pulsars — spinning neutron stars orbiting around one another — were observed to have their revolutionary periods shorten. Something must be carrying energy away, and that thing was consistent with the predictions of gravitational waves.

The leading argument depends on the existence of neutron stars, which are an epic fiasco of scientific imagination run amok. But Nobel prizes have already been awarded, so the scientific community can't simply walk that one back. And, as we can see here, if you admit one absurdity, you leave the door open for about anything to follow. It remains to be seen how far things will have to get before the scientific community will refute research that has been awarded the Nobel Prize.

Anti-Gravity

One of our favorite science blogs (to pick on) has taken on an interesting question. From Ask Ethan: If The Universe Ends In A Big Crunch, Will All Of Space Recollapse?

When you describe the Big Crunch, you talk about a race between gravity and the expansion of space. It’s not clear to me that if gravity wins that race, whether space stops expanding, or simply that the matter in space stops expanding. I’d love to hear your explanation of this.

It's an interesting question because it's obviously absurd, yet follows logically from the standard model of astrophysics. Ethan tends not to shy away from these questions, but his normal routine is to ramble through the standard dogma, assert all kinds of theoretical constructs as absolute fact, and then fail to answer the initial question.

This is a complex question, but the physics we know today allows us to rise to the challenge and give a definitive answer.

It's not really that complex. If the "fabric of spacetime" is expanding because of dark energy, then will it still be expanding even if the gravitational attraction of the material contents of the universe overcomes the expansion, and it all crunches back? The answer should be yes, because the expansion is driven by a hypothetical force that is independent of the matter that the spacetime contains. It must be independent, because otherwise it would just have to be called anti-gravity. Scientists would have to explain how matter is attracted to other matter by gravity, but also repelled by anti-gravity. Universal expansion was concocted specifically to make that contradiction goes away. Since he is the expert, I'm sure Ethan will address all this in his "definitive answer."

He goes on to explain redshift theory, which should be familiar to regular readers here who slog through the science posts. It should also be familiar to the readers of his own astrophysics blog, but that is another matter. After padding out a half dozen or so paragraphs under the assumption that his readers are unfamiliar with one of the most famous conclusions of the field, he turns more directly to the question at hand.

Galaxies do move relative to one another, as the gravitational forces from the matter in the Universe push and pull everything around. But the fabric of spacetime itself cannot remain constant, either.

It's sloppy language to state that gravitational forces "push and pull" everything around. Gravity is only supposed to pull! But, in all reality, scientists have indirectly invented anti-gravity that pushes, so his verbal error is inadvertently apt. He then asserts that the fabric of spacetime cannot remain constant. Why not? He explains.

In General Relativity, spacetime is a dynamic entity. When you have a Universe like ours — where matter and energy are relatively evenly distributed on the largest scales — any relativistic solution that results in a static Universe is fundamentally unstable. The Universe must be expanding or contracting, as it cannot remain in an unchanging state. We cannot necessarily know which one it’s doing from first principles alone; we require measurements to teach us what’s going on.

Spacetime is not a dynamic entity under general relativity. In fact, Einstein later regretted that he had not thought of dynamic spacetime himself. This author doesn't know what he's talking about even in his own area of specialty. He then tells us that a "universe like ours" - implying that a universe is just some common, mundane thing - is inherently unstable, and doomed to either a Big Crunch caused by contraction, or a slow heat death caused by infinite expansion. It's the kind of worldview that really appeals to materialistic hedonists who follow I F*cking Love Science on Facebook. [It especially draws liberal losers, who love the notion that the universe is arbitrary and doomed, that there will be no judgement, that nothing matters because winners and losers alike are all doomed to the same pitiful demise.]

He goes on to say that we need measurements to determine which of the two tragic fates awaits us, because it can't be determined from "first principles alone." As if any of this is first principles! The expanding universe itself is merely a hypothesis to explain the redshifts, which weren't predicted by any theory. The observation itself is suspect, as it relies on the assumption that Type 1-A supernovas are standard candles, to which there is some contradictory evidence. The theory that they are standard candles comes from the assumption they are caused by the accretion of fissionable material from a binary companion star. There is no corroborating evidence for this theory. In fact, there is only the contradictory evidence of supernova recurring at the same star. And yet, Sherlock's Theory holds. They can imagine no other explanation that conforms to their beliefs, thus they proclaim the shaky theory to be a scientific fact, and then proceed to construct yet more theories upon it.

He then reviews the possible scenarios for galactic doomsday and concludes that the Big Crunch seems unlikely, with one caveat.

Unless, of course, dark energy is dynamical, and capable of changing over time.

This is very reminiscent of what the geneticists do. Genomic sequencing was supposed to validate the conclusions made by biologists and paleontologists regarding species hierarchies and timelines, but has caused more conflicts that it has solved. Explanations normally propose variations in the genetic random mutation rate. Here, we have Ethan suggesting that the cosmological constant is not constant after all. In modern science, the theories truly are axiomatic. They'll even downgrade a universal constant to a volatile variable before they'll question the stacks of assumptions on which their theories rest.

In the final paragraph, Ethan gives an answer to the original question.

But the link between all the matter and energy in the Universe, on one hand, and the expansion of the fabric of space itself, on the other, cannot be denied. We live in a Universe that, on the largest scales, is isotropic, homogeneous, and governed by General Relativity. In a very general sense, that means there’s a connection between how the Universe expands and what’s present within it.

If all the matter in the Universe stops expanding away, reverses itself, and begins to recollapse towards us, then that necessitates that the fabric of space is going to recollapse, too. There truly is a cosmic race occurring: between the expansion of the Universe and the force of gravity. Right now, it looks like the expansion’s going to win, but if dark energy is dynamical, that throws the outcome into doubt.

He concludes that the contraction of matter means the contraction of the fabric, in opposition to my assumption. (I don't actually believe in spacetime "fabric"... just running with their logic.) He says there's a connection between matter and spacetime fabric that "cannot be denied." Well, duh. The whole point of expanding spacetime was to explain the apparent motion of the matter. But that connection goes only one way. The expansion was made intrinsic to spacetime and immune to the effects of matter for a reason. Otherwise, it would just be an effect of the matter itself. In other words, anti-gravity. This buffoon has just stumbled into the explanation that the theory is constructed to avoid in the first place! But the alternative would be to say that spacetime will continue to expand indefinitely, while matter collapses to a singular point. You can appreciate the dilemma, at least.

Not only is his grasp of his own field comically lacking, so is his writing.

If gravity does wind up winning, and the Big Crunch is our ultimate fate, someone, a long time from now, might live to see the entire shebang recollapse into a singular state.

No, no one is going to survive a big crunch nor see a singular state. It makes no sense whatsoever. I'm as cynical about science and science writers as anyone out there, but I'm truly baffled by how awful this is.

A Couple Successful Predictions

We have a couple predictions to close out.

First Prediction

Almost exactly two years ago, Why Democracies Drift Left predicted that liberals would attempt to open the vote to children under 18.

Enfranchisement of felons. They seek to enfranchise the last remaining adults deprived of the vote. They will attempt to enfranchise children if they can, just so long as it appears they will vote liberal.

The fundamental policy of leftism is to promise wealth redistribution in exchange for political power. It's true in all political systems, and in a democracy that means buying votes and expanding the electorate to those likely to accept the leftist scheme. That explains why Democrats obsess about immigrants - besides whites and Cubans. It's completely transparent. And now, as predicted, Nancy Pelosi is advocating to enfranchise 16-year-olds. Most amusing is that, while she must put forth great effort to finish sentences these days, she barely even tries to give a rational explanation for the policy. Yeah, we should give kids the vote because they're learning about it. Makes a lot of sense. Her health is failing, maybe we should replace her doctor with a 16-year-old who's learning biology.

The thing is that they don't have to make sense, they just have to be persistent. Try, try again. Hold the vote as many times as necessary to get the desired result, then never hold it again. That's the Racket Ratchet. The rule is that, once the electorate has been expanded, it can never be contracted. Always expanding, liberal democracies are inherently doomed to an electoral heat death.

Second Prediction

Last month, Roll Call of the Absurd made an observation about white Democrats running for national office.

Democrats are now the anti-white party, so any white people vying for power must recite the right prayers early and often.

It's been confirmed once, by Bernie Sanders. Now for another. Beto O'Rourke, fresh off a failed Senate run, is now chasing a golden ticket to the White House. When we say the Democrats are losers, we mean it. Talk about failing up! Beto has opted to dutifully follow the script in his campaign announcement, in a display of what Amren categorizes as Ethno-Masochism.

Mr. O’Rourke may have figured out a way to survive in a party dominated by anti-white grievance and minority politics: apologize for being white and agree that whiteness is bad. “The government at all levels is overly represented by white men,” he told Vanity Fair. “That’s part of the problem, and I’m a white man. So if I were to run, I think it’s just so important that those who would comprise my team looked like this country. If I were to run, if I were to win, that my administration looks like this country. It’s the only way I know to meet that challenge.”

Mr. O’Rourke added, “But I totally understand people who will make a decision based on the fact that almost every single one of our presidents has been a white man, and they want something different for this country. And I think that’s a very legitimate basis upon which to make a decision.”

Confirming what was said in the earlier post from today, Beto considers race-based voting to be "legitimate." Welcome to the new normal, civ-nats.

It almost feels dirty to watch him submit himself before the humiliation ritual, but it's more than made up for by the fact that lots of morons gave him money, which he effectively burns in his first day. "Yeah, I get it and think it's like, totally cool, man, if people don't vote for me because I'm a just another stupid dumb white guy, or whatever." Well then, prepare to step aside, loser. This guy isn't going anywhere, although it would be nice to see him spar with Trump on national TV.

Step one of running for Democratic nomination while white is an overt display of racial self-hatred. Second is a generous and sustained level of pandering and praise for blacks and browns. Let's see how he did.

The former congressman released his 10-point immigration plan in February. He says we have a lot of illegals in the country because we have made it hard for them to go home. He believes President Trump’s proposed wall will “ensure death,” and that since existing walls have already killed countless people, he would tear them down.

Mr. O’Rourke wants a pathway to citizenship for all illegals and to give citizenship immediately to illegals who came as minors. He would increase America’s annual visa caps and make it easier to apply for asylum. The plan implies that we would give even more foreign aid to Latin America and end our efforts to curb drug trafficking overseas. He demands that we speak of immigrants only in certain ways: “No more ‘invasions’, ‘animals’, ‘rapists and criminals’, ‘floods’, ‘crisis’ — dehumanizing rhetoric leads to dehumanizing policies. We cannot sacrifice our humanity in the name of security — or we risk losing both.”

In other words, Mr. O’Rourke would sharply increase immigration, create millions of new citizens who would vote Democrat, and bring in more drugs and crime.

The then-Senate candidate wrote an op-ed last August outlining his vision for “criminal justice reform,” complaining that blacks are disproportionately jailed and suspended from school. He said prisons are the “New Jim Crow.” Mr. O’Rourke went on to demand an end to private prisons, the war on drugs, mandatory minimum sentencing for “non-violent drug offenses,” and bail bonds. All this is to help criminals, not keep Americans safer.

The former Texas congressman assumes white officers shoot black men because of racism. He told a black congregation last September: “How can we continue to lose the lives of unarmed black men in the United States of America at the hands of white police officers? That is not justice. That is not us. That can and must change.”

I'd say he nailed it! Hilariously, if you read the article, he's gotten lots of flak for not doing enough for minorities, and only appealing to suburban white voters. Tough criticism. I'd advise Mr Beto to double down. If the ethno-masochism isn't making them like you, then you probably just aren't using enough of it.

Shared Values Can Divide Us, Too

In his video, How Media Frame the Narrative to Make Trump Seem Worse, Tim Pool accuses the ADL of manipulating hate crime incidents - which are down under the Trump presidency - to give the opposite impression. For one, they've framed the data to ascribe the racial violence of the late Obama administration to Trump's presidential run. (Quite unlikely, as the media was reassuring everyone Trump had no mathematical chance of winning the primary up until almost June of 2016, and assuring us he had virtually no chance of beating Hillary all the way through election day.) Second, their protocol of categorizing incidents as either left-wing or right-wing extremism strikes Tim as being very arbitrary. He asks, why is racially motivated murder committed by blacks tallied as left-wing extremism while white racism is always described as right-wing?

It's right there in front of his face, yet he acts confused. He poses a fair question, or at least it would be if the old rules still applied. The old rules of civic nationalism were that a person should be judged based on content of character, rather than color of skin. It was the reigning orthodoxy that began with the civil rights era and ended with the election of Barrack Obama, when half of America was so ecstatic about affirming their anti-racist credos that they voted for a candidate based primarily on skin color. It's ironic that the election of our first non-white president would signify the end of the national experiment with color blindness, but that's when the publicly held ethos shifted back to encouraging racialist voting, so long as the vote was virtuous. Voting for the black candidate just because he was black was to be praised. Ralph Nader reported that his supporters mostly voted for Obama, because they wanted to "be part of history." Contrary, anyone who racially voted for McCain was deemed a white supremacist, an evil relic of our savage past standing on the "wrong side of history."

Americans are slowly waking up to the reality of the new rules. The country pretends the old rules are still in place, but mostly acts otherwise. It can be hard to tell who is pretending and who isn't. Tucker Carlson understands the paradigm changes, but is politically correct enough to play to the old rules. Ben Shapiro clearly believes the old rules, and guards them passionately. Tim Pool seems determined to act as if those old rules are the rules too, but the act isn't entirely convincing. It's understandable, of course, because the reality of the new rules is hard to accept, that the greatest civilization of human history is reverting from a rational society back into tribalism. What Carlson, Shapiro, and Pool all have in common is they are doing everything they can to push back against the descent into identitarianism, and they've all become quite popular doing so. People want to believe that things can just keep going they way they always have, that the modern insanity can be rebuffed with a little common sense, and that the demographics of a society aren't as important as it's shared values. Their pursuit is noble given the rules, but ultimately futile since the rules are only for pretend.

There's no reason why BLM calling for a black ethnostate in the American southeast is any different from the NZ shooter accelerating conflict intended to ultimately reclaim the white ethnostates. It's the same politics: violently rejecting cosmopolitanism in favor of national self-determination. When the ADL and other groups label white racism as right-wing and black racism as left-wing without a pause, they are inadvertently acknowledging the new reality. The right is the people who want to live in the countries that white people built, and the left is those who do not. Those who want to "fundamentally transform the United State of America", and those who do not. The center gets squeezed out, because it becomes impossible to reconcile the diametrically opposed sides. Hard-right conservatives have largely turned on white civic nationalists, because they sense the danger. The longer your side clings to the old rules, the more you lose. Eventually, nostalgic idealism must give way to pragmatism, and even survival.

The irony is that the current system will be doomed by getting exactly what it wants. They racially voted in a black president to prove the country wasn't racist. Now they say the country can stay united if we all share the same values. Increasingly the pre-dominant shared value is one of national self-determinism, and rejection of the multicultural experiment. The shared value, in effect, is to become divided.

Bloglist Housekeeping

Some housekeeping changes to the sidebar's bloglist.

• Imperial Energy has been dormant for a year now, so has been removed. 
• Audacious Epigone moved to Unz a few months ago. The link has been updated.
• Anonymous Conservative is a sad one to lose. He used to be a favorite around here, with many great contributions to understanding r/K political theory and narcissistic personality disorder. However, he has suffered from paranoid delusions for over a year now, and promotes Q conspiracy theories regularly. Hopefully he centers himself and we can add him back in the future.
• Nassim Nicholas Taleb posts too irregularly, and lately has been focusing on IQ metrics as a swindle, which isn't terribly interesting. His blog has been cut, but his books are all still worthy of a read.
• Armstrong Economics blog has been added. He does a few short pieces a day on politics and finance, which all get posted from a European timezone. Thus, it may be beneficial to click the link directly to the page to see all the day's posts, rather than just the most recent one.

The Real College Scam

The recent college admissions scandal has been a delight. Somewhat surprising has been the sustained level of outrage, as if people truly did not realize that our country is immoral and corrupt. Admissions bribery is hardly the biggest scandal in academia; it isn't even the biggest scandal in college admissions. They openly discriminate students based on legally protected factors such as race and gender, so it's hardly shocking that they'd discriminate based on whose parents are sending massive piles of cash. The only scandal here is the widespread naivety, which will only persist despite the revelations. Tell the average mainstream American that the global warming models are a scam, that much cancer research is a scam, that social science spending is, on average, a scam, and they'll look at you like a crazy person.

For us anti-establishment types, the sounds of masses of citizens, from the left and from the right, condemning a corrupt system run by immoral elitists is fantastic. It's fuel for populism on both sides. It plays well to the politics of either a Donald Trump or a Bernie Sanders. (At least, a pre-Hillary-endorsement Bernie Sanders.) There's a difference between the populism of the two, however. Bernie Sanders says that the system is rigged and the elites are evil. Donald Trump says the system is rigged and the elites are incompetent. So who is correct in this case study of crooked elites? Do the actors paying to get little Johnny into state college seem evil? No, they don't, but they do seem incompetent. Not only did they raise a midwit, not only did they push him towards college (which is a ripoff most of the time), but they paid several times the cost of a degree so that little Johnny could get further ripped off wasting four to six years of his life for a piece of paper he doesn't really care about. The real college scam is they paid the bribe! And now they'll go to jail for it. Hilarious, but cruel. Haven't they suffered enough already?

One actress's daughter was very blunt. She doesn't care about the college aspect, but wants the experience of campus life, game days, etc. Perhaps there's a business model here: charge young adults hefty fees to live in a campus-like environment, with none of the educational obligations. But then, that basically is the college business model these days, at many places, and it only gets worse as the federal government fuels the cancer of fake academia.

To the people seriously outraged about the unfair advantage of the elites, they should calm down. It's really the kind of thing you might actually wish on your worst enemy; that he pay a million dollar bribe so that his sweet beloved daughter can enroll in Harvard or Berkeley and degenerate into a blue-haired shrieking femi-Nazi who will never spawn him grandchildren (at least not of his own race). There's nothing to be jealous about. All that's happened is we removed a hidden self-imposed tax on the incompetent elites.

Rule by Fear

In yesterday's off-the-cuff response to the Christchurch mosque shooting, I opined that the incident is an example of the inevitable violence we've predicted would arise in response to mass foreign immigration. Despite the assailant's intentions, and the likelihood of retaliation by Jihadis, I would reckon that the incident will not trigger a spiral of violence, so long as the economy remains stable. However, I did not venture a prediction for the media response. Common sense would suggest a monstrous reaction from both mainstream and social media platforms to graphic video evidence of a white nationalist acting viciously. Surely the noise should be deafening. And yet, I did not venture such a prediction, because I also hold on to a counter-intuitive theory that would make the opposite prediction. While NZ is the number one story, it's not being given the attention it deserves. At the time of this writing, CNN's major headline is about New Zealand's gun-control response, which is predictable. MSNBC doesn't even have a major headline on the event. A text search shows the word Zealand mentioned only twice in minor sidebar headlines, with Trump mentioned 14 times throughout the page, including the leading headline. Newsweek, the reigning anti-Trump outlet, runs a slightly tighter spread at 14 Trumps to 10 Zealands, but does include such incendiary headlines as White Europe is Imaginary. European Islamophobia is not and New Zealand's Hidden Problem of White Supremacy. (I don't advise holding your breath waiting for analogous headlines such as Black Nigeria is Imaginary. Nigerian Christophobia is not or China's Hidden Problem of Chinese Supremacy.)

The story is still getting strong attention, but not what the truly gruesome livestreamed footage of an actual white hate crime would be expected to receive. To put it in context, the energy level behind the slaughter of dozens of innocent Muslims in a mosque is significantly less that what was given to a group of Catholic high school students being disrespectful to an American Indian, which wasn't even true. So why the disconnect between expected versus actual media outrage? I'll provide a theory in a moment, but I'd like to swing by a couple other aspects of the incident first.

The response to the incident is even quieter on the mainstream right than the left. Fox News gives 6 Zealands to 24 Trumps. That may be expected, as the story is politically inconvenient to them. The far right is far more active, since we share ideological common ground with the sentiments of the shooter. Many even express praise and admiration, and agree with his policy of extreme accelerationism. There is a case to be made for it. I've often been baffled by the Islamic terrorism in Europe, such as the Bataclan massacre. If you're a Jihadi in France - with a Muslim population of around 15% - and you want to make France into an Islamic state, and the natives are foolishly permitting a strong inflow of Muslims into their homelands, why would you even consider engaging in such brutality? The strategic benefit should be to milk the high immigration rate for as long as possible before turning openly hostile. Accelerationism would seem to hinder the invaders, and benefit the nativists so long as they hold the numerical advantage, which seems to be an argument in favor of the New Zealand terrorist.

My retort is that righteous men do not shoot up crowds of civilians, especially in their place of worship. It is a cowardly act. Anyone with a gun can kill scores of unarmed people. Some might respond that patiently waiting for natural societal collapse, as advocated here, is merely an excuse for cowardice, as we remain docile while our demographic situation becomes increasingly dire. So the case can be made for cowardice on both sides. How do we choose one?

These kinds of dilemmas always have an answer. The simple heuristic is to pick the approach that is most honest and truthful. Accelerationism is inherently deceitful. It involves deliberately making the situation worse than it would otherwise be, with the intention of provoking a reactionary response in the preferred direction. It's just a form of lying. This blog often promotes passive accelerationism. I advised, when Hillary Clinton was the likely future president, that her disastrous reign might actually be preferable to Trump getting some reforms in place which would delay (and thus amplify) the inevitable. I still voted and advocated for Trump. Passive accelerationism means doing your due diligence to improve things, while also managing the downside of defeat. When Trump was elected, liberals cried and screamed. If Clinton had been elected, I would have laughed and doubled down on bracing for collapse. It's the stoic approach. Do what you can, and handle realty as it comes. Active accelerationism means tricking or abusing your own clan into action. Treachery is never patriotism. My advice to any would-be assassin: just have some kids. The order of loyalty is God -> Family -> Nation. If the white nations must be tricked into defending themselves, then fuck em'. They don't deserve to persist. You can't save anyone who doesn't want to be saved. Your more primal loyalty is then to family. Ensure that your children's children will have children. And short of that, there's a fundamental duty to God. Shooting up a place of worship, unprovoked, is the opposite of godliness. It's evil.

I'd suspect that the shooter had no family. No wife, no kids. Nor was he a regular at any church. Based on his trolling humor during his savage act, referencing insides jokes from 4chan and 8chan, it seems his social life was largely constrained to the online world. The same is true of Muslim terrorists, who are normally young unattached men. I believe their high terrorism rate is partly a result of polygamy. A man with a beloved woman or child, dependent on his ability to provide, will be far less likely to willfully martyr himself for a creed. In the western world, feminism is starting to have a similar effect.

There is one other thing that we must honestly consider: gun control would have prevented the crime. His manifesto states that he chose to target New Zealand to demonstrate that Muslims were present even in the far corners of Christendom. That is bullshit rationalization. He went to New Zealand to access legal firearms for training. He remained there to commit his atrocity because he had no way to get his firearms over to Australia. Like it or not, the incident gives a strong case for tightening gun control in New Zealand. Many whites will not want Muslims to have legal ability to acquire firearms to commit retaliatory attacks on churches. (Of course, that logic does not apply in the US, where our porous border allows enough illegal narcotics to kill 70,000 Americans per year. But in New Zealand it's a different matter.)

Returning now to the initial question, why are liberal media outlets downplaying the atrocity? And why do Jihadis attack Europe despite the negative backlash it might cause on immigration policy? The answer is fear. Surely readers hear have noticed that liberals gleefully bash Christianity without a second thought, yet are careful to avoid offending Muslims. They'll drag a Christian baker all the way to the Supreme Court to force him to bake a sodomy cake, but not the Muslim. Because they know there is no safer a target than a Christian baker, whereas insulting Islam is flirtation with death. Christian bakers are harmless, so they are attacked. Catholic school boys are harmless, so they are attacked. Heavily armed murderous white vigilantes are not harmless, so some care is given. They certainly don't want to advertise that whites might resort to violence. The irony is this. The more violent the group, the less the left will tend to denounce them as violent. They denounce our speech as violence, but actual violence compels them to shut up. Muslims sense this, so they shoot up concerts and newspapers. The result is that the liberals in the west are terrified to criticize Muslims, who are largely permitted to continue their annexation of western lands. The media are afraid to run critical stories. Even the police are afraid to report the actual crime statistics! It's nuts, but it is the truth. Our society is permeated by unsophisticated weaklings, who crumble at the hint of violence. The west is regressing to a barbarian state, where preference is given to the most fearsome rather than the most adept.