The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: February 2012

Only Words

Words. Angry words. And objects!
Wilfred Lawson as the butler, Peacock (The Wrong Box, 1966)

The line is from a comedy about plots and mix-ups to collect the proceeds of a tontine. Peacock was describing the farcical altercation between two aged brothers, the last surviving members of the lottery, which was actually a kind of a trust-administered survivorship insurance policy.

Angry words? Offending words? Dangerous words? Impermissible words?

But angry words, offending words, impermissible words, and even unspoken words, when it comes to Islam, Muslims, and politically correct speech and thought, are not the stuff of farce. They can be fatal, fatal to freedom of speech, fatal to its practitioners. And the First Amendment can no longer be relied upon to ensure one’s right to criticize Islam or Muslims or trump politically correct speech.

Readers are probably already familiar with the story in the Daily Telegraph and in other newspapers (and, needless to say, on the Internet). Gatwick Airport “security” guards wanted David Jones, a traveler, to admit he made an “offensive” remark and apologize for it. It is interesting that it was a Muslim “security” guard who demanded an apology for a remark not made to her but to another guard. She was not even present when Jones made it. So, the question also is, aside from the fact that this “security” let a veiled Muslim through without a check: Why wasn’t she “offended” by the person who related the remark to her?

Put another way, if words can “hurt,” why wasn’t she hurt by the words of her colleague? Aren’t words intrinsically “hurtful,” no matter who utters them? These are rhetorical questions, of course, but the incident underscores the whole phenomenon of politically correct speech and its natural potential for abuse. There is no reasoning with Islam or with political correctness. David Jones learned that the hard way. Assertions made by Muslims are never to be questioned or held up for scrutiny.

There seems to have also been an element of racism in the security guards’ treatment of Jones, as well. And it is precisely this kind of submission that Hillary Clinton wishes to impose on Americans via the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and the UN. I must give David Jones credit for standing up to these distaff thugs, although it seems that, like many Westerners, he has inured himself to being treated guilty until proven innocent at police state check points.

As David Jones arrived at the security gates at Gatwick airport, he was looking forward to getting through swiftly so he could enjoy lunch with his daughters before their flight.

Placing his belongings, including a scarf, into a tray to pass through the X-ray scanner he spotted a Muslim woman in hijab pass through the area without showing her face.

In a light-hearted aside to a security official who had been assisting him, he said: “If I was wearing this scarf over my face, I wonder what would happen.”

The quip proved to be a mistake. After passing through the gates, he was confronted by staff and accused of racism.

Note that David Jones did not utter either the word “Muslim” or “Islam.” He was wondering outloud. He did not say, “I wonder why that Somali or Egyptian or Saudi or Jordanian or Pakistani woman is allowed to pass through wearing a hijab, while I, a Caucasian male, am forced to pass inspection?” No reference was made by him, either, to the woman’s race.

And guess what dimwit (or dhimmi) snitched on him to Gatwick Airport security.

He said that when he made his initial remark the security guard had appeared to agree with him, saying: “I know what you mean, but we have our rules, and you aren’t allowed to say that.”

The security guard apparently was not “offended” by the remark. He implied that women wearing hijabs regularly pass through without screening. That appeared not to concern him. But his mind had been captured by enforceable politically correct speech and behavior, that is, by wholly irrational rules, and off he went to report the “offensive” remark to others who would enforce the rules and confront the culprit with his offense.

By way of underscoring the phenomenon, here is a private anecdote from a British acquaintance about his own encounter with politically correct speech and its numerous enforcers.

Making logical observations in the UK is a dangerous pastime. There are more and more ‘unwritten rules’ governing how we should (or should not) express ourselves.

Just the other day, I was reprimanded by a colleague at work for talking about Koran burnings in Afghanistan. [Referring to the destruction of Korans on a U.S. base in Afghanistan, in which had been written messages by jihadists, surely an offense by Islam’s own rules.]

This colleague was not a Muslim, but was concerned that someone who might or might not be a Muslim could overhear what was being said and might be offended.

I proceeded to explain that I was not referring to the burnings of the Koran on a US base, but of the destruction of the Nasir-I Khusraw Foundation by the Taliban in 1998, where they destroyed by fire an entire archive of ancient Islamic literature, including a Koran that was over a thousand years old.

And if someone were offended, he could, in such a risky circumstance, resort to two actions: assault the offender, or turn to the authorities to have them assault the offender.

I was advised to cease and desist from any further discussion of burning the Koran, upon which I proceeded to be more creative, finally settling on discussing the use of pages from the book to wallpaper a pigsty using alcohol-based glue. At this point my colleague called me a racist and said he would report me to my manager (who was sitting nearby, quietly sobbing with laughter).

I then pointed out that racism was prejudice against a human genetic or ethnic group and that the last time I looked, paper books were not being considered a valid branch of the hominid genus. I also pointed out that the person he thought might be a Muslim was indeed of Asian stock, but was actually from the UK by way of British Guyana and was a protestant Christian, in which case my colleague was guilty of racial stereotyping.

My colleague walked away.

David Jones was not so fortunate. Men with the power to enforce politically-correct and permissible speech do not walk away from offenders and other loose-tongued culprits, who are grilled until they confess, capitulate out of sheer exasperation, and, in effect, submit to Islam. Enforcers of politically correct speech pose as moral crusaders, especially Muslim spokesmen and “civil liberties” advocates. But what they are actually practicing is extortion.

Then there is the case of Charles Krauthammer, noted conservative columnist and panelist. He delivered a critique of President Barack Obama’s apology to Afghanistan president Karzai over the burning of the Korans.

“He argued all the administration needed to do was just come out with a singular apology from a commanding officer in Afghanistan, and that would have been sufficient.”

No, he ought to have said that an apology was neither necessary nor forthcoming. And he seems to have forgotten that the burned Korans were being disposed of because Muslims had written jihadist messages on their pages. He ought to have condemned General Allen and Obama and every civilian and military dhimmi for rushing to apologize. The United States has nothing to apologize for – except for its irrational foreign policy of propping up a master of taqiyya and probable drug lord with a big stash of money in a Swiss bank, Karzai, and treating as an ally a passive enabler of terrorism, Pakistan. He ought to instead have questioned the sanity of our foreign policymakers. But don’t expect him to. His logic goes only so far, but not to a conclusion.

This news story underscores a fact that is not stressed nearly enough. Islam is a disease that enfeebles. It is meant to enfeeble not only Muslim believers, who refuse to think or listen to reason and “believe” that their creed allows them to dispense with reason. It also enfeebles its non-Muslim victims, and punishes anyone who does not “submit” to Muslim irrationality. The enfeebling element in non-believers is fear: fear of reprimand, or of punishment, or even of death. So, they say nothing. The enfeebling lies in the absence of any defense of them by and in the West.

Krauthammer has always bewildered me. I think that, like many articulate anti-jihadist writers, he is reluctant to condemn Islam across the board simply because it’s a religion, and he may do this for the sake of Muslims who aren’t violent. Perhaps he also thinks that Islam can be “reformed.” As I have often argued in the past, Islam can’t be reformed without killing it. You can no more “reform” Islam than you can an alchemist’s sanctum by redecorating it with pictures of Einstein and Pasteur on the walls and furnishing it with Formica tables. It will still be an alchemist’s sanctum.

Krauthammer practiced psychiatry, and one would think that he would examine the psychological appeal of Islam, and conclude that it requires no thought – in fact, demands that Muslims surrender their minds to brute authority – and so Islam, as a guide to living, is basically a guide to death. It spares Muslims the obligation of becoming individuals in command of their lives, of becoming independent thinkers, and inculcates the habit of deferring to mystical authorities who refer to a textbook that justifies murder, rapine, torture, and theft – with a quantum of pretty-sounding poetry thrown in. And in condemning Islam without reservation or shilly-shallying about all the wretched manqués who are in its ranks, Sunni, Shi’ite, and the lesser sects of Islam, condemn all Muslims, even the “moderate” ones, in the bargain.

But I suspect that if he ever made such a denunciation, the defamation mob would be all over him, Fox News would drop him, he’d no longer be invited to sit on PBS roundtables, and he’d lose his syndicated column. And I suspect that he knows this. He’s too bright to have not suspected this would be the consequence of condemning a religion. Dancing around or evading that condemnation is, from where I sit, a form of submission to Islam.

“This is a world in which nobody asked the Islamic Conference, a grouping of the 56 Islamic countries, to issue an apology when Christians are attacked and churches are burned in Egypt or in Pakistan….”

It’s interesting that he cites the OIC, which, with Hillary Clinton’s help, is “work-shopping” how to abrogate and nullify the First Amendment, that is, to insulate Islam from any and all open criticism and examination. His statement, while cogent, seeks to shame the OIC into conceding that it is being hypocritical. This is a futile tactic. One can’t shame Muslims because hypocrisy is an operative element of Islam. They know it, and Krauthammer ought to know it, but apparently he doesn’t. Muslims will perform fantastic mental gymnastics to justify why Christians are being murdered and persecuted and their churches burned, and that’s if they bother to answer the charge of hypocrisy, which they usually don’t, especially if the charge is levied by an infidel, and, in Krauthammer’s case, by a Jew.

Finally, there is the case of the Pennsylvania atheist who was assaulted by a Muslim for wearing a “Zombie Mohammad” costume during a parade. In this incident, not only was the assailant “offended” by the costume, but the judge, as well, who dismissed the charges against the assailant “for lack of evidence,” even though a police officer testified that there was an assault, and even though there was a video of the incident, which the judge refused to admit as evidence. Judge Mark W. Martin proceeded to lecture the victim on the ways of Sharia and the fact that Islam is a culture whose adherents can be offended by mockery of it. Read the story here. In a display of gratuitous contempt for Perce, he called the man a “doofus.”

Novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand had these observations on words:

It is often said that definitions state the meaning of words. This is true, but it is not exact. A word is merely a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept; a word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept consists of its units. It is not words, but concepts that man defines—by specifying their referents. (“Definitions,” Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 40)

Words transform concepts into (mental) entities; definitions provide them with identity. (Words without definitions are not language but inarticulate sounds.) (“Concept Formation,” Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 11)

The “hurtful” or “defamatory” concepts that supposedly inflict “pain” on Muslims refer to the Koran, to Islam, or to anything Islamic in nature. These are the referents. The Koran is a real, actual thing in reality. Islam is a real theocratic system, which, like any other ideology or political system, resides exclusively in men’s minds. It is an actionable ideology.

But concepts do not exist in reality, only in men’s minds. There are no Platonic, “ideal forms” of thoughts floating about in space that inexplicably descend into men’s minds. They have no physical attributes; they are not temporal manifestations of thought. They have less substance than bubbles; in fact, none. They cannot harm or alter or affect physical objects; unless actions are taken in their name, they are insubstantial. They cannot emanate or be projected from a mind or from print or even from a costume or illustration across space to harm or affect anything. To believe they can is to believe in telepathy or magic spells or psychokinesis. By themselves, words have no intrinsic power or efficacy. I know of no instance in which a man was sent to the hospital for injuries sustained by an avalanche of bubbles.

But I do know of countless – thousands – of instances in which men believed they were harmed by thought bubbles and subsequently sent countless men to the hospital – or to their deaths. By “offended” Muslims.

What about a Muslim’s feelings? On what are those offended feelings based? What is their nature? Is it wounded “pride”? A tenuous, or insecure “self-esteem”? Can his pride or self-esteem be “injured” by concepts, by words? If a man’s sense of self-worth can be injured by another’s words, that self-worth is teetering on ten-foot-high stilts of uncooked spaghetti.

But is it really the case? Perhaps a better explanation is that, down deep, in the repressed recesses of his “soul” (or mind), a Muslim “knows” or suspects that his creed is debauched, evil, wrong, and horrendous. But believing in Islam is convenient; it spares him the effort of thought and critical introspection. So “hurtful” words can damage his pretence of pride or self-esteem. He has invested time, if not thought – rarely thought – in adhering to this creed. His creed, however, is one he accepted without the least conscious critical evaluation. He was born into it, or some weakness in him allowed him to be converted to it. Belief in the creed is an absolute, not to be questioned, let alone mocked or subjected to rational scrutiny. He will, at all costs, refuse to “go there,” that is, to reexamine his premises.

Perhaps the very concept of “rational scrutiny” is beyond his ken. To him, rationality as such does not exist. Rationality is optional, subjective, and can be dispensed with. If that is his premise, then the “offended” is alive simply because he has copied the rational actions of others, and that is the limit of his understanding.

Perhaps it is just a matter of the “offended” making little or no distinction between right or wrong (or at least, right and wrong as defined by Sharia and the Koran), and is moved by a desire to compel others to not say anything critical about his religion, to see them mute from fear of discussing the subject, and also by a desire to “punish” anyone who does make a critical remark, directly or by implication, of Islam, such as the hapless David Jones at Gatwick Airport. He derives satisfaction from knowing that others dare not speak ill of his creed (and, in many cases, by implication, of his race), and from having the power to punish, or see punished, anyone who does dare speak.

What about “hurtful” or “insulting” actions, such as that of the Pennsylvania atheist in his “Mohammad zombie” costume? The same menu of explanations applies. One cannot get into any random Muslim’s mind to determine precisely why he can be “offended” or “insulted” by the sight of a Mohammad cartoon or by someone dressed like Mohammad, sympathetically or satirically. One can only judge a Muslim by the actions he may take to uphold Islam’s “honor,” to avenge its defamation by others’ rational scrutiny or mockery. Unfortunately, Islam requires that all Muslims – Sunni, Shi’ite, Salafi and so on—either wage active or violent jihad on non-believers and their cultures, or to lay low, say nothing, and pretend to be friends with non-believers, to help bring down “their miserable house” from within.

No one would have any reason to examine or mock Islam if the creed were not being constantly shoved in front of our faces like an unwelcome pop-up ad, just as no one would have any reason to criticize Obama or his policies if we were not daily reminded of their disastrous and destructive consequences. Islam would be virtually the sole subject of scholarly study, because, like the dead religions and ideologies of the past, it would pose no threat. There would be no living exponents of it attempting to impose Sharia law on us or demanding that we respect it by saying nothing about it. “Islamophobia” would not exist, because there would be nothing Islamic to fear.

“Magisterial” Judge Mark W. Martin scolded Ernest Perce and accused him of being ignorant of Islam. But Perce exhibited a better knowledge of Islam than Judge Martin suspected when he donned the costume of a “zombie” Mohammad, that is, of the icon of the “living dead.” Islam is indeed a religion of the living dead. What it deserves is the bullet of reason driven through its rotting cranium.

Politically correct speech vis-à-vis Islam is, incredibly enough, the wedge with which Islam and its allies in the West work to eradicate freedom of speech.

Obama’s Questionable Ad Strategy

Family Security Matters (FSM), a blog site that has carried my columns for a number of years now, is a non-profit organization under the IRS’s 501(c)(3) guidelines. As such, it may not carry any column that endorses or attacks any political candidate’s positions during a campaign season. President Barack Obama is running for reelection, so his policies and comments are off-limits – per IRS censors. A violation of the IRS’s guidelines would result the termination of the organization’s non-profit status and likely incur severe penalties.

So, in order to discuss Obama on FSM without really discussing him, I contrived this stratagem. What follows is a version of what will appear on FSM’s blog site.

Before commenting on President Barack Obama’s newest campaign ad on YouTube, I invite readers to first watch the ad here. It isn’t long.

Now I ask readers to reach their own conclusions about this ad. Is it racist? Does it appeal exclusively to blacks or “African-Americans”? Is it addressed to all Americans, and not just blacks? Or not? Do you think the ad is a version of the White House’s policy of “class warfare” between the rich, the poor, and the middle class? I personally do not recall another candidate or incumbent addressing a specific race to garner votes. I have been watching presidential campaign ads for decades, and, in my experience, this ad is unprecedented.

Liberal pundits are screaming bloody murder over what they deem acerbic campaign ads put out by both parties. But I have heard or read nothing in the MSM or on any PBS affiliate or in any newspaper about this ad. Apparently, because the MSM has said nothing about it, it passes muster with them as a legitimate campaign ad.

I don’t recall JFK appealing to Catholics for their votes. I don’t recall Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton asking for Baptist votes. I don’t recall either of the Bushes pleading for “Caucasian” votes. I don’t recall any black candidates overtly soliciting black votes. Or Latino votes. Or Jewish votes. Not in a nationally broadcast speech addressed to the whole nation. And not delivered from the White House. And YouTube is open to the entire nation.

The only exception might be a George W. Bush campaign video ad from July 2004, in which he stresses that Latinos or Hispanics are Americans. It does not appeal to envy, and doesn’t seek to be divisive. Watch it here. If you have trouble remembering other innocuous campaign ads from years ago, find them and compare them with the Obama ad. You may see a radical difference.

Which ad is flip side of segregation? Of affirmative action? Of Jim Crow-ism?

Racism, after all, is the lowest form of collectivism, but it’s obvious some incumbents are willing and desperate enough to stoop to it.

FSM would like to hear from its readers. What do you think?

OIC “Workshops” Speech Crime

Stealth and violent jihadists have discovered the alchemist’s secret of turning gold into lead – that is, of turning freedom of speech into a risky and unwanted liability. It’s really quite simple, obvious for all to see. The formula is similar to the “good cop/bad cop” routine of detective movies.

Start with a cartoon of Mohammad, or a dozen of them, or with public remarks that directly or indirectly hold Islam and Muslims responsible for terrorism, or publish a scholarly, cogent paper on the totalitarian and brutal natures of Islam, or give a mooning “arse-lifter” on a public street the literal boot in a heart-felt moment of disrespect for a manqué bowing to meteorite and who’s in your way.

Of course, the remarks, the charges, the papers, and even the disrespect are responses to about thirty years of irrational Muslim behavior.

Any one of those actions will precipitate riots, calls for death to apostates and insulters of Islam, noisy, ugly demonstrations, chants of “Islam will dominate,” the waving of black jihad flags, and general pandemonium across the globe. And a few dozen or few score deaths at the hands of the insulted. All incidents starring Muslims. Not to mention the self-censorship of newspapers and book publishers, who abandon the issue for safety reasons; who, to borrow a line from “Seinfeld,” draw their heads into their shells like frightened turtles.

When the fires have been put out and the streets cleared of debris and the signs stashed away until the next defamation or insult, things will be quiet for a while.

Then will come calls to tone down the anger and the rhetoric – addressed, not to the rioters, murderers, and Muslim clerics – but to those whose words, cartoons, or actions “offended” the congenitally offendable. The calls will be made by those responsible for keeping law and order and establishing policy. In order to maintain civil order and manageable budgets, it is decreed that anyone criticizing Islam or making fun of Islam and Muslims, will be charged with hate speech, or exhibiting disrespect for one of the world’s oldest religions, or some such, in order to prevent more destructive and costly demonstrations. It’s a matter of cause and effect, you see. If Muslim feelings weren’t hurt, if their beliefs weren’t examined or satirized or opened to the cruel sunlight of rational scrutiny, Muslims wouldn’t resort to mayhem, rape, murder, and car-burning.

It’s quite simple. Almost scientific. Just like global warming.

The calls come basically from two sets of liberals: those who are outraged that Islam has been insulted or defamed, because they are so tolerant and non-judgmental and it makes them feel good and virtuous to be so tolerant and non-judgmental; and from those who are intimidated by brute force and ugly chants and irrational behavior of any kind, and they’d just rather people shut up in the name of “community cohesion” so they won’t need to hear or see the brute force and ugly chants of those less “cohesed” than they might want to imagine.

The pattern has been repeated numerous times over the last few decades. It works. It gets results. Why? Because our political and intellectual establishments are governed by egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and moral relativism. That is, by the irrational. And irrational policies benefit only the irrational, and punish the rational. There are two classes of irrationalists: those who are irrational on principle – otherwise known as nihilists – and those whose minds have been enfeebled by egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and moral relativism. Both classes can be identified by their political correctness.

But it takes some shoulder-rubbing and much intensive study to distinguish between the nihilists and the white-tailed deer, between those who want to just shut you up and reduce you to rags, and those who flee at the first sign of a wolf.

Having proven that their mumbo-jumbo works on the cowardly and credulous infidels, the irrationalists are taking their alchemy to a new level: a ban – by hook or by crook, by shame or by sedition, by ostracism or by force – of any and all criticism of Islam and Muslims, by way of the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC is a gang that works within that club of tyrannies, dictatorships, religious régimes, and clueless, compliant, and wimpy “democracies.”

On February 13th, Bernama, the Malaysian state news agency, announced:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is to hold a media workshop in Brussels on Feb. 15 to 16 pertaining to the smear campaigns against Islam in newspapers and media institutions in the West. […]

Muslim, and non-Muslim leading civil society organisations, journalists, intellectuals and academicians are among the participants of the workshop, which will consist of brainstorming sessions to develop mechanisms for cooperation with external partners, and to develop an action plan to address the phenomenon of Islamophobia.

On February 15th, the OIC announced the “workshop.”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is holding a workshop in Brussels as of 15th February 2012, on the subject of Islamophobia, the first workshop of its kind aimed at establishing information mechanisms to face up to the slanderous campaigns against Islam in the media.

This workshop, held under the title of “Smearing Islam and Muslims in the Media”, is being attended by major civil society institutions in the Islamic world along with the press community from the Islamic and Western worlds, in addition to many intellectuals and academics. It constitutes a watershed event in terms of effecting a real shift away from mere theorizing towards a more pragmatic action aimed at countering the phenomenon of Islamophobia.

It is now late February, and search as one might, one will not find a press release about what had been “work-shopped” and resolved. Who were the attendees? What Western academics, intellectuals and journalists were on the session rosters? What “mechanisms” were suggested and discussed? We Islamophobes, whose mouths may be gagged and our hands crippled by Muslims or by our own government, rendering our pens and keyboards useless, would like to know.

And we would also like to know which newspapers have been conducting smear campaigns against Islam. Which other media institutions? But for a pitiful handful of newspapers, such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and Britain’s Daily Mail, I do not know of any other publication that is guilty of that charge, that is, of having written objectively about Islam. Perhaps, occasionally, Canada’s National Post. And the Daily Mail has actually identified Muslim culprits, and called them Muslims. I know of no other mainstream print magazines that have waged an information war on Islam. The rest, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, are either frightened turtles, or Gila monsters for Islam.

The only other realm of information that can be charged with waging a “smear campaign” against Islam and Muslims is the blogosphere. It, and not the mainstream media, is the prime media institution in which real information about Islam and Muslims can be found. So, the whole “workshop” idea is merely an means to come up with ideas to shut down whatever blog sites have bad-mouthed or “defamed” Islam.

Robert McDowell, in his Wall Street Journal article of February 21st, “The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom,” wrote:

On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year’s end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish “international control over the Internet” through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.

Of the 193 members of the ITU, 57 of them are OIC members, meaning that the ITU cannot help but be influenced by OIC’s clout, aside from that of Russia and China, both of them established dictatorships. One can guess what the new “treaty” will advocate or accomplish: the suppression of freedom of speech across the globe.

The OIC announcement does not mention the role of the United Nations in this “brainstorming” for “social justice,” but Bernama does:

The organisation noted that the workshop is of particular importance as it will be held only weeks before the convening of the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva in March, at which Resolution 16/18 will come to a vote for the second time after its unanimous endorsement in the previous session.

Resolution 16/18 aims to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief….The resolution was an outcome of bilateral talks between the OIC and a number of Western countries, including the U.S. Two meetings were held in Istanbul and Washington, respectively, to develop operational mechanisms to implement the resolution at the level of the United Nations.

Resolution 16/18…was backed by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the most recent Istanbul Process Conference in Washington in December.

“Operational mechanisms”? What a subtle term for blackmail, extortion, harassment, political and economic pressure, the enforcement of politically correct speech codes, tire-slashing, anonymous phone call threats, envelopes filled with white powder, perhaps a little creative road-rage, house trashing, and strange men loitering beneath the street lamp or in the shadows outside your home. What else could the euphemism mean? Other than direct, brute force?

And Lady Macbeth reappears for an encore audition. Doubtless she will be a star witness and co-conspirator in Geneva next month. It will be all cocktails, canapés and censorship chatter before the vote. This subject has been discussed before, last August, in “Hillary Clinton Auditions for Lady Macbeth.” And because of the paucity of information about the Washington Conference last December, and about the Brussels “workshop,” all we can do is repeat what was reported before. We plead ignorance of what transpired during those conferences – which is how the OIC would have it.

“Resolution 16/18 aims to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief”?

But what creed and what group are notorious for all those things? Because the OIC is behind Resolution 16/18, the “combat” will not be launched against Islam and Muslims. But it is precisely Islam and its consistent practitioners that are perpetrators of rabid and violent intolerance, and of stereotyping and stigmatizing themselves through their actions and agenda and sensitivity to the least criticism.

The resolution’s stated intention is an instance of Grand Taqiyya, or, the Big Lie, of saying one thing to the public (or to dhimmi Western diplomats) but meaning something else entirely. The Koran permits it. The Hadith permits it. And Reliance of the Traveler, that mammoth Islamic handbook on the methodology of conquest, permits it. To wit:

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…Reliance of the Traveler, p. 746 – 8.2 (Shaffi Fiqh)

In May of 2006, in my Rule of Reason commentary, “Moving towards freedomless speech,” I noted that:

The Mohammedan enforcer of politically correct speech is ready with his scimitar, watching your every movement and listening to your every word, eager to behead unrepentant infidels of the First Amendment. “Slay them wherever you find them.” Or take them to court.

The enforcer no longer need be a Muslim. He can be a Presbyterian, or a Catholic, or a Baptist, or an agnostic, working for the government at the behest of the United Nations, authorized by Resolution 16/18 to silence you. It can be Hillary Clinton, whose State Department hosted the December 2011 OIC conference on what to do about the First Amendment. To accomplish the “praiseworthy” goal of silencing all criticism of Islam, the OIC can depend on the DHS, which now monitors all Internet traffic, looking for those “red flags” of “hate speech,” “bigotry,” and “Islamophobia.”

Hillary Clinton is up to her neck in complicity to subvert freedom of speech in America, and in aiding and abetting the OIC’s methods and ends. Nina Shea and Paul Marshall reported in The Wall Street Journal last December, before the Washington conference:

Last July in Istanbul, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-chaired a “High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance” with the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Mrs. Clinton invited the OIC to Washington for a conference to build “muscles of respect and empathy and tolerance.” That conference is scheduled for Dec. 12 through Dec. 14.

For more than 20 years, the OIC has pressed Western governments to restrict speech about Islam. Its charter commits it “to combat defamation of Islam,” and its current action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” by all states to counter purported Islamophobia. […]

OIC pressure on European countries to ban “negative stereotyping of Islam” has increased since the 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh for his film “Submission” and the Danish Muhammad cartoon imbroglio in 2005. Many countries (such as France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Finland, Italy and Sweden), hoping to ensure social peace, now prosecute people for “vilifying” Islam or insulting Muslims’ religious feelings.

Shea and Marshall conclude, not quite believing then that the march of events could overcome their optimism:

Encouraging a more civil discourse is commendable, and First Amendment freedoms mean the U.S. won’t veer down Europe’s path any time soon.

It has been veering down that path since at least 9/11. The First Amendment is no longer sacrosanct, no longer a guarantee of freedom of speech – not if our own government is seeking to regulate it for its own statist ends in an unholy alliance with this nation’s dedicated enemies.

Those who value that particular liberty should initiate “workshops” of their own, to combat the frightened turtles and Gila monsters at large in America and abroad.

The Road to Skandanistan

One shouldn’t wonder much about why Norway, Sweden, and Demark are willing to submit, like “Britainistan,” without so much as an audible whimper, to their steady Islamization, to their becoming de facto departments of a growing international caliphate. All three countries are welfare states that welcomed Muslim immigrants by the planeload over the decades to perform the work which entitlement-obsessed and welfare benefits-seduced Scandinavians no longer wished to perform. “Islamophobes” they were not. And still aren’t, even though their skyrocketing crime rates are directly attributable to immigrant and second-generation Muslims.

All three countries are governed by leftist elites, by political parties that redistribute other people’s money and spread the wealth around a lot. The Left has made an alliance with Islam, which wants to spread its creed around across the board and impose its ideology on non-Muslims by guile or force. There are, however, two camps of the Left. There is the Left that hates the West as much as do the Muslims, and will do anything to destroy it, even if it means its own dhimmitude and demise under Sharia law and submission. One could not imagine another group in that part of the globe more dedicated to the destruction of their own country. “We will be multicultural and non-judgmental, even if it means our own deaths. It is the right thing to do. We will be virtuous, even if it means accepting penance for our culture being superior to Islamic culture.”

It is an instance of passive nihilism in the guise of the high moral ground. The only catch is that, ultimately, this high ground must lead to Norwegians having to walk in the gutter in deference to Muslims on the sidewalk.

And there is the Left that is afflicted with the intellectual cerebral palsy of egalitarianism, moral relativism, and multiculturalism. Its members cannot and will not oppose the invasion of their own countries by Islamic hordes. Members of this group are the three countries’ intellectual elites, which, as such, advise and inform the political Left. Together with the political elite, this group holds Islam and Muslims as sacrosanct and untouchable by the least criticism, serious or satirical.

Muslims, however, do not reciprocate when it comes to Norwegian or Swedish or Danish cultural values, or women, or property or freedom of speech. They are protected by actual or de facto censorship and political correctness. For all their relativist language, it is almost as though these intellectuals have conceded the assertion by Islamic intellectuals that Muslims are in every way superior to non-Muslims. It is useless to point this out to these “thinkers,” because they will only flip the coin and reply, “Heads, we’re at fault. We shouldn’t be so culturally imperialistic in our own country.”

Bruce Bawer, in a Wall Street Journal article on February 7, “After the Oslo Massacre, an Assault on Free Speech” (the full article was reprinted in Canada’s National Post) recounted the July 22, 2011 bombing and massacre committed by Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian who opposed the government’s immigration and multiculturalist policies, and his own prediction last year that a backlash would be mounted, not against raping, looting, and anti-Semitic Muslims, but against Norwegians who spoke out or wrote about the irreconcilability between Western values and Islam.

“In Norway,” I wrote in these pages on July 25, “to speak negatively about any aspect of the Muslim faith has always been a touchy matter . . . . It will, I fear, be a great deal more difficult to broach these issues now that this murderous madman has become the poster boy for the criticism of Islam.”

This statement was harshly criticized by Norway’s multicultural left. How dare anyone speak of such issues at a time like this! […]

On the contrary, Islam’s rise in the West is a subject that needs to be discussed frankly, without euphemism or disinformation. The survival of secular democracy, individual liberty and women’s rights depends upon it.

Sadly, my prediction turned out to be far more prescient than I could have imagined. In the weeks and months following Breivik’s rampage, dozens of high-profile Norwegian leftists stepped forward to claim that critics of Islam shared responsibility for his crimes—and to call, darkly if vaguely, for action.

Imagine if Colonel Travis had drawn a line in the sand at the Alamo, and asked any of its defenders who would not only surrender the Alamo, but help the invading Mexicans overcome the fort, to step forward over the line. One supposes that is the new Norwegian notion of courage.

Bawer writes:

Consider this: Criticizing Islam is now a punishable offense in several European countries. In the past few months alone, a Danish court fined writer Lars Hedegaard for talking about Islam’s treatment of women in his own home, and activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf was found guilty of lecturing about Muhummad’s marital history in what an Austrian court considered an inappropriate tone.

And, in Austria, a man was fined for allegedly “mocking” a nearby mosque’s muezzin by yodeling, and a retired French actress was hauled into court for placing an ad in the paper that warned potential Muslim job applicants that she had a dog. Another man spoke ill in his own home of the Muslim treatment of Muslim women, and was taken to court.

Norwegian intellectuals claim that because Breivik was “inspired” by what he read in various anti-jihadist bogs that criticized Islam, they all contributed to Breivik’s criminal state of mind and so therefore their authors are just as culpable. This position underscores the notion that men’s minds are merely passive receptors of ideas that cause men to act, that ideas themselves are intrinsically potent, like sugar or cholesterol, and should be regulated to prevent events such as the Oslo bombing and massacre.

This notion also applies to Muslims, as well. If Muslims weren’t offended or insulted or made the special attention of critics and authorities as likely terrorists (a.k.a., “discrimination,” “racism,” “bigotry”), there would be a halt to bombings and rapes and murders committed by Muslims, and we would all be living in a multiculturally copasetic world. Muslims, Lutherans, Catholics, and Jews would all be holding hands and dancing around a Maypole.

But it is the Muslims who benefit from such rationalizations, not their victims or their critics. Muslims are implicitly granted the privilege of saying whatever they please without risk of reprisal or censure, because they are a protected group posing as “victims.” And there is no evidence that gagging their critics leads to a cessation of Muslim crime. In fact, state or politically-correct self-censorship causes a rise in such crimes, because there is no attendant risk in committing them. Their imams or mullahs will come to their defense, as well as the infidel egg-heads and “journalists” who report the news with socks in their mouths.

Bawer offers evidence of the campaign against critics of Islam in Norway and beyond. It is an episodic sequel to Julien Benda’s The Treason of the Clerks. Benda noted that French intellectuals,

… whose function is to uphold eternal and disinterested values, such as justice and reason, whom I call the intellectuals, have abdicated their role for the sake of practical interests.

Those “practical interests,” as far as Norwegian intellectuals are concerned, being to assault freedom of speech and to call for the demonization of its advocates and practitioners. Standing up for freedom of speech is simply not “practical.” As for the “disinterested” values of justice and reason, these IQ-challenged cultural and political Quislings are clearly not interested in them. Bawer presents some of the disgraceful capitulations by Norwegian “clerks.”

On July 28, for instance, novelist Jostein Gaarder, author of “Sophie’s World,” and social anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen, writing in the New York Times, linked Breivik to “right-wing” Islam critics, including me. “Mr. Breivik,” they wrote, “has now shown that those who claim to protect the next generation of Norwegians against Islamist extremism are, in fact, the greater menace.”

Cartoonists, Austrian yodelers, and retired French actresses are a greater menace than roving gangs of Muslim youth? Bruce Bawer is a graver threat than a suicide bomber? Just how many women have they raped, disfigured, or beaten to a pulp? How many have they killed on Spanish trains, or London subways, or in skyscrapers, or in Bali nightclubs? One must really question, not only the condition of a poisonous stasis of Muslim minds, but the mental health of intellectuals who defend Muslim crimes out of a perverted sense of justice.

Lars Gule, former head of the Norwegian Humanist Association, agreed. “It is obvious,” wrote Mr. Gule in VG, Norway’s largest daily, on Aug. 1, “that certain groups, persons, and communities have contributed to Breivik’s warped view of reality, and these people need to take a good look at themselves. If not, others must help them.”

On the contrary, it is intellectuals like Lars Gule who must take a good look at themselves, and ask themselves whether or not they are still human. They must ask themselves: If Anders Breivik’s mind was so influenced by the statements of people like Robert Spencer and Steve Emerson, not to mention by Hitler and other tyrants, why have I not turned into a homicidal maniac? I have read the same things, too, yet here I am, without the least impulse to plant bombs or shoot those whose words I hate. But that kind of realization would be repressed, for Gule sounds like a wannabe reeducation camp warden who would like to “help” them get their minds and words sanitized.

On Aug. 22, Norway’s newspaper of record, Aftenposten, ran an op-ed coauthored by Mr. Eriksen and three others—social anthropologist Sindre Bangstad, philosopher Arne Johan Vetlesen and Bushra Ishaq of Norway’s Anti-Racist Center. Titled “Hateful Utterances,” it called for tighter limits on free speech in the wake of July 22.

“Certain hateful utterances,” the authors insisted, “are legally and morally unacceptable.” Rejecting “free speech absolutism,” and criticizing the United States for “go[ing] the furthest in protecting the right to expression—including hateful expression,” they argued that “Norwegian editors as well as politicians” needed to make it clear that “it is not a human right to express oneself in public; and that certain hateful utterances . . . are not acceptable.”

Bawer does not note it, but it apparently took Messrs Eriksen, Bangstad and Ishaq a whole month – between the massacres of July 22 to August 22 – to gather enough collective chutzpah to openly call for censorship and the suppression of all speech not approved by the government (or by Muslims).

Anthropologist Runar Døving agreed, declaring flatly, in a Sept. 2 interview with the Norwegian weekly Morgenbladet, that criticism of Islam should be censored. Mr. Døving admitted that his view of the public square was “authoritarian”—the expression of certain ideas, he said, should simply not be allowed—and that he was “entirely in favor of what many people are now describing as a witch hunt,” because “there needs to be an investigation of what was written before July 22″ so that we can “see the connection between words and actions.”

Indeed, Bawer’s appellation, witch hunt, is eminently appropriate. A witch, after all, it is claimed, uses magic potions, spells, and curses that cause others to be wicked and sinful. Obviously, to Doving and his ilk, Breivik was influenced by the things he read (and the things he read comprised a chaotic potpourri of legitimate and irrational statements about Islam), things that cast a spell on him and drove him to acts of terrorism. So, to prevent others from being victims of such anti-social behavior, and for the public’s security, those things must be banned, the writings of those who influenced Breivik must be “investigated” and cast into a memory hole so they never “do harm” ever again, and the authors of those writings be held accountable for their “hateful” or “hatemongering” speech.

And never, ever accuse Muslims of hate speech, or the defamation of other religions, or intolerance, or anti-social behavior. Don’t even look at a Muslim the wrong way. It will earn you a dunking, or a beheading, or a rape, or a bomb.

Bawer concludes his article:

Indeed, a witch hunt is under way in Norway. In the name of multicultural tolerance and social harmony, some of the most powerful members of the country’s leftwing intelligentsia are seeking to silence Islam’s critics by linking them to a mass murderer who has become the most despised individual in modern Norwegian history. This campaign has been carried out on a scale, and with an intensity, that is profoundly unsettling. It should be firmly resisted by everyone who treasures freedom of expression and recognizes it as the cornerstone of human liberty.

Bawer was probably thinking about Fjordman and Hans Rustad, two outspoken Norwegians against multiculturalism and the Islamization of Norway who became the first scapegoats of the Left in its search for explanations for the Breivik massacre and bombing. About the laying of responsibility for Breivik’s actions, The Gates of Vienna, in December 2011, in a long commentary on the Oslo massacre and on the opening baying of bloodhounds in the witch hunt, had this to say about both the Left’s intellectuals and the Norwegian news media:

Are the media in Norway seriously trying to convince us that they have no culpability in influencing Breivik to commit these crimes by publishing critical articles about non-western immigrants, but that Fjordman and Mr. Rustad who have simply been linking to the newspaper articles published by the same media somehow are? That is logical fallacy, and it simply doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. If they keep insisting on trying to pin the blame on Fjordman and Mr. Rustad then they have to stand up and accept equal responsibility, which of course they will never do.

Samuel Johnson is alleged to have quipped, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Egalitarianism, moral relativism, and multiculturalism began as “good intentions” adopted by the champions and enforcers of the welfare state, which is a political system that relieves some men of their lives, liberty, and property to redistribute them to men who want no liberty but need property. Norway, Sweden and Denmark are welfare states that also wish to relieve men of their freedom of speech. Their political elites and their intellectuals have for decades paved the way to a hell they don’t wish to acknowledge or see, and are willing to blind everyone else to.

And America’s own political elite and intellectuals are laying the same paving stones to hell for this country.

Islamic Rules for Radicals

I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s current communications director

Reading through David Horowitz’s 51-page pamphlet, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model*, one is struck almost immediately by the similarities between Saul Alinsky’s “rules for radicals” to more effectively disrupt and bring down “the system,” and the methods employed in the cultural and political jihad employed by such “radical” organizations as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Circle of North America (ISNA), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), among other affiliated Muslim “civic” entities.

I was so amazed by the similarities that I thought this remarkable pamphlet deserved a few words. It is an invaluable primer for understanding not only President Barack Obama and his policies, but also the arsenal of deceit, fraud and misrepresentations with which Muslim organizations are waging a war of sabotage and subornation in this country.

I have often written before on the methodology of Islamic jihad, particularly in “A Nexus of Nihilism,” in August 2010 on Rule of Reason and other blog spots, in which I explore the curious and sometimes startling alliance between Islam and the Left. But I was too close to the subject to see the parallels in tactics, even after having read large portions of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (which I guiltily bought on Amazon, reluctant to reward the Alinsky estate, if one exists, with a few pennies, before I learned I could read it online).

Horowitz does not discuss Islam in his pamphlet, but the methodology recommended by the patron saint of the New Left, Alinsky, is so eerily simpatico with Islam’s that they are virtual doppelgangers. And, as Horowitz explains Alinsky’s principles, one can see that the means and ends of communists, socialists, fascists and other “radicals” are not dissimilar from Islam’s methodology and ends. Here is a quotation from the seminal Muslim Brotherhood memo of 1991:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

A global caliphate is the end sought by Islam, a “heaven on earth.” Leftists also pursue such a “heaven on earth” (an ideal world of “social justice,” a preserved planet, the equalization of wealth, a guaranteed existence, etc.) and are also willing to wage not only violent war against the “system” to bring it about, but practice their version of taqiyya, or double-speak, or the policy of saying one thing in public and meaning something else entirely. Until that global or universal caliphate is accomplished, Islam will wage continual war against everyone who has not submitted to Islam or been subjugated by it.

So have Alinsky’s radicals worked to bring down the “miserable house” of America and replace it with their own “caliphate” of totalitarian rule.

For Alinsky, politics is a zero-sum exercise, because it is war. No matter what Alinsky radicals say publically or how moderate they appear, they are at war. This provides them with a great tactical advantage since other actors in the political arena are not at war….By contrast, Alinsky radicals have an unwavering end, which is to attack the Haves until they are finally defeated. In other words, to undermine the system that allows them to earn and possess more than others. Such a system, according to the radicals, is one of “social injustice,” and what they want is “social justice.” The unwavering end of such radicals is a communism of results.

Or, “heaven on earth.” The Marxist Dar Al-Islam, or Land of Islam. A land of peace and plenty in which no man has more than his brother, and in which selfishness has been controlled or eradicated.

Horowitz states in the beginning that Alinsky was fundamentally a nihilist. He hated America and the freedom it enjoyed. He simply wished to corrupt, compromise and destroy the system that made it so exceptional: capitalism (or what there was of it in mixed economy). He was not too particular about the cause. It didn’t matter to him whom or what radicals demonstrated against or targeted, isolated, and polarized, just as long as it was a “Have” or a “Have’s” institution, such as private property or constitutionally protected rights.

Alinsky distinguished between “rhetorical radicals” and “realistic radicals,” and believed that “rhetorical radicals” might mean well but would accomplish nothing because they refused to compromise their principles. “Realistic radicals,” however, were pragmatists willing to make compromises and concessions, so long as they corrupted the principles of their opponents. Horowitz writes, citing Alinsky who regarded “idealistic” radicals as naïve and impotent to effect “change”:

“’Power comes out of the barrel of a gun’ is an absurd rallying cry when the other side has all the guns. Lenin [one of Alinsky’s heroes] was a pragmatist; when he returned to what was then Petrograd from exile, he said that Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot but would reconsider after they got the guns.”

And power was the ultimate and sole end of radical activism. Nothing else. The cause was immaterial. It could have been “decent” housing, or factory working conditions, or slum landlords or banks. The target was interchangeable. Alinsky did not necessarily hope it was communist power, or a socialist, or fascist power that triumphed. Any political system that wielded total power over men was fine with him. So, he was not only a nihilist, advocating destruction for the sake of destruction; but he was a political whore, as well.

What do the Islamists seek? Power. Political power. Total power with Sharia law installed and enshrined as the ultimate and only moral code, piecemeal at first, nation by nation, and then globally. The establishment of Sharia law is their notion of “social justice.”

Although he was never formally a Communist and did not share their tactical views on how to organize a revolution, his attitude towards Communists was fraternal, and he saw them as political allies…

By his own account, Alinsky was too independent to join the Communist Party but instead became a forerunner of the left that emerged in the wake of the Communist fall….

For Alinsky, the revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system and then see what happens. The Alinsky radical has a single principle – to take power from the Haves and give it to the Have-nots. What this amounts to in practice is political nihilism….

This attitude also characterizes the methods of Islamists in this country. One never really knows where or when they will strike next. It doesn’t matter to Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR what the issue is. He and his stealth jihadist ilk will take advantage of any opposition to the Islamification of America. Lacking opposition or provocation, he and his ilk will invent a cause. Alinsky advocated that tactic, too. Wherever there are Muslims – at jobs, in a park, in a restaurant, in school, in the military, reading newspapers, during standard holidays – the venue is immaterial but rich in exploitive potential.

“Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn’t look for a nation to be in better condition than another nation. Islam doesn’t care about the land or who owns the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power in this world that tries to get in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy.” – Mawlana Abul Ala Mawdudi, founder of Pakistan’s Fundamentalist Movement

Citing Hillary Clinton’s Wellesley adulatory senior thesis, “There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model” (1969), and an SDS radical who wrote, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution,” Horowitz puts his finger on the core motivation of radicals, secular or Islamic. The cause is irrelevant, and solely a means of achieving political power, which is always the end. Horowitz notes:

In other words the cause – whether inner city blacks or women – is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution. That was the all-consuming focus of Alinsky and his radicals.

And still is. Observe the agenda of the Democratic Party and Occupy Wall Street. Political power is also the end of the Islamists. Just as radicals insinuated themselves into the welfare state establishment and became “respectable reformers,” and in academia to teach watered-down Marxism cum Progressivism, but in fact had never given up on the “revolution,” Islamists pose as champions of freedom of religion and freedom of speech – except when it’s someone else’s religion or speech.

For example, CAIR and other Muslim organizations are opposing a movement among states to forbid state courts from using any but U.S. law. The movement is specifically aimed at prohibiting Sharia law from being employed or considered in any judicial decision, Sharia being treated as foreign law. Indeed, it is “foreign,” not only because of its Mideast, Islamic origins, but because it is a brutal, primitive legal code that does not recognize individual rights, only the “rights” of Allah and Muslim men, and so is alien to American concepts of liberty. The opposition to a ban of Sharia law can only be described as a quest for political power.

“Realistic” and “pragmatic” Islamists wisely and pragmatically work within the system, as Alinsky advised his radicals. They don business suits and acquire a knowledge of American law. They infiltrate the system, pretending to be moderates representing liberal causes. They get elected to office, from Congress to mayor to alderman. They “bore within the system” to achieve the same end as “idealistic” plane hijackers and bomb-makers, which is the disintegration of the system.

Horowitz writes that Alinsky’s method was indeed revolutionary;

Alinsky’s advice can be summed up in the following way. Even though you are at war with the system, don’t confront it as an opposing army; join it and undermine it as a fifth column from within. To achieve this infiltration you must work inside the system for the time being. Alinsky spells out exactly what this means: “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people”….You do this by proposing moderate changes which open the door to your radical agenda….

Think of all the socialists, Marxists, and nascent totalitarians who have held office in Congress, in state governments, in the multitude of bureaucracies. They apply the same policy of ambiguity and dissimulation. They pose as “moderates” to advance their own radical agendas.

Advocates for the Islamization of America employ the same methods. All they want is “social justice”: a foot bath and prayer room in an office or factory here; the removal of Christian symbols from the sight of Muslims there; the “right” of Muslim men to beat their wives in “marital disputes”; the derogation and cessation of all unflattering spoken and written criticism of Islam and its practices. All little, “moderate” things that begin to pile up and which inure Americans to an Islamic presence, a presence which is a measure of conquest but which Islamists claim with a straight face is “freedom.”

After all, Ibrahim Hooper might argue, we don’t mock the Amish, or the Baptists, or the Catholics. Why are Muslims the object of so much trepidation and discrimination and defamation? It might have something to do with the fact that the Amish, Baptists and Catholics are not waging a war against the rest of American society for the purpose of bringing it down and converting it to their preferred faiths.

Horowitz relates a revealing story about Alinsky and his approach to teaching radicals how to pursue their own preferred paradise of “social justice”:

The following anecdote about Alinsky’s teachings as recounted by The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza nicely illustrates the focus of Alinsky’s radicalism: “When Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: ‘You want to organize for power!’”

There are so many more gems and nuggets of observation in this pamphlet that to discuss them here would result in a pamphlet equally as long as Horowitz’s. Suffice it to say that the Alinsky principles in the pursuit of socialist or totalitarian power are no less applicable to Islamic stealth jihad. One may observe them in both the socialist realm and the Islamic realm. I end this review with my own observations, from “The Nexus of Nihilism”:

Islam is no stranger to socialism. In fact, as Daniel Pipes and other observers have noted, Islam has made common cause with communism and socialism in the past. Islamic scholars and intellectuals have endorsed socialist trends in countries they wished to see Islam triumph. The phenomenon of America’s liberal/left making cause with Islam is just another episode of that on-again and off-again alliance.

Had Alinsky, who died in 1972, lived long enough to see the progress Islamists had made in their pursuit of power in America, he might have suspected that they had read his books, and sent them congratulatory notes. After all, to him, it mattered not who acquired power, just as long as the “system” was targeted, isolated, polarized – and destroyed.

* David Horowitz Freedom Center. Sherman Oaks, Ca, 2009.

The Sneers and Smears of IPS

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) bills itself as the nation’s oldest progressive organization. Progressive meaning collectivist.

IPS is a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally. We work with social movements to promote true democracy and challenge concentrated wealth, corporate influence, and military power.

Actually, the oldest progressive organization is the Democratic Party, if we are to judge an organization by the policies it pursues, advocates, and advances. The Democratic Party, too, is a community of public servants and allies who link peace, social justice, and the environment. It, too, works with social movements to promote true democracy (populist mob rule) and challenges concentrated wealth (not any owned by members of the community, of course), corporate influence (not their crony capitalist friends and junket-generous lobbyists), and military power, for the Party’s ideal military policy would abolish all the services and rely on the National Guard to keep the populace honest and in line.

IPS, however, as a 501(c)3 organization that relies on public donations, can only inform and advise politicians and the public and has no legislative powers. It can’t force citizens to obey its whims and wishes or to conform to its agenda. That’s what its principals believe Congress is for.

IPS studies policies, and doesn’t like them or their authors or their supporters. It so dislikes the policies its minions study, that only the width and breadth of its scholars’ desks and all the junk on them prevent them from just penning placards with Magic Markers and stencils to make protest signs, instead of laboring over long, tongue-in-cheek anti-American screeds. IPS so dislikes the authors of these policies that it would just rather produce National Enquirer-level exposés on these individuals. After all, to IPS, anyone who argues for self-defense, individualism and the rule of law, private property, and using nature to enhance man’s existence, is tainted by bourgeoisie ideology and is a reactionary varmint undeserving of an iota of politeness or courtesy. IPS profiles of such persons are frankly and admittedly unflattering, stereotyping caricatures, not disinterested proxy resumes or curricula vitae. IPS has never tried to disguise its invective and malice for any person, group or idea it deems an obstruction to the progress of Progressivism.

Reflecting the fresh and blossoming alliance between the Left and Islam, “Islamophobia” is the new sin IPS scholars and interns can excoriate, and anyone found guilty of expressing a fear of Islam, its depredations, and its jihad gets the same a priori derogatory treatment as have individuals such as John Bolton and David Horowitz (characterized in his profile as an “ex-lefty”—the traitor!).

IPS, in short, is a kind of “academic” auxiliary of Saul Alinsky-style community organizers and activists, a resource to turn to should a community organizer or activist be unable to coin an original slogan or who otherwise lacks the gray matter to effectively demonize his targeted, isolated, and polarized prey. Should a politician seek precooked mantras and party lines and buzz phrases with which to assault the House and Senate from the floor, and the public from the approving pulpits of The New York Times and Washington Post, IPS’s numerous papers and books are a rich trove of treasured bromides.

IPS enthusiastically endorsed Occupy Wall Street. Here it names two luminaries, the witch doctor and his cultural son and heir, a thug, as champions of OWS:

Occupy Wall Street is also garnering more attention from both local and global media, thanks to the growing outrage and support from well-known figures including MIT professor Noam Chomsky and rapper Immortal Technique.

Doubtless not a few of OWS’s behind-the-scenes planners and managers have intimate connections with IPS. The only “how-to” manuals that can instruct “revolutionaries” on methods to incite violence, “occupy” anything, disrupt commerce, trash public parks, and cry for vengeance (i.e., “social justice”) are to be found in IPS’s backlist of publications. IPS waxed poetic as OWS settled into its appropriated venues like Turks occupying Cypress, or Muslim hordes occupying European cities, and presumed to instruct us in the Howard Zinn kind of American history:

But we do know that three of the four top presidential candidates in 1912¬the “Bull Moose” Theodore Roosevelt, the Socialist Eugene Debs and the Democrat Woodrow Wilson -anchored their campaigns in the struggle against wealth’s maldistribution.

Our democracy faced “ruin,” Roosevelt warned, “if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few.” The 1912 incumbent, Republican William Howard Taft, blasted Teddy for “appealing to class hatred.” Taft ended up appealing to virtually no one. Wilson, Roosevelt and Debs together captured 75 percent of the final vote.

American politics a century ago revolved around wealth’s deeply dangerous concentration. Wealth meant to nations, activists preached, what manure meant to farms. Spread evenly, manure enriches the land. With manure concentrated in heaps, the land sours.

The young men and women these activists inspired would two decades later usher in a “New Deal” for America. Unions would “level up” average incomes. Steeply progressive taxes would “level down” incomes at America’s top. By the 1950s our plutocracy had melted away. The fortunes of our remaining rich no longer towered high enough to dominate us.

That more equal America now seems ancient history. Fifty years ago America’s top 400 incomes averaged only $14.6 million each, in today’s dollars. In 2008 our top 400 averaged $270.5 million. The 1961 ultrarich paid, after loopholes, 42.4 percent of their incomes in federal tax. The 2008 ultras paid just 18.1 percent.

From its beginning in 1963 by peaceniks and malcontents Marcus Raskin and Richard Barnet, two Congressional aides who left their government jobs to found it (they weren’t happy with JFK’s approach to disarmament), IPS has been Left with a capital L. Its first crusade was against the Vietnam War. It has remained Left for half a century. Over the decades it has latched onto and endorsed every collectivist and social “progress,” from disarmament to the civil rights movement to feminism.

It has been investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service, by the FBI for its communist connections and serving as a front for the Soviets, and by the IRS for alleged violations of its non-profit status. Barnet and Raskin were on President Richard Nixon’s “enemies list,” and earned the enmity of President Ronald Reagan. In sync with the times, it published environmental impact and globalization studies. It has become vociferous in its opposition to corporate CEO pay, since 1994 publishing an annual report on the differences between what corporations pay their executives and what they or the corporations pay in federal income taxes.

Family Security Matters, whose IPS “profile” is particularly egregious and full of inaccuracies, cited IPS in January 2009 in connection with its role as advisor and stage prompter for Congress.

Leon Panetta…[former chief of the CIA and now Secretary of Defense]… previously strongly sympathized with the “Institute for Policy Studies” (IPS), a Washington based leftist think tank known for its bitter opposition to the intelligence community, notably the CIA. As a member of Congress Panetta supported the IPS’s “Coalition for a New Foreign and Military Policy Line” in 1983. He was also one of the congressmen who biennially commissioned IPS to produce an “alternative” budget that dramatically cut defense spending.

He did so together with, among others, fellow democrat John Conyers, known for his close links to the World Peace Council (WPC), an organization financed and led by the former International Department of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (ID-CPSU). And there is even more shocking information: the Soviet Russian secret service KGB appeared to be highly interested in the activities of IPS. This controversial think tank was targeted by a number of KGB agents…

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has a huge file on the Institute for Policy Studies and its founders. Some of the FBI documents are quite revealing.

IPS sanctimoniously boasts that it takes “No government funding”:

Since it is difficult to “speak truth to power” if one takes funds from that “power,” IPS does not accept any government money.

So, where does the money come from? Who were its original “angels,” and who supports IPS now? Aaron Klein, writing for WND in June of 2011, penned a hard-hitting exposé about Panetta and his IPS connections. In it he states:

“The IPS is currently funded by philanthropist George Soros’ Open Society Institute.”

Wes Vernon, in his November 2010 Renew America article on the IPS, provides more details of IPS’s current funding:

A recent dossier on the IPS lists its financial backers as the Ford Foundation, the Ploughshares Fund, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Arca Foundation, the Ben and Jerry’s Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Energy Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Tides Foundation, Open Society Institute, and others.

Some of the older foundations listed here are troubling enough. Of special interest is the money poured into IPS by the ubiquitous George Soros, who controls the Tides foundation and the Open Society Institute. That Soros, a man with a messianic complex and disdain for American values, is using his (tax-exempt) largesse to fuel the IPS’s long-standing anti-Americanism is beyond troubling.

David Horowitz, a former left-winger turned neoconservative columnist and blogger (most notably on FrontPage), traced the original funding of IPS to veterans of the Old Left in his introduction to S. Steven Powell’s book, Covert Cadre. Vernon quotes from Horowitz’s introduction:

“…[S]ince the Communist Party was in a state of political decline, it was only natural that old-left stalwarts, faithful to the fifth column vision, would turn to the Institute for Policy Studies as a political base.”

Thus, continued Horowitz, IPS “owed its continuing existence to the old-left diehards. And to three in particular, Peter and Cora Weiss, and to her father Samuel Rubin, a Communist Party member of the Stalin epoch, whose fortune provided IPS with its chief source of financial support.”

Discover the Networks: A Guide to the Political Left also concurs on IPS’s original sugar-daddy:

In 1963 the Samuel Rubin Foundation created the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), which lays claim to the title of “the nation’s oldest multi-issue progressive think tank.” Samuel Rubin’s daughter Cora Weiss, was a director of the Rubin Foundation from its inception, and was instrumental in the funding decision to create IPS. Today she is the Foundation’s President. Her husband, Peter Weiss, was the first IPS board chairman and is currently the Rubin Foundation’s Treasurer.

Samuel Rubin (1901-1978) apparently was a prototype George Soros, a Russian immigrant who in his youth joined the Communist Party, but in the meantime created the Fabergé cosmetics empire, which he sold in 1963 for $25 million to start his Foundation and to underwrite IPS and other leftist outfits and charities. One wonders about the mental health of men who succeed fabulously in a free country, then turn on the very system that made their success possible. Soros hales from the same disturbed pod that Rubin inhabited. Their malevolent premises compel them to advocate that all men be leashed, tamed, and controlled, in exchange for the spare messy pottage or gruel of a welfare state and command economy.

Having established IPS’s Communist and Left credentials, we turn now to its mala fides. To be fair, the lurid “exposés” one can find in supermarket tabloids are less vicious than those produced by IPS. At the top of each profile is this advisory: “IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.” After reading just a handful of the entries, this ubiquitous disclaimer becomes redundant once the malice and near-libel are detected in each profile. Only a blinkered twit would believe that these profiles are fair, just, and objective.

In most of these profiles, the targeted, isolated and polarized individual is accused of making a “career” of opposing Islam, collectivism, disarmament, and other IPS-approved movements and issues. On the other hand, it is quite all right for IPS alumni to make careers of advancing collectivism and totalitarianism. However, this is a charge of mere hypocrisy, surely not the worst indictment that can be found against IPS.

About Ayaan Hirsi Ali, it reports:

Hirsi Ali, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has a made a career denouncing Islam, argues that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood may be more dangerous than Al Qaeda precisely because it has given up armed struggle….

About that “traitor,” David Horowitz, it reveals:

Horowitz, an ex-lefty known for making vitriolic attacks on his former comrades, has turned the demonization of Muslims into a lucrative enterprise….

About Steve Emerson, whose Investigative Project on Terrorism reports on Islam’s violent character, it writes:

Despite his history of making questionable claims, self-proclaimed terrorism “expert” Steve Emerson has made a lucrative career warning about terrorist threats and condemning Islamists….

About Brigitte Gabriel, whose Act for America site also reports on Islam’s inroads in the U.S., IPS pouts:

Brigitte Gabriel has made a post-9/11 career out of roundly denouncing Islam, decrying “political correctness,” and promoting the concept of an existential clash of cultures. She founded….

It is not noted in any of these profiles that the individuals must hire their own security and keep their places of residence and work a secret, lest they be murdered by foreign or home-grown jihadists. There are more such profiles of anti-jihadists and also of advocates of free enterprise and “militarism” (i.e., American self-defense) and of outspoken exponents of liberty, all of the same character-assassinating quality.

There are other Left/Liberal “think tanks” one could dwell on, all of them performing the same ideological chore of falsehoods and misinformation. Don’t get me started on the Brookings Institution and the Center for American Progress.

IPS is not the Frankfurt School, which at least was imbued with a sense of “scholarly” Marxism, and which had to flee to the U.S. to escape Nazi persecution. IPS is its slovenly, not too fastidious cousin, perfectly at home in the statist régime it has helped to foster and make a reality.

The Sticky Wickets of “Radical” Islam

In a 1983 all-star pirate comedy, Yellowbeard, basically an expensively sewn grab bag of sight gags, one-liners, and pratfalls, there is one scene in which most of the principal characters, in search of Yellowbeard’s treasure, form a kind of conga line on a beach, crawling on their hands and knees, following cryptically written directions on a piece of paper that may lead them to the buried chest. As a yawner, it was a low point in a sequence of low points. We were not amused.

I was reminded of that scene while reading another low point of political enquiry, the British Home Affairs Committee report, The Roots of Violent Radicalisation. In search of the reasons why British-born Muslims and immigrant Muslims turn to terrorism, this lengthy report asks many questions but answers none, tip-toeing as it does around the central ideological content of Islam that is at radical (and violent) variance with Western values, and could be characterized as a conga line of magnifying class-equipped twits examining every little grain of sand and pebble and tide-swept debris in search of those answers. The committee was chaired by a Muslim, Member for Leicester, Keith Vaz, a scandal-soaked politician who, among his many other offenses, in 1989 lead thousands of Muslims in a demonstration to demand the banning of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses.

The Home Affairs Committee report differs little from what passes for Congressional studies of the same subject (except for the Peter King hearings), which have for over a decade bent over backwards to identify the roots of Islamic jihad but not mention or incriminate Muslims or Islam itself.

Here are some randomly selected excerpts from the report that treat “violent extremist” Muslims as victims or put-upon, passive, and helpless Islamic receptors of “extremism”:

The empirical evidence base on what factors make an individual more vulnerable to Al Qa’ida-influenced violent extremism is weak. Even less is known about why certain individuals resort to violence, when other individuals from the same community, with similar experiences, do not become involved in violent activity.

We suspect that violent radicalisation is declining within the Muslim community. There may be growing support for nonviolent extremism, fed by feelings of alienation, and while this may not lead to a specific terrorist threat or be a staging post for violent extremism, it is nevertheless a major challenge for society in general and for the police in particular.

One of the few clear conclusions we were able to draw about the drivers of radicalisation is that a sense of grievance is key to the process. Addressing perceptions of Islamophobia, and demonstrating that the British state is not antithetical to Islam, should constitute a main focus of the part of the Prevent Strategy which is designed to counter the ideology feeding violent radicalisation.

The Government notes in the Prevent Strategy that individuals “who distrust Parliament” are at particular risk of violent radicalisation. This appeared to be borne out in our inquiry, both in terms of Islamist and extreme far-right- radicalisation.

However, the Committee report concludes, not so startlingly and in conformance with calls in the U.S. to adopt the same policy:

The Committee concludes that the internet is one of the most significant vehicles for promoting violent radicalism – more so than prisons, universities or places of worship, although direct, personal contact with radicals is in many cases also a significant factor. Witnesses told the Committee that the internet played a part in most, if not all, cases of violent radicalisation.

Although there are statutory powers under the Terrorism Act 2006 for law enforcement agencies to order unlawful material to be removed from the internet, the Committee recommends that internet service providers themselves should be more active in monitoring the material they host, with appropriate guidance, advice and support from the Government. The Government should work with internet providers to develop a code of practice for the removal of material which promotes violent extremism.

Let us put some well-deserved words in the Committee’s collective mouth.

Where do those “radicals” come from? From the realm of “disaffection”? From the nursery of “alienation”? From the islands of “grievance”? We really can’t reach any definite conclusions, because, after all, Islam is a “religion of peace” and to say otherwise will only compound feelings of alienation and contribute to the grievance racket, err, that is to say, such a careless and hurtful assertion would solicit more complaints from the aggrieved. If there is any disaffection or alienation out there, it’s all the fault of British society and its Western values.

And we mustn’t place much importance on prisons, mosques, and universities as incubators of “radicalism” – we’ve done our best not to look, or pay attention to the percentage of prisoners who are Muslim or who convert to Islam, or to record the hateful rantings of Muslim clerics in places of worship, or the clotting of Muslim students on university campuses and their participation in “Islam will Dominate Britain” rallies.

Rather, we should focus our attention on the Internet.

Of this we are certain: the Internet, after all, is an efficient facilitator of communication among terrorists and would-be terrorists and other “extremists,” including those who oppose the Islamisation of Britain. The government must monitor Internet traffic and sites more effectively than it does at the present, and persuade providers and ISP owners to do a better job of self-policing. We are particularly interested in sites that promote or invite “hate speech” and other modes of illegal expression. We would like to see these vanish from the Internet just to save us all a spot of bother.

Of course, any legislation introduced in the House that would adopt our recommendations would invite opposition from those concerned about freedom of speech and the like, but we are confident that these objections can be circumvented without hurting anyone’s feelings. It has been done before.

At the moment, however, budgetary constraints prohibit Her Majesty’s government from emulating the American Department of Homeland Security and monitoring every bit of Internet usage and red-flagging every suspicious word and image. Muslims are a minority in Britain (at the moment), and we mustn’t leave them feeling left out of the political process (we discount the number of Muslims in the Commons and those who have been elevated to the Peerage, they’re a minority, too, and we don’t feel that the Muslim community are satisfied with such “tokenism”).

The Home Affairs Committee regret not having been able to reach any definitive conclusions, except on the role of the Internet. We will convene again soon and brandish our new, improved magnifying glasses to better and more thoroughly examine how the Internet contributes to extremism and radicalisation, and discuss how best to solve these sticky wickets.

We have one standing rule, however, which will go far in our fair and disinterested deliberations: No one will be allowed to quote Winston Churchill on the nature of Islam and the character of Muslims. Some members of the Committee find his statements violently offensive. Particularly Mr. Vaz.

The State of the Reich

Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, began his column of January 28th, “Free Market Socialism,” with

Before Obama got around to digging up his copy of last year’s State of the Union address, crossing out a few lines, adding something about Iraq and Bin Laden, before heading out for another round of golf, David Brooks wrote a New York Times column urging Obama not to forget to mention the importance of promoting education for a free market economy. He titled it, Free-Market Socialism. (January 23)

Indeed, President Barack Obama did blather on about the importance of education during his address (on January 24, in approximately 410 words), remarking that the U.S. “leads the world in educating its people,” and about the imperative of the government doing more to improve it, almost as though he were winking at Brooks. Greenfield focused on the ludicrousness of Obama’s assertions about education and Brooks’ dreamy imaginings of its perfect state, in light of the disastrous consequences of government involvement in education. In fact, Obama’s State of the Union address, from one perspective, is simply an exploded, verbose rewrite of Brooks’ article with minor asides on Iraq and Iran and jobs. To wit, Brooks wrote:

If President Obama is really serious about restoring American economic dynamism, he needs an aggressive, two-pronged approach: More economic freedom combined with more social structure; more competition combined with more support.

Meaning competition that is approved by the government married to an expanded welfare state, with the whole “social structure” of wider “safety nets” and subsidized skills education in technical schools; and more government-approved competition subsidized or favored by the government. In a word: fascism. Its euphemism is “economic dynamism.” Well, there is failed Solyndra, and failed General Motors, and there are the Krupp works of Nazi Germany, which were certainly “dynamic” in turning out Panzer tanks, artillery, locomotives and heavy armor for the Wehrmacht.

Jonah Goldberg, however, wrote an interesting column that sliced and diced the central premise of the State of the Union address, “Obama’s Vision for a Spartan America” (January 27). In it he takes Obama to task for advocating, in so many mealy-mouthed words, a kind of militarized America.

He said of the military: “At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach.”

That is disgusting.

What Obama is saying, quite plainly, is that America would be better off if it wasn’t America any longer. He’s making the case not for American exceptionalism, but Spartan exceptionalism.

Goldberg focuses on the “spirit” or “theme” of the address. While the speech was a revision of Obama’s 2011 State of the Union address, a new element was introduced, the appeal for regimentation.

Indeed, Obama is upending the very point of a military in a free society. We have a military to keep our society free. We do not have a military to teach us the best way to give up our freedom. Our warriors surrender their liberties and risk their lives to protect ours. The promise of American life for Obama is that if we all try our best and work our hardest, we can be like a military unit striving for a single goal. I’ve seen pictures of that from North Korea. No thank you, Mr. President.

More than likely Goldberg has seen similar pictures from Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. North Korea is a Johnny-Come-Lately. And while his Spartan analogy is thin, Goldberg put his finger on the mentality of a power-seeker and cites one prominent advocate of a “militarized” society.

Of course, Obama’s militaristic fantasizing isn’t new. Ever since William James coined the phrase “the moral equivalent of war,” liberalism has been obsessed with finding ways to mobilize civilian life with the efficiency and conformity of military life. “Martial virtues,” James wrote, “must be the enduring cement” of American society: “intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command must still remain the rock upon which states are built.” His disciple, liberal philosopher John Dewey, hoped for a social order that would force Americans to lay aside “our good-natured individualism and march in step.”

Williams James did not mince words, as Obama has done in the past, did during his address Tuesday evening, and will in the future now that he’s running for reelection. In his essay, “The Moral Equivalent of War” (1906), James frankly confesses:

The martial type of character can be bred without war. Strenuous honor and disinterestedness abound everywhere. Priests and medical men are in a fashion educated to it, and we should all feel some degree [if] its imperative if we were conscious of our work as an obligatory service to the state. We should be owned, as soldiers are by the army, and our pride would rise accordingly. [Italics James’s]

Discipline. Marching in step. Martial virtues. Service to the state. The abjuration of private interest to better follow orders and to tailor one’s life and mind to serve state goals. Superficially “Spartan,” but essentially collectivist. Specifically fascist. Too reminiscent of the requisite conditions Hitler and Mussolini imposed on Germans and Italians to create and sustain their totalitarian states.

And, of course, the American president who first explicitly articulated such a submissive society was John F. Kennedy, who, in his inaugural address in January 1961, proclaimed:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

Ayn Rand wrote the defining essay on the nature of Kennedy’s policies, and the whole of his inaugural address is an appeal to sacrifice our liberty, wealth and rights in the name of saving the rest of the world from tyranny, poverty and misery.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

In “The Fascist New Frontier,” among her other damning observations, she noted about our welfare state, that

“But the new frontier of which I speak,” said Senator John F. Kennedy, “is not a set of promises, it is a set of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer to the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It holds out the promise of more sacrifice, instead of more security.”

After quoting Hitler, General Franco of Spain, and Mussolini on the subject of the individual being compelled to defer and sacrifice to the state or the “community” and that an individual’s rights are secondary to the “rights” of the collective, Rand wrote:

President Kennedy finds it harder. According to the New York Times, he said that “he was confident of victory in the Cold War, and that any necessary sacrifices would be made. However, he said, he did not know how to distribute these sacrifices equitably in a free society.”

Rand’s “punch line” to that – and it is a line that ought to knock anyone flat – was:

Observe that any social movement that begins by distributing income, ends up distributing sacrifices.

Is there not a single rational, or even semi-rational person left in this country who does not understand that Obama’s policies are consciously designed to extort the maximum amount of sacrifice from Americans, more than Kennedy could ever allow himself to imagine?

Hitler occupied Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, France, and The Netherlands. The American version of his invading armies has “occupied” parks and public places in cities around the country. Why? Because they are “poor.” Hitler knew how to organize the “poor.” Here he describes the Vienna he lived in:

Abject poverty confronted the wealth of the aristocracy and the merchant class face-to-face. Thousands of unemployed loitered in front of the palaces on the Ring Strasse; and below that Via Triumphalis of the old Austria the homeless huddled together in the murk and filth of the canals. (Mein Kampf, Chapter 2, Book One)

Obama spoke with approval of the Occupy Wall Street movement, a movement which too obviously was planned and coordinated, very likely by George Soros and his protest machine. It was the Saul Alinsky tactic writ large. Many of the “occupied” sites have since been cleared out, but OWS is still a virulent, dangerous machine that invites and practices violence. Its hard core members – recruited mostly from the educated middle and upper classes – will become the Storm Troopers of fascism, regardless of who wins the election this year.

Are these thugs selfless, and committed to service in a cause higher then themselves, and ready to sacrifice their lives for the national community?

A man who fights only for his own existence has not much left over for the service of the community. (Mein Kampf, Chapter 3, Book One)

There exists a little known “sequel” to Mein Kampf, an untitled, and unpublished 200-page manuscript that is basically Hitler’s megalomaniacal vision of Germany and the “Folk.” It was written in 1928, only a few years after the publication of Mein Kampf (two volumes, 1925-1926). (Interestingly, the editor of Mein Kampf, Bernhard Stempfle, was targeted for death during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, when Hitler orchestrated the murders of key members of the rival SA.) It was discovered by an American officer in an air raid shelter in 1945.

It would be appropriate to end this commentary with a quote of a single line from it that is relevant to Obama’s new vision of an America he hopes very much to change:

The people who chatter so happily about socialism do not at all realize that the highest socialist organization of all has been the German Army. (Chapter 3)

Obama ended his State of the Union address with words consonant with his military theme:

This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Substitute “This Nation” with “Germany,” and I challenge anyone to fail to see the difference between that and anything Hitler or Mussolini had ever written or spoken.

Watch your back. There may be someone peering over your shoulder, and holding a gun.

Cumulative Consequences

Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, recently inveighed against the higher education racket in “Free Market Socialism” (January 28tth). Among other observations, he noted:

Mass education also devalues the actual education being received. Today’s college students know less than yesterday’s high school graduates. Today’s high school graduates know less than a middle schooler from 50 years ago. And there is no way around that. Tossing everyone into the same system and expecting the same results leads to a lower quality system.

The post-World War II G.I. Bill, passed by Congress to keep countless returning and unemployed soldiers busy and distracted and out of trouble while bureaucrats and policymakers continued to regulate an economy which otherwise would have boomed sooner and faster than it did following the war, was the beginning of higher education’s addiction to and dependence on federal money. Private and public universities and colleges were introduced to the federal teat. The intervention co-opted the “Greatest Generation” and set another precedent for government intervention in the economy and the culture, an unchecked intervention which inexorably and ultimately led to control.

And to the “degree mills” that exist today. Of course the greatest beneficiaries of a mandated college education are the very ones who are in positions of government power or who teach socialist economics, history and “diversity” in those very same institutions.

By way of seconding Greenfield’s points on economics and politics, it should be observed that President Barack Obama has a college education. Why, he was even a “professor” of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. One imagines that this stint was on-the-job training for how later to usurp the Constitution. Well, both Bushes, and Clinton, and Carter and virtually every president going back to the early 19th century have had a college education. I think George Washington and Lincoln are the only exceptions. And except perhaps for the Adams’s and Jefferson, those graduates invariably made a mess of things, or wisely refrained from trying to apply their college-imbibed learning to policymaking.

Some people wonder whether or not the dumbing down of education (and of Americans) was an “accident.” I don’t think it was a conspiracy. It’s an issue of philosophical disintegration, aided and abetted by government intervention.

Take the G.I. Bill mentioned in the beginning. Aside from becoming addicted to and dependent on government subsidies, in order for private and public universities and colleges to admit hundreds of thousands of discharged G.I.’s to school – countless among them not really after such an education, but they couldn’t find work, so, what the hell – the schools had to lower their admission standards and settle for minimal criteria. Of course, there were exceptions to the rule; many veterans took to “higher education” like ducks to water and did well, usually in the sciences and in engineering.

One unfortunate result of this is that G.I. Bill beneficiaries, when they went into the private sector, were inculcated with the “You’ve got to have a college education to get anywhere” mantra and succumbed to hiring and employment requirements, which they easily met but imposed on a new generation of job applicants. Consciously or not, they helped to foist upon that generation an unnecessary and unrealistic policy for living.

But, just as I had no use for a college education – no law mandated having a college education to pen a novel, and no publisher, either – I don’t think most veterans back then had a use for it, either. They’d done their duty for their country, and perhaps many wrongfully thought that a subsidized education was the least the country owed them. After all, they’d been drafted, that is, the government had required service of their lives and bodies and appropriated those lives and bodies for the duration.

The initial lowering of admissions criteria was the beginning of the dumbing down. No mastermind or secret society conspiracy was behind it, no government master plan to lobotomize Americans could ever be drawn up. That is the stuff of dystopian novels. There’s no such thing as an omniscient or omnipotent evil, just occasional and random concessions by the rational to the occasional and random irrational in acts of futile and suicidal pragmatism.

To pose an analogy: We wound up applying all sorts of car-making rules, including emissions and safety standards, and the steel-bodied 1939 Packard ends up being a General Motors dog-cart, less safe and certainly more expensive.

That is, higher education began early in the 20th century turning out graduates who had to know that Heraclitus was a Greek philosopher, how to perform trigonometry, how to parse and analyze the Constitution, and had been introduced to the literary canon. Now it turns out expensively educated graduate students who may think Heraclitus is either a rock band or a mutation of herpes, cannot balance their checkbooks and for whom simple math is an arduous challenge, have been taught that the Constitution needs “reforming,” and who won’t bother with the literary canon because it can’t be “texted” (not that universities are pushing the canon, anyway, that would be too “elitist” and discriminatory against lesser literature).

And with the dumbing down come shorter attention spans and conditioned appetites for quick fixes and instant gratification.

It’s a matter of cause and effect. Ideas matter, and have consequences. And the G.I. Bill, together with a government reluctant to relinquish control of the economy, was a bad idea opposed by few.

The consequences and results are cumulative in nature, if not checked, opposed or questioned. This rule applies to all realms.

From the minimalization of the American mind and spirit, we turn to the practiced delusions of the political oligarchy.

In his article, “Weaponizing the Passenger Plane” (January 30th), Greenfield noted:

The war against us has been made possible by a leadership that is unable to identify the problem, let alone formulate a meaningful response to it.

I disagree. The war against us was made possible, and continues to be made possible, by a leadership that is evasive, that will not identify the facts of reality – at least, not publically – because those facts will challenge or contradict their most fundamental premises. Novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand called this “blanking out,” that is, knowing the facts but shoveling them beneath an impenetrable carpet of rationalizations and excuses. Holder, Napolitano, Obama, and the rest of that crew know that Islam is an ideology more than it is a theology, that it is essentially political in nature because it governs every aspect of an individual’s life and also the contents of his mind. Not surprisingly, these are also the ends of liberalism. They recognize the peril posed by Islam. Yet they will not identify it in public and formulate efficacious polices to combat Islam. Instead, they ally themselves with Islam in a replication of the non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

This constitutes a refusal to think. Why do they refuse to think? Because every one of them recognizes a symbiosis between the secular tyranny they prefer and Islamic tyranny. To question one is to suggest that both species of tyranny are prime candidates for intellectual interrogation. If you question the rightness of Sharia Law and assert its incompatibility with individualism and liberty, it is but a short step to question the rightness of the altruist premises of, say, ObamaCare and assert its incompatibility with individualism and freedom. You simply remove Allah and Mohammad from the picture and substitute a bureaucrat or politician and his champion in academia. And from there one must logically question the moral underpinnings of the welfare state. Rebuttals, refutations, and repudiations would follow exponentially from one premise to another.

Privately, a refusal to think will earn one many just desserts, usually death or tragedy. But a public official’s refusal to think, regardless of the issue, affects everyone else, especially the electorate.

I don’t say that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Holder and the rest of them know this as clear, objectified knowledge. They don’t dare pursue their secret, gloppish, unformed suspicions to their roots. They simply sense the threat as a feral warning that they shouldn’t “go there” if they wish to retain their power, never have it questioned, and rest easy in their hubris. It would interfere with and imperil their agenda to enlarge an omnivorous welfare state complemented by a growing police state. That’s the symbiosis between, say, ObamaCare and the TSA. There are other symbioses festering in Washington – it’s too long a list to include here, feel free to name anything or any action that has not been the subject of controls, including speech – but they’re all cut from the same collectivist cloth.

The rot or cancer of federal controls – and this also applies to any government’s interference in the economy, state or municipal, the scale and object of intervention and control are immaterial – may, like the G.I. Bill, have benign and good-intended origins but foster unintended consequences, with the result always being the same: the steady accumulation of power by the state and the steady extinction of liberty.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén