Who attacked Wilfred de Bruijn?

I happened to come across a Yahoo news piece concerning a gay couple that was beaten in Paris recently. Reading the article, one gets the impression that Wilfred de Bruijn was beaten by actual Frenchmen. There is no hint, in the article, that anybody but ethnic French – specifically French Catholics – are to blame. The article concludes with these words:

“We don’t want violence. We denounce this violence and these acts, we have nothing to do with (Catholic) fundamentalists or extremists,” she said.

Not so, for De Bruijn.

“It was not Frigide Barjot who was hitting my head, or the bishop of Avignon lurking in that street to attack us,” he said. “But they are responsible.”

But of course. It’s “Catholic extremists” who, it’s implied, committed the deed or were somehow responsible for it. When I saw this story I immediately suspected Muslims and sure enough, Opposing Views gives us more detail:

A graphic photo (below) of Wilfred de Bruijn, who claims he was assaulted in a Muslim part of Paris, has provoked shock and outrage.

It’s not much of a stretch to surmise that “in a Muslim part of Paris” means the attackers were, in fact, Muslim – or at least of Muslim background. It’s also not surprising that Yahoo blames not the mullahs but “Catholic extremists.”

I could sit here all day long and bash Muslims and white-hating organizations such as Yahoo, but this is not my purpose here. Rather I wanted to use this case to illustrate how the Left, though its policies, brings harm to those it professes to love – and then shamelessly uses this harm as an argument for more of its policies.

The European Left has been promoting massive Muslim/African immigration for decades. Now that those immigrants are attacking gays in the streets of Paris, it turns around and uses such incidents as propaganda to further its gay agenda. The Left pursues “gay rights” not so that gays may live in peace and undisturbed. Not at all! “Gay rights” is merely a vehicle to promote the effeminization of white men in general. If white men respect the gay lifestyle more, they’re more likely to become more effeminate (or so their thinking probably goes). Once they’re more effeminate, they’re less likely to oppose their replacement by sacred “people of color.”

The Left doesn’t want white men with guns. It wants white men dressed in pink and with flowers. White men who are pushovers. If I were gay, I’d be insulted that the Left uses my “rights” toward this end. I’d also make sure I own a gun. Gays have a lot more to fear from Muslims and their leftist enablers than from right-wing whites or “Catholic extremists.”

 

“How to Convert to Islam”

I was about to watch an innocuous YouTube video about a pet dog when lo and behold, I noticed that the banner ad was promoting conversion to Islam. Here’s a screenshot:

If you had a dog named Thor, and then converted to Islam, would you have to rename it “Allah?”

I couldn’t help but wonder how an ad about “How to Convert to Christianity” would be received in a Muslim country. But we’ll probably never know because such a thing would never be allowed – let alone an ad promoting conversion to Judaism. Muslims easily win first prize for the religion most easily offended. They’re also the religion most likely to riot, murder/maim their daughters and a whole assortment of other, unsavory, things.

Why should you convert to Islam? Perhaps you shouldn’t if you want to keep your dog. Many Muslims consider dogs to be unclean. Some Muslims in Spain have, allegedly, been poisoning dogs (graphics warning) and a Canadian man was arrested for walking his dog on public property in front of Muslims (ibid.).

Why would you convert to Islam? Perhaps you truly believe that God spoke to Mohammad and told him to write the Quran. If so, then you’d probably be more happy in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. I suspect, however, that there are other psychological factors that motivate (white) people to convert to Islam. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that they are tired of being on the losing side of the culture war. That they are sick and tired of being ethnically impotent. That years of being told their race is worthless had finally gotten to them and, unable to change their race, they did the next best thing and attached themselves to a group that actually feels pride in itself, that is willing to use force to advance its interests.

Maybe we should all convert to Islam. We can do to the Quran what they did to the Constitution: Interpret it away until it becomes essentially meaningless. At that point, the Quran would be little more than a historical relic. An empty husk. We would be able to continue enjoying our pets, our alcoholic beverages, our bikini-clad women and our traditional cuisines. But we would also believe in ourselves and people would respect us. Our enemies would fear us just as they did before the Left turned us into whimpering pansies.

 

Multiculturalism at work in New York City

A korean man, Ki-Suck Han, was recently pushed into the path of an oncoming subway train in New York. Here is the victim:

A Yahoo article gave a clear hint of the background of his assailant by stating:

The Post says one of its freelance photographers was on the platform as the ordeal unfolded. One of his photos shows Han on the tracks, looking at the train as it bears down on him.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Tuesday that detectives were still seeking an unidentified suspect. There is a $12,000 reward.

Police are seeking a suspect – but there is no description. Usually, this means the suspect is a black male. Sure enough, here he is:

But the main fury is being focused on the New York Post freelance photographer who took the chilling photo of Han just before his death – one R. Umar Abbasi. It appears he cared more about getting his precious photos than helping the victim. Is Abbasi Muslim? Would he have acted differently if the victim appeared to be Muslim as well? Has there ever been a case of a crazy Korean man pushing a black man onto the subway tracks? Will the corporate-controlled media ever recognize the patterns that, to normal people, are self-evident?

We are told that we are “enriched” by having a multicultural/multiracial society. I don’t see enrichment. I see rule of the jungle and chaos.

 

Israeli rabbi argues in favor of a Muslim Europe

A friend sent me an article from Ynetnews where Rabbi Baruch Efrati explains his support for the Islamification of Europe.

Efrati wrote in response that the Islamization of Europe was better than a Christian Europe for ethical and theological reasons – as a punishment against Christians for persecuting the Jews and the fact that Christianity, as opposed to Islam, is considered “idolatry” from a halachic point of view.

“Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years were in exile there,” the rabbi explained as the ethical reason for favoring Muslims, quoting shocking descriptions from the Rishonim literature (written by leading rabbis who lived during the 11th to 15th centuries) about pogroms and mass murders committed by Christians against Jews.

While it’s true that Christianity is considered idolatry, while Islam is not, this does not apply to all forms of Christianity. Some forms of Protestantism are not considered idolatry by Jewish law. Furthermore, any validity Efrati’s arguments have might hold true in a test-tube society. Reality is more complex. Due to the State of Israel, Muslims are less tolerant of Jews now than during many other periods. Muslim attitudes toward Jews have varied wildly. But total acceptance and respect is not the norm. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that Christianity will return to the days of inquisitions, pogroms and crusades. Those days are over and we should view Christian Europe as it is today, not as it was a thousand years ago. Unfortunately, most people who call themselves “Christians” are hostile toward whites (as a group) but friendly toward Jews. So, from a Jewish point of view, it’s foolish to support the demise of one’s allies and then pray for tolerance from one’s enemies. From a white point of view, Christianity needs to be either repackaged or replaced, in favor of something more ethnocentric.

Regarding Efrati’s other point, that Christians have blood on their hands from centuries ago, it reminds me of the Christian belief that Jews have blood on their hands for the murder of Jesus. To hold current generations responsible for the actions of their distant ancestors is a recipe for genocide. This mentality serves as justification for the current persecution of whites in America. It makes no sense unless your goal is to dehumanize your victims.

If Rabbi Efrati is so fond of Islam, he should try living in Saudi Arabia for a while – but he’s not allowed there because he’s Jewish.

 

The Boko Haram

I found this gem on antiwar.com. Apparently some Nigerian rebels decided to reject Western (white) technology in favor of traditional weapons:

Boko Haram got its start as an anti-technology movement, armed with swords and bows and arrows and condemning western knowledge as blasphemous. After the original group was massacred by military forces the group turned to more modern terrorist tactics, with assault weapons and explosives.

It seems they concluded that it’s  better to be blasphemous than dead. Though their very name, according to Wikipedia, means “Western education is sinful”, they must have discovered a loophole whereby they could benefit from Western education in order to blow up churches and otherwise engage in mayhem. How convenient. One would think that if it were Allah’s will to use only bows, arrows and swords, Western weapons would have no advantage over them. I can’t help but wonder how Boko Haram manages to effectively organize itself without the use of telephones, modern transportation or even pens and pencils.

I wish groups like Boko Haram would be more consistent. That way Darwin and Allah would be in total agreement when they say: Get out of the gene pool!

 

“French group” threatens lawsuit over anti-Semitic twitter posts

Mercury News of Silicon Valley, California reports that a “French group” is threatening to sue Twitter over some posts that violate France’s hate-speech laws.

PARIS — Twitter agreed to pull racist and anti-Semitic tweets under a pair of French hash tags after a Jewish group threatened to sue the social network for running afoul of national laws against hate speech, the organization said. The decision came a day after Twitter bowed to German law and blocked an account of a banned neo-Nazi group there.

The freewheeling San Francisco-based social network is increasingly running up against European anti-discrimination laws, many of which date to the aftermath of the Holocaust by governments that acknowledged the contribution of years of hate speech to the Nazi attempt to annihilate the Jews. Friday’s action, which was not carried out immediately, could mark a new stage for the company that has famously refused efforts to police its millions of users.

But it’s not entirely clear how the social network planned to carry out the agreement or in what timeframe.

“Twitter does not mediate content,” the company said in a statement. “If we are alerted to content that may be in violation of our terms of service, we will investigate each report and respond according to the policies and procedures outlined in our support pages.”

The company’s policies require international users to comply with local laws regarding online conduct and acceptable content. They also ban any content with direct threats of violence.

The French Union of Jewish Students, which planned to supply Twitter with a list of the offensive tweets to be pulled, said it would still file a formal complaint against the social network to bring the tweeters to justice. The union held a conference call Thursday night with Twitter executives in California.

Though some European Jews are shifting to the Right, historically, they have rejected it. According to Extremis Project:

Jewish communities, however, have understood that undermining pluralistic and open societies may also undermine the equality and freedoms that they have achieved, and have not been afraid to say so in public.

It remains to be seen how “pluralistic” and “open” Europe will be once it is run by Africans and Arabs. Laws against “hate-speech” don’t strike me as being particularly “open” or “pluralistic” either.

Swastikas are not appealing to me, but I’d rather allow neo-Nazis to display swastikas, and reveal their true colors, than force them underground and make it more difficult for the rest of us to identify them. Let the neo-Nazis fly their swastikas and let the gangbangers wear their saggy pants. It’s good to be able to recognize danger from a distance. As for the neo-Nazis, displaying the swastika will not gain them many new recruits, except for those who already have issues.

The entrenched Jewish establishment in Europe has been slow to recognize the dangers of mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East. It tends to sugarcoat Muslim-on-Jewish violence in terms that are meant to arouse sympathy toward the former. For example, Lori Hinnant writes, on the European Jewish Congress’ webpage:

French Jews believe the danger comes from radical messages that appeal to young Muslims in France who are unemployed, angry, alienated and looking for someone to blame. But France has struggled to address the problem head-on because of the social sensitivities. President Francois Hollande met Sunday with the head of an umbrella group of Muslim organizations, assuring him that the government would not stigmatize all Muslims for anti-Semitic acts committed by a radical fringe…

“Anti-Semitism previously came from the extreme right, and the movements expressed their attitudes toward Jews with posters, words, perhaps by desecrating a cemetery,” said Yossi Malka, a Moroccan Jew who settled in Sarcelles in the 1980s. “Today, we have an anti-Semitism that doesn’t end with words but goes into the realm of action.”

Malka blames conflicts overseas as well as the wave of post-colonial immigration from North Africa that has left a generation of struggling young Muslims…

Many French Jews say it’s impossible to separate anti-Semitism from France’s problems with its disaffected youth — up to 50 percent unemployment in some heavily immigrant housing projects — or from anger about Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. Only a small part of that anger translates into anti-Semitism : Young people also target symbols of the French government, most recently in the northern city of Amiens, where dozens of youths faced off against riot officers in August in a night of violence that ended with 17 officers injured, and a pre-school and public gym torched.

“Disaffected” is a loaded word. It can mean mean “alienated” or “discontented” and dictionary.com gives the following sentence as an example of its use:

Until the disaffected are given a voice, violence is their only tool to get noticed.

It implies that the perpetrators are, at some level, also victims and it evokes sympathy. The “disaffected” youth in question live in government housing projects and receive government welfare. If they are angry over their station in life, perhaps they should direct their anger toward their parents, who came to France of their own free will. If things are so bad for them in France, perhaps they should consider moving to their ancestral homes in Africa.

I can understand the reticence of French Jewry to condemn immigration. After all, most French Jews are themselves immigrants from North Africa or their children. But it should be obvious to all concerned that it is not Jews who form the criminal underclass in France today. It’s not Jews who perpetrate violence against Muslims, but the other way around. It’s not Jews who threaten the liberty of France, and it’s not Jews whose numbers threaten to overwhelm Europe and transform its native populations into minorities.

Unfortunately it is Jews who have been instrumental in promoting the catastrophic immigration policies now in place. Not all Jews, just the wealthy and powerful ones. From the European Jewish Congress article quoted above, it’s clear that their goal is not to stop immigration. Rather it is to appease the immigrant underclass, by throwing more money at them, until they behave themselves. This is the policy the U.S. has been pursuing with its blacks and Hispanics and it’s suicidal in the long term.

Just as I can’t blame French Jews for taking a while to realize that their future lies with the Right, similarly I can’t blame the Right for being wary of the Jews.  But the Right and the Jews, even if they don’t love each other, must marry out of necessity.

 

Homeopathic morality and Muslim sexuality

According to Livescience:

Of all the world’s major religious groups, Muslims are the least likely to have sex outside of marriage, new research found. And as a country’s Muslim population grows, the rate of premarital sex declines for all residents, even non-Muslims, according to the study.

Researchers analyzed the responses of over 620,000 people (ages 15-59) who were interviewed as part of the Demographic and Health Surveys in 31 mostly developing nations from 2000 to 2008. Most countries included in the sample had either a Muslim or Christian majority, except India and Nepal, which have Hindu majorities, and Cambodia which has a Buddhist majority. (The United States was not included in the study.)

They found that, overall, the odds of married Muslims reporting premarital sex are 53 percent lower than for Christians. Hindus are 40 percent less likely to report premarital sex, compared with Christians. Meanwhile, Jews and Buddhists have greater chances of having sex before getting hitched than Christians do, according to the study.

The study has some obvious weak spots. For example, it could be that people in Muslim-dominated societies are more likely to lie about their sex-lives than others. The authors of this study assumed that lying would be kept to a minimum if the interviewers were the same sex as the subjects, and if nobody else was in the room. Perhaps. I suppose that, short of following people around and monitoring their sex-lives, this was the best they could do.

Also,the article goes on to say:

“All major world religions discourage sex outside of marriage, but they are not all equally effective in shaping behavior,” wrote the researchers, led by Amy Adamczyk, an associate professor of sociology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

Yes, it’s true that other religions are not as effective; probably because their adherents don’t resort to honor-killings, acid attacks and female genital mutilation. Lynch mobs are very effective at curbing criminal behavior, but I’m willing to bet that Adamczyk does not support them.

In Adamczyk’s defense, she has published a number of similar studies in the past, all of which tend to support her conclusions in this book. She’s studies HIV rates and found them to be lower in predominantly Muslim countries as well.

I’m not sure that Livescience did a good job conveying the nature of the study to its readership. If we consult the John Jay College account of Professor  Adamczyk and co-author Brittany Hayes’s book, “Religion and Sexual Behaviors: Understanding the Influence of Islamic Cultures and Religious Affiliation for Explaining Sex Outside of Marriage,” we find the following:

Adamczyk and Hayes’s study found that Hindus and Muslims are less likely than Christians and Jews to have premarital sex and Muslims are less likely to have extramarital sex. Muslims’ lower likelihood of premarital and extramarital sex is related to their commitment to, and community support for, strict religious tenants that only permit sex within marriage. The researchers also found that national Islamic cultures influence the sexual behaviors of all residents, even people who do not identify themselves as Muslim. The authors posit that religion tends to have a more powerful effect than restrictions on women’s movement in many Muslim countries (bold mine).

This supports what I’ve been saying for quite some time, that the dominant culture/religion of a society shapes the overall behavior of that society, even those who do not subscribe to the dominant religion/culture. We can carry this insight one step further, into the realm of time, and state that historically Christian societies behave differently, even after the religion is gone, than historically non-Christian societies. If I may be so bold, I would like to call this homeopathic morality. It’s the religion-based morality that remains even after the religion is gone.

A good friend of mine has claimed that we have little to fear from a “Muslim-majority” Europe since the vast majority of “European Muslims” shed their religiosity. Like the masses of shiftless, mindless, youth everywhere, they’d rather be second-rate niggers* than first-rate Arabs or Polynesians or what have you. But, unfortunately, Europe can suffer the worst of both worlds. The same second, and third, generation aliens can be niggers during periods of bad behavior, and Muslims during periods of good behavior. That is to say, when they’re not murdering, looting, raping and vandalizing, they’re voting for Muslim interests, raising Muslim kids, participating in Muslim marches and protests and supporting Muslim culture. It’s a double-edged sword. Good cop/bad cop.

*For new readers: When I say “nigger”, I refer to criminal, trashy, people of any background or those who make it a point to emulate them.

 

 

Agora: The story of Hypatia

While visiting a friend recently, he persuaded me to watch the movie Agora with him. Accolades flowed from his mouth. “You must see it”, he said. In the end, I regretted it.

The movie is extraordinarily well done. Indeed, I would call it a masterpiece. The acting is phenomenal, though I admit that I’m no expert. It was obvious that its producers went to great pains to depict Roman Alexandria as accurately as possible. The actors looked like the actual people who lived in Alexandria at that time, with the exception of the prominent black faces their P.C. sensibilities forced them to include. The hair styles were 100% spot on. The architecture, the dress, and even Hypatia’s dog were clearly gleaned from accurate historical sources. The only thing, other than the painfully obvious inclusion of blacks, that bothered me was the way they depicted Jews. I seriously doubt that the Jews of ancient Alexandria wore earlocks and played Hassidic-style music. But I can forgive them for this, since nobody can prove otherwise.

I regret having seen it because the character of Hypatia, played by Rachel Weisz, was so perfect that I could not help but feel anguish over her murder. It’s a real tearjerker and I watch very few movies – so my resistance level is very low. I didn’t actually cry but it bothered me. It bothered me because my friend kept reminding me that, in real life, she died a much more horrible death than depicted in the movie.

What I loved about the Hypatia character was, aside from her stunning beauty, that she loved knowledge purely for the sake of knowledge. This is something I was brought up with. While I appreciate people who learn a profession in order to earn a living, the attainment of knowledge strictly for its own sake is on a higher plane in my eyes. Actually, it’s not so much the attainment that excites me, it’s the effort and fervor that speaks to my soul. Rachel Weisz did such a good job depicted the love of learning that it touched me deeply. The thought of her death, at the hands of ignorant monks, repels me – and this, by most accounts, is what truly happened.

After reading the Wikipedia account of Hypatia’s life, it seems Agora’s account of what transpired is as valid as anybody else’s. Not much, for certain, is known about her except that she was a brilliant thinker who was murdered in the prime of her life by monks. None of her works survive and all the theories, attributed to her in the movie, are conjecture.

In Agora, the Christians come across much as Muslims do today. Obviously, reality is much more complicated. The movie has Christians destroying the great library at Alexandria, but nobody really knows how the library was destroyed.

Why did Christianity spread so rapidly in Roman Egypt? Perhaps traditional Egyptian beliefs had been on the decline for centuries, as had the Greco-Roman pantheon. Greek philosophy, and ever-changing Roman emperors, had weakened the old gods to the point where only formalities remained and few still believed in their power. Greek philosophy was one of the first attempts at secularism and free-thinking. But the Egyptians were not ready for it. They had nostalgic memories of their own pharaonic theocracy in centuries past. As soon as Christianity gained some authority, they latched onto it as a return to the past. Religious authority was what they craved and Christianity was the only vehicle available to them that had any credibility. The Egyptians were sick and tired of Greco-Roman secularism and politics masquerading as religion. They wanted the real thing but their old gods were dead. Their anger toward Hypatia may have actually been anger toward secularism. A secularism that had been imposed upon them by force through Greeks like Hypatia.

In our own day, knowledge far greater than anything Hypatia could have imagined is at our fingertips. It’s there for the taking. But most people are more interested in celebrities or sports. Politics is a combination of the two. We’re swimming in knowledge and yet few seek it for its own sake. In its stead, faith sustains them. Whether it’s the blind faith of liberalism or an organized religion. Modern Western civilization can flourish because Christianity has lost the power to impose its will on others. It can no longer decree inquisitions, burn witches or force scientists to deny their work. It lurks in the background, mostly harmless and sometimes helpful. But what about the teeming multitudes who practice Islam? While there are some signs that it too is receding to the background, the process might take centuries. We must recognize the risks – something Hypatia failed to do.

 

Rap to Islam: Out of the kettle and into the frying pan

A French rapper, Mélanie Georgiades (also known as Diam’s) has converted to Islam and showed up on television wearing a hijab. According to Alarabiya:

Amid a nationwide debate in France surrounding attitudes towards the Islamic veil, or hijab, a French rapper has surprised fans by announcing her conversion to Islam and choosing to wear a headscarf.

Mélanie Georgiades, known as Diam’s, has gone through what onlookers have described as a “complete transformation” from an image she had prior to 2009.

Since 2009, Diam’s had been unusually absent from the mainstream rap scene, prompting more than three years of controversy over her whereabouts, despite making the odd public appearance with her scarf.
But recently the French rapper made her first television appearance with her new image.

Diam’s appeared in an exclusive TV interview with French TV station TF1, to talk about a past experience with drugs, including hallucinating narcotics, and being in a mental asylum until she discovered the “serenity of Islam.” The rapper said the religion was introduced to her by coincidence, when she saw a Muslim friend praying.

Diam’s, said she has been married for over a year and is a now a new mother, moving far away from her drug-relate past.

The article goes on to say that her conversion was the result of personal conviction. To me, it looks like she had reached the bottom of depravity, found herself void of meaning in her life and embraced the only up-and-coming spirituality she knew: Islam, which some would argue is only a more organized form of depravity. Europe’s hostile elite have nurtured a culture where Christianity  is for old people and belongs to the past – while Islam is for young people and belongs to the future. It’s no wonder so many young Europeans, especially women, consider Islam the natural answer to their spiritual emptiness. For those who wallow in rap “culture” Islam can certainly be a step up, just as it is for American blacks who find comfort in the Nation of Islam.

Christianity probably would not have taken root in the Roman world had the masses not already given up their belief in the old Pantheon. In a world where the wealthy lived lives of shameless hedonism, and the poor desperately sought meaning for their short and wretched lives, Christianity was the right thing at the right time.

Like Islam, Christianity came from the Middle East. But Europeans made it their own. They replaced their old pagan beliefs with their own brands of Christianity – but they did not replace themselves. In contrast, the current transformation is much more sinister. Europeans are replacing themselves. Also, with current conditions, it’s hard to imagine a new, European-style, Islam taking root on any large scale.

Even if the bulk of Europeans remain secular, having Islam as the default religion will still cause tremendous damage to culture and freedom. Even as more and more Americans rejected traditional religion, Christianity remained the basis of many laws. So too does Islam serve as the legal foundation even in mostly secular Muslim countries.

Is it possible for a people to exist, for any appreciable amount of time, with no religion? Perhaps in pre-industrial times it would have been possible, with natural barriers to protect it from invasion. But in today’s world I highly doubt it. It would be ironic if the only way to preserve ones nation is to ensure that an undercurrent of patently false beliefs survives.

There’s a lot more that could be written about the French rapper turned Muslim; the above are just thoughts off the top of my head. Perhaps some European readers could provide deeper perspectives.

 

Werewolves call for a ban on the full moon

Between 80,000 and 90,000 new werewolves have arrived annually to the U.S. each year recently and their numbers are projected to continue growing. Clearly the werewolves find the U.S. (and Europe) attractive places to live – or they wouldn’t continue to stream in.

In their native countries, werewolves have established provisions to block the effects of the full moon. Unfortunately, in the U.S. and Europe such provisions do not exist. Therefore the werewolves of Kansas City have called for a ban on the full moon. According to Fox News:

“We understand that the United States Constitution allows for the moon to appear in all its cycles, to wax and wane and even to be full , but when the allowance of the full moon incites violence it should be banned,” read a statement from the Werewolf Society.

While condemning the violence that was originally blamed on the full moon, the Werewolf group said it would “be in everyone’s interest to ban the moon from appearing in its full form.”

“We condemn the violence and feel that, in spite of the U. S. Constitution, action may be necessary to pass such a bill or, at least, censure such actions in order to calm the current situation as well as prevent future re-occurrences,” the statement read.

The Werewolf Society in Kansas City is not alone in their calls for limiting the appearance of the full moon.

“We, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] the moon,” the head werewolf told The Blaze.

There have been several recent instances where werewolves have gone on the rampage, randomly tearing out peoples’ hearts and engaging in other such mayhem. Each occurrence has been linked to the full moon.

There are no plans to limit the immigration of werewolves to the U.S. and Europe; their numbers are already large enough that such a move would be politically impractical. Furthermore, werewolves are on the endangered species list and any action against them could be prosecuted as a Federal crime.