It’s bollards.
All the big new buildings of Christendom have them. I was just down at the new – almost complete – Salesforce Tower in downtown San Francisco, and the bollards are everywhere. Ditto for the new immediately adjacent TransBay Terminal, still a year or two away from completion. They’ve got bollards by the thousand there – it’s a huge building – ready to be installed.
The newly ubiquitous bollards are the beginning of the closure of the formerly open West.
In just the same way, all Medieval villages had town walls, and castle keeps to which the townsfolk could retreat when those walls fell before the assaults of the Mohammedans – or of the other barbarians whom the Mohammedan attacks on late classical trade routes and commerce enabled and fostered. If you were going to have a village that was worth a hoot, you had to have walls on it, and a castle on the heights above. So likewise, now, all the really snazzy buildings have bollards.
But bollards can’t work. I mean, bollards can prevent a truck laden with explosives from crashing into the lobby of a great skyscraper, sure. But they cannot prevent the entry of a man carrying those explosives on his back.
Which is going to happen.
The bollards, then, are just the beginning of the transformation of our cities forced by Muslim barbarity. As barbarity more and more destroys civil order, look for the return, not just of side arms, but of long swords, aye, and of men going about in company so as to protect each other and their dependents – death squads, as they are now called, or gangs. Look next for the return of vendetta, of feud – and then, yes, of feudalism, feud’s only effective salve.
Eventually, then – the logic of this is inexorable – the growing, ramifying contest between barbarity and civilization must end in a cataclysmic paroxysm: a Great Sortition of Men, that shall seek out and eject the barbarians among us; or just kill some of them, in numbers great enough that the rest all flee of their own accord, back to their homelands.
The Orthosphere 
Pingback: The New Castellation of the Eurosphere | @the_arv
Pingback: The New Castellation of the Eurosphere | Reaction Times
‘Diversity barriers’
It is indeed defensive closure, but it differs from the castellation by which the northern littoral communities of the Mediterranean responded to the jihad in the Seventh Century. The responders of those days, who retreated to the mountaintops and walled themselves in, could speak the name of their tormentors — and that name was Islam. You will affirm, Kristor, will you not, that if we spent a week interviewing the bureaucrats and architects who have decreed and installed those bollards, not one of them would mention the name of Islam. Some of them would think it, but they would at the same time edit their tongues. Publicly, then, the bollards are a defense against a nameless, putatively non-existent threat. The situation is so mentally distorted that it is difficult to find the right words to describe it.
I will indeed affirm that insanity.
They would tell you that they’re there in order to protect you from the mentally disturbed and from the effects of workplace violence.
As one who is old and disreputable enough to remember late 1970s punk rock, talk of bollards always reminds me of the Sex Pistols first album. As old and disreputable readers will recall, that was “Never Mind the Bollocks. Here’s the Sex Pistols!” I have a long-unplayed copy of it somewhere. It’s not only the resemblance of Bollocks and Bollards (as words, not things), but the insistence that we pay no mind to them. As you say, we are expected not to ask just what those bollards are for. So its “Never Mind the Bollards. Here’s the Multi-Culti USA!” A great many things could be inserted in the place of Bollards, although not with so fortuitous a resemblance to Bollocks (as I said before, the word). “Never Mind the Pat-Downs . . .” “Never Mind the Massacres . . .” “Now that I Think About It, Never Mind Anything. Here’s the Sex Pistols!”
Muslims don’t have a monopoly on blowing up American buildings.
… and Google has no monopoly on search.
A.morphous, please. Don’t be ridiculous. Your refusal to acknowledge reality makes you look pathetic. Like a flat-earther, or something.
What reality am I refusing to acknowledge? I’m certainly not denying the reality of Islamic terrorism (which would be stupid), I’m just asserting that it is not the only kind.
Which makes statements like this from the OP look ridiculous:
You could forcibly exile all Muslims tomorrow, and there would be plenty of barbarity left.
The reality you are refusing to acknowledge is the overwhelming predominance of Muslim terrorism vis-à-vis all other sorts combined. There would of course be all sorts of other barbarity left in the West if Islam were deleted. This site is a catalogue of those barbarities.
But those other barbarities do not force castellation and the other social deformities we must daily suffer in order to frustrate jihad.
I think it just did. 🙂
That was not the best example for a prooftext in this instance. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-real-story-of-the-oklahoma-city-bombing/
Aye; indeed, some have argued that much of the funding for American antifa originates among the Wahhabi billionaires of Saudi Arabia, and that the recent purge there (which they suggest might have been pushed behind the scenes by the Trump Administration) is going to dry up that funding. Ditto for all the money spent on ferrying Africans over to Italy and Greece.
It makes sense that Islam should use its oil wealth to support Leftists (and other troublemakers, of any sort) in the West, as a sort of fifth column subversion of their infidel enemies. The Left wants what it wants – open borders; sexual immorality, deranged families and deterred family formation, contraception and abortion on demand, all leading to crashing fertility; indiscriminacy and the breakdown of subsidiary organs of society; radical individualism and hedonism; destruction of private enterprise; corruption of the military; the welfare state; feminism and destruction of the patriarchal order; rejection of religion and of tradition; and so forth – because it wants to destroy European Christendom, so as to replace it with something it thinks is better; and all those things lead to the destruction of society. Islam wants us to adopt all those things because it, too, wants to destroy Christendom, so as to replace it with something it thinks is better.
“The bollards, then, are just the beginning of the transformation of our cities forced by Muslim barbarity. As barbarity more and more destroys civil order, look for the return, not just of side arms, but of long swords, aye, and of men going about in company so as to protect each other and their dependents – death squads, as they are now called, or gangs. Look next for the return of vendetta, of feud – and then, yes, of feudalism, feud’s only effective salve.”
Could you explain how this reign of Muslim barbarity in America might come about, given that Muslims comprise one percent of the American population, have a low birthrate here and risk their home countries being bombed to smithereens when they are accused of terrorism?
Also, Muslims have not actively promoted feminism, hedonism, and the rejection of religion.
The bollards are psychological warfare against the American people.
Hello, Laura.
May I just point out, in lieu of Kristor’s response, that he is not speaking of any “reign of Muslim barbarity” in the US in the post. What he is speaking to, to the contrary, is the reign of American barbarity *in response to* rises in Muslim barbarity in the states. In other words, of putting that crap down via “death squads,” “vendetta,” “gangs” and so forth. Bollards and our illustrious “leaders” notwithstanding.
May I also point out that one percent of of one percent of 320 million people (give or take) is a lot of people/incompatibles/subversives irrespective of percentages, low birth rates and so on.
Mr. Bertonneau writes:
“You will affirm, Kristor, will you not, that if we spent a week interviewing the bureaucrats and architects who have decreed and installed those bollards, not one of them would mention the name of Islam. Some of them would think it, but they would at the same time edit their tongues. Publicly, then, the bollards are a defense against a nameless, putatively non-existent threat. The situation is so mentally distorted that it is difficult to find the right words to describe it.”
Forgive my bluntness but this is ridiculous. Security officials talk about the threat of Islamic terrorism all the time. A powerful government agency has been created to deal with it. A vast infrastructure of security measures at airports have been installed with everyone openly acknowledging the threat of Muslim terrorism. No one risks his job with talk about Islam!! For heaven’s sake, the President talks about it all the time.
There is no editing of tongues when it comes to the “religion of peace.”
Methinks there is some serious editing of tongues at the Orthosphere about the real causes of terrorism.
You must have been asleep from 2009-2017.
But if this is in Frisco, kindly link to a published quote from the officialdom thereabouts describing the threat of militant Islam. Just one, sil vous plait. It can’t be that hard if they’re as forthright as you claim.
One more point:
Kristor writes:
“But those other barbarities do not force castellation and the other social deformities we must daily suffer in order to frustrate jihad.”
Don’t you think killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Middle East is frustration enough? Eh? If only the children we have bombed could have had a few bollards.
Talk about bloodthirsty!!
[By the way, the time stamp on my comments is wrong. I posted them at about 10 p.m., not at 3 a.m.]
Yeah, the timestamp is GMT. I think. It’s a WordPress thing we haven’t figured out how to change.
Excellent push back, Laura. I can’t respond further right now, but will do so ASAP.
No problem. Take your time.
My response is long enough that I am going to publish it, not as a comment, but as a new post.
The bollards are psychological warfare against the American people.
The bollards are real attempts to protect against real terrorism. It gives some normal type people some comfort – like hiding under one’s school desk during a nuclear fallout. The prudence of all that is debatable. The psychological reason why terrorism occurs is debatable. What the ultimate “Peace Plan” for the Middle East war which manifests itself occasionally in American sky scrapers and nightclubs and Madison Avenue sidewalks is debatable. The reality of dead humans at the hands (occasionally attached to a steering wheel) of a Muslim terrorist is not debatable. Consequentialism is evil – whether practiced by Americans or Muslims.
The problem with those bollards is not, at root, psychological warfare. The problem is the wicked consequentialism that tempts Americans to think – as they inconveniently wade through the bollards – “good on us for killing all those Muslims in that desert.” Islam is evil. Terrorism is evil. American bombing of children and for that matter whole hosts of other unjust war practices is evil. But I don’t think labeling bollards psychological warfare is particularly helpful – that term is carrying a LOT of unshared assumptions about the situation at hand. But they do represent a temptation. To me their psychological temptation is a bit like the typically American conceit that if we romanticize Pearl Harbor enough its ok to drop atomic bombs on people. Like a never ending arms race between two armies of consequentialism.
From a preparedness standpoint (I’m no expert but from what I know). I’m pretty sure that “bollards” or any other barrier will make it harder to evacuate buildings and places where they are. Crowds will be less able to exit the doorways and stream out uninhibited, because every third foot, someone will run into one of these low columns and either stop, fall, or be forced into the stream at one side or the other, impeding that stream as well. More than ever the advice to “hug the walls” in a crowd will be important to exit safely if one is not taller than the crowd.
Pingback: Islam Delendam Esse – The Orthosphere
Pingback: Bollards And Their Implications | Western Rifle Shooters Association
Well, this is NOT the beginning. It began long time ago and that is why we have the insanity at the airports. I used to be able to just go there, board a plane, and never worry or be x-rayed, patted down, luggage searched, etc. Billions and billions spent to prevent disasters of jihadi’s blowing themselves and hundreds of others out of the sky. All this was predicted by Huntington in his book “Clash of Civilizations”. It’s happening, and the slow motion has sped up, especially in the EU. See “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe—Immigration, Islam and the West” by Christopher Caldwell and “The Strange Death of Europe” by Douglas Murray https://www.cfr.org/blog/strange-death-europe-2 I wonder if the West will wake up in time and realize they are in a war with Islam, again.
Pingback: The Great Sortition – The Orthosphere
Pingback: Against Personkind. | Dark Brightness
The problem of Europe is not Islam itself. It is apostasy. In the past Islam tried to conquer Christian Europe. Today it live in an apostate society.
No. Islam is not the problem of Europe. The problem of Europe has several heads:
– protestantism
– freemasonry
– paganism
– atheism
– islam
And believe me. Islam, as much as a problem it may be, it is the smallest of them. At least islam does not have ritualistic sacrifice and/or abuse of children in their worship/service/prayer. Freemasonry and paganism do.