The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: May 2013

Islam on My Mind

I’ve been criticized by some
readers as having “Islam on the brain.” It’s not a very kind
criticism considering the seriousness of the Islamic jihad against them and me and everyone else in the West. Why, my
critics ask, don’t I devote myself to more important topics such as President
Barack Obama’s assault on freedom of speech, on his assault on private
ownership of guns, on the government’s assault on private property, on Obamacare,
on Holder’s Fast & Furious, and so on?

I don’t know where these
readers have been, but I’ve logged in over 500 columns on those and many more
subjects on Rule of Reason alone. I think I am well versed in the damage Obama
and Company have wrought domestically, never mind the twisted alchemy of their
foreign policies, and have written extensively on both phenomena. I’ve been
excoriating Obama ever since he poked his head out of Illinois many years ago
in a stage-managed debut at the 2004 Democratic
Convention
.

A faraway friend lamented the
shortsightedness of my critics, as well, saying they lacked my
“metaphysical intelligence.”

That being said – I’ve penned
close to a million words on all those subjects over the years, including movies,
TV series, book reviews, etc.; I write these columns gratis, thank you very much – I offer this roundup of things
Islamic.

The Beast That Bites the Hand that Feeds It

Winston Churchill wrote:  An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,
hoping it will eat him last.

Raymond Ibrahim, writing for
the Middle East Forum on May 23rd, addresses the question of
crocodiles in “The Calm
Before the Jihadi Storm
“: Where did these killers come from?  Who enabled them? What have they up their
sleeves? If they are crocodiles, why are we still feeding them?

There is no good news, he
writes.

On
this Memorial Day, it’s important to remember that the very same U.S. policies
that created al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s – leading to the horrific
attacks of 9/11 – are today allowing al-Qaeda to metastasize all around the
Muslim world. As in the 80s, these new terrorist cells are quietly gathering
strength now, and are sure to deliver future terror strikes that will make 9/11
seem like child’s play.

In
the 1980s, the U.S. supported Afghani rebels – among them the jihadis – to repel
the Soviets. Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and countless foreign jihadis
journeyed to Afghanistan to form a base of training and planning – the first
prerequisite of the jihad, as delineated in Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones.

 Al-Qaeda
– which tellingly means “the base” – was born. The U.S. supported
al-Qaeda, they defeated the Soviets, shook hands with Reagan, Afghanistan
became ruled by the Taliban, and for many years all seemed well.

Read the rest of Ibrahim’s
article. It is one of the most compact, incisive and hard-hitting indictments
of our foreign policy I’ve read anywhere.

But
if Reagan helped create the first al-Qaeda cell in relatively unimportant
Afghanistan, Obama is helping to create numerous, more emboldened, al-Qaeda
cells in some of the most important Islamic nations. He is doing this by
helping get rid of Arab autocrats who were effective at suppressing jihadis…while
empowering some of the most radical jihadis who were formerly imprisoned or in
hiding.

And
all in the name of the “Arab Spring” and “democracy.”

This caliber of exposé makes
one question the “metaphysical intelligence” of our political
leadership. But then, our political leadership is not noted for its grasp of
reality or its recognition of causo-connections. So what if the logic is
apparent? they’d protest. What difference does it make? When you boil it down
to the essentials discussed by Ibrahim, it’s the difference between our lives
and our deaths. The appeasers are feeding us to the Islamic crocodile.

The Inbred Insanity of Islam

Europe News in August 2010
ran an interesting article on the worldwide gene pool of Muslims, “Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on
intelligence, sanity, health and society
,” by Danish psychologist
Nicolai Sennels. Sennels wastes no time establishing his thesis:

Massive inbreeding
within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400 years may have done
catastrophic damage to their gene pool. The consequences of intermarriage
between first cousins often have serious impact on the offspring’s
intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings.

We make light of the Hatfield
and McCoy clans of Appalachia gunning for each other over who had an
unauthorized roll in the hay with someone else’s first cousin. But our
Hatfields and McCoys are not flying planes into skyscrapers or preparing
pressure cookers to blow up in Boston. Muslims are.

The high amount of mentally retarded and
handicapped royalties throughout European history shows the unhealthy
consequences of this practice. Luckily, the royal families have now allowed
themselves to marry for love and not just for status.

The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and
has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also
predates the world’s oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.

A rough estimate shows that close to half of all
Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are
between first cousins (so-called “consanguinity”) and in Turkey the
amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More
stillbirths among immigrants”
)

The Turks and the Pakistanis
are not the only ones guilty of marrying the cousin next door.

Statistical research on Arabic countries shows
that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood
related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia
(southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent
in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in
Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in
Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United
Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.)

A large part of inbred Muslims are born from
parents who are themselves inbred – which increase the risks of negative mental
and physical consequences greatly.

The consequences are fairly
evident, too, and can be seen during those noisy and noisome mass
demonstrations against freedom of speech and in the criminal activities of
Muslims in the way of honor killings, rapes, assaults on infidels in their own cities,
and in just general hell-raising when something happens in the West that
offends Muslims and sends them into the streets wielding meat cleavers and guns.

If you look into the eyes of
a Muslim who is shouting “Death to blasphemers!” do you see intelligence
or the dark soul of a “drooling beast”? We will never know for sure,
because, for example, the Swedish
authorities
seem to be reluctant to take a genealogical survey in between
burned out cars and torched buildings, but probably if they braved a survey
they would find that a high percentage of the rioting “youths” are
products of inbreeding. It can help to account for their behavior. Which
doesn’t excuse them, of course.

Sennells’ paper is long but
not dry reading. It is chock full of interesting information about the
consequences of Muslim inbreeding. Unfortunately, he ends his paper with a call
for a legislative ban on first cousin marriages in the Muslim world, in the
European Union, and in other Western countries, which, he says, would be
logical and compassionate.

A more logical and
compassionate move would be to ban further Muslim immigration into the West and
to offer tickets home whence they came to any Muslims unhappy with living under
secular law.

Mommy! Johnny Stuck His Tongue Out at Me! Or, Islamic
Grievance-Mongers

Videos of Muslim funerals in
the Mideast show men shouting with maniacal and bellicose anger in their grief
over the death of another Muslim. This is odd behavior because the Muslim
assumption is that life on earth is transient and the deceased is now happier
in Allah’s paradise. So, why are they angry? It is in direct opposition to the
typical, quiet Christian form of grief, usually expressed that the deceased has
gone to a better life. Is Islamic “grief” synonymous with
“grievance”?

Peter Huessy, in his
Gatestone article of May 30th, “The
‘Grievances’ Defense
,” examines the regular fall-back explanation of
Islamic “grievances” as the root of Islamic terrorism.  The government, the MSM, and Islamic
spokesmen all subscribe to the “Grievances Defense.” Huessy warns
that whether or not the “grievances” are legitimate – and they are
not – then we face what Ibrahim in his article described as a “jihadi
storm.”

The
April terrorist attacks during the Boston Marathon killed and wounded scores of
people. Machete-wielding thugs last week butchered a British soldier in full
view of citizens on a London street. Simultaneously, in Sweden, a full five
days of riots have seen burned cars, banks and schools, and assaulted citizens.
These attacks raise the uncomfortable question: “Why are we being
attacked?”

A
newly announced American policy to deal with such threats involves
“addressing grievances and conflicts” that feed what is described as
“extremism.”

What is the common
denominator of all the “grievances” cited by the government, the MSM,
and Islamic spokesmen? American actions ranging from American intervention in
Iraq and Afghanistan to alleged anti-Muslim “backlashes” to a lack of
respect for Islam and Muslims, coupled with a bigoted “misunderstanding”
of Muslim immigrants.

Even
now, many weeks after the Boston Marathon bombing, the “Blame
America” syndrome is on full display. The New York Times charged
that the US had failed to assimilate the bombers’ family, implying presumably,
“What could anyone expect them to do other then bomb the Boston
Marathon?”

Then
the bombers were humanized. They were described as friendly school chums,
attractive to women. The New York Times compared one of the bombers to
the hero of that classic American book Catcher in the Rye, Holden
Caulfield. Then came the “self-actualization” explanation for
terrorism: apparently, as the two brothers were not members of any terrorist
group but possibly just lone-wolf types, America had failed to
“assimilate” them properly — implying that their bombing was
somehow our fault.

That
rationalization was followed by strenuous efforts to avoid making any
connection to their Islamic background, their travel to Dagestan, and their
connection to a nearby Boston mosque from which a half dozen members and key
leaders have been convicted of terrorist acts in the past decade.

What underlies this
“blame America first” mantra?

This
compulsion to explain terrorism as driven by grievances against America
continues as the politically correct
narrative
. If “legitimate grievances” motivate terrorists, the
thinking apparently goes, then such terrorism is justified. [Italics mine.]

If
grievances explain terrorism, the implication is that removing these grievances
would remove the terrorism.

Political correctness in
thought and speech stunts the mind, encourages the dismissal of truth, and
guarantees the deleterious consequences of appeasement. Huessy demonstrates
that even though the U.S. (and the West) have bent over backwards to correct
these “grievances” to the point of threatening to up-end the First
Amendment and subjecting American troops to suicidal “rule of
engagement” in Afghanistan to avoid civilian casualties, terrorism has not
only continued but has increased in frequency. Huessy concludes his article
with

If…the
driving force behind terrorist attacks on the United States is a strategy to
harm the United States and other Western nations, to eliminate their presence
in the Middle East or terrorize them into agreeing to live under the laws of
Islam, a credible case can be argued that the U.S. and its allies have the
right of self-defense.

This
is even truer if the threat the West faces is a force that seeks to establish
totalitarian Islam throughout the Muslim world, then everywhere else. If the
tip of the spear may indeed be a nuclear weapon, let us rethink what it means
to “provide for the common defense.”

Islamic
“grievances” are endless. Islamic grievance-mongers can point to any
little thing and either behead another infidel in protest or file a lawsuit in
an American court. Our political leaders shy away from any notion of
“self-defense” because to concede its necessity would be to
acknowledge that Islam is the enemy. This they refuse to do. See my column
Why
Liberals Love Islam
” for a discussion.

The Psycho
Syndrome of Islam

While both films are
touchstones of cinematic technical excellence, Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho is not one of my favorite movies,
nor is his The Birds. While the
latter film depicts nature gone mad (it could be called the first ecological
horror film), the former is more germane to our theme here.

Psycho is
the great-grandfather of scores of copycat films of diminishing quality over
the decades. It presents Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) who runs an
out-of-the-way motel and apparently has little contact with the outside world.
His alternate persona is governed by
his dead mother. “She” comes to life when temptation crosses his
path. The voyeuristic sight of Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) in semi-undress in
one of his motel rooms triggers in Norman an urge to kill and eliminate the
temptation. A cross-dressed Bates stabs her to death in the shower, then
disposes of her body and car in a neighboring swamp. A detective, Arbogast
(Martin Balsam), investigating Crane’s disappearance is also murdered by
Bates-as-Mother, to protect Norman from the consequences of his actions.

Norman Bates is subsequently
deemed mentally ill and committed to a prison for the criminally insane.

The parallels with Islam here
are fairly obvious. The Bates Motel is Islamic culture. Islam is Norman Bates
who is compelled to kill whatever doesn’t comport with Islam’s
death-worshipping doctrine (because Allah commands it). Marion Crane is the temptation,
the uncovered infidel female. Detective Arbogast is the truth-seeker and
truth-teller who criticizes Islam. Call him Salman Rushdie or Kurt Westergaard
or Geert Wilders. Or filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was actually stabbed to death on the streets of Amsterdam in 2004.

Islam fosters a special kind
of mental illness that can lay latent and fester in any Muslim until it erupts
in criminally insane behavior. Like Norman Bates, who on the outside is a nice,
congenial, harmless guy, the average Muslim is someone you can’t really know.

Nicolai Sennels pursues this
psychological angle, as well, in “Muslims
and Westerners: The Psychological Differences
.” He interviewed 150
Muslim and 100 non-Muslim prisoners in a Danish prison and published his
findings in Criminal Muslims: A
Psychologist’s Experiences from the Copenhagen Municipality
in 2009 (published
by the Free Press Society – strangely, not to be found on any Amazon Books
site, including Denmark’s). He discusses the archetypical character traits of
the average Muslim: anger, locus of control, self-reflection, the role of
“honor,” and Muslim identity. Sennels writes:

After
having consulted with 150 young Muslim clients in therapy and 100 Danish
clients (who, on average, shared the same age and social background as their
Muslim inmates), my findings were that the Muslims’ cultural and religious
experiences played a central role in their psychological development and
criminal behavior.

Discussing
psychological characteristics of the Muslim culture is important. Denmark has
foreigners from all over the world and according to official statistics from Danmarks Statistik all non-Muslim groups of immigrants are less criminal than
the ethnic Danes. Even after adjusting, according to educational and economic
levels, all Muslim groups are more criminal than any other ethnic group. Seven
out of 10, in the youth prison where I worked, were Muslim.

On the subject of anger and
angry threats, Sennels distinguishes the Western attitude towards anger from
the Muslim practice of it. Unbridled anger over mundane issues, he writes, in
the West is symptomatic of a character weakness. In Muslim culture, such anger
is a mark of strength, manliness, and honor.

In
the eyes of most Westerners it looks immature and childish when people try to
use threatening behavior, to mark their dislikes. A Danish saying goes
“…Only small dogs bark. Big dogs do not have to.” That saying is
deeply rooted in our cultural psychology as a guideline for civilized social
behavior. To us, aggressive behavior is a clear sign of weakness. It is a sign
of not being in control of oneself and lacking ability to handle a situation.
We see peoples’ ability to remain calm as self confidence, allowing them to
create a constructive dialogue. Their knowledge of facts, use of common sense
and ability in producing valid arguments is seen as a sign of strength.

With Muslims, however,
knowledge of facts, civil behavior, common sense, and the willingness and
ability to calmly debate or argue a point are all signs of weakness. Muslims
would rather resort to breast-beating bravado, insults, making a lot of noise
about their “grievances,” or settle for actual physical assaults, all
while playing the “victim” card. This behavior is bizarre to most
Westerners and not quite understood by them.

This
cultural difference is exceedingly important when dealing with Muslim regimes
and organizations. Our way of handling political disagreement goes through
diplomatic dialogue, and calls on Muslim leaders to use compassion, compromise
and common sense. This peaceful approach is seen by Muslims as an expression of
weakness and lack of courage. Thus avoiding the risks of a real fight is seen
by them as weakness; when experienced in Muslim culture, it is an invitation to
exploitation.

A thorough and daily
immersion in Islam and its social culture encourages the development of a
religious resistance to adjusting to Western culture and a conscious rejection
of the idea of assimilation into it, a resistance and rejection encouraged by
not a few mosques and their manipulative imams in the West.

Western culture also has had
the virtue of imbuing an individual with a sense of personal responsibility for
his happiness, success, failures, and goals. Islamic culture, on the other
hand, fosters a sense of helplessness and a habitual shifting of blame for his
unhappiness, failures, and dubious goals to external forces beyond his control.
Westerners are astonished when convicted jihadists
express no guilt for their crimes, and, indeed, defiantly boast of them.
Sennels writes:

In
societies shaped under Islamic and Qu’ranic influences there may be fewer feelings
of guilt and thus, more freedom to demand the surroundings to adapt to one’s
own wishes and desires. This may include demands to wear Islamic costumes which
can result in more Muslim demands for Islamization of our Western societies,
but it is also a powerful source of victim mentality and leads to endless
demands on one’s surroundings. In a very concrete way this cultural tendency,
shows itself in therapy, as a lack of remorse. The standard answer from violent
Muslims was always: “…It is his own fault that I beat him up. He provoked
me.” Such excuses show that people experience their own reactions as
caused by external factors and not by their own emotions, motivation and free
will.

Again, Sennels’ paper is a
long but insightful read into the mentality of Muslims, “moderate,”
“extremist,” and anything in between.

Chechnyan Attacks FBI Agent with Fingernails, Is
Unconstitutionally Shot

The Washington
Post
had this headline on May 29th, about a friend of Tamerlan
Tsarnaev, who was killed while being arrested (actually by his fleeing brother,
Dzhokhar, in an SUV) for the Boston Marathon bombing of April
15th: “
Officials: Man who knew Boston bombing suspect was unarmed when shot.”

An air of mystery has surrounded the FBI shooting
of Ibragim Todashev, 27, since it occurred in Todashev’s apartment early on the
morning of May 22. The FBI said in a news release that day that Todashev, a
former Boston resident who knew bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed
during an interview with several law enforcement officers.

In its only statement about the Todashev’s
shooting, which was issued on the day of the incident, the FBI said that an
agent, along with two Massachusetts State Police troopers and other law
enforcement personnel, were interviewing “an individual” in connection with the
Boston Marathon bombing investigation when a “violent confrontation was
initiated by the individual.” The agent sustained non-life-threatening
injuries, later described by one law enforcement official as “some cuts and
abrasions.”

Initial reports citing anonymous law-enforcement
sources provided conflicting accounts of what happened. Some law enforcement
officials said Todashev wielded a knife and others suggested that he attempted
to grab the FBI agent’s gun.

The term “unarmed” insinuates
that the FBI agent had a gun, while poor helpless Todashev was
“unarmed,” except perhaps for a knife, or his fists, or his fingernails,
with which to inflict those “cuts and abrasions.” Such usage is par
for the course in an MSM committed to white-washing Islamists and Muslims and
characterizing jihadist-fighting authorities as trigger-happy morons.

In any event, the FBI had no
reason to shoot the Chechnyan unless he attacked the agents and posed a
life-threatening threat to them. He was a treasure trove of information about
other Chechnyans and cohorts of the Tsarnaev brothers. I’m certain that a
thoroughly trained FBI agent won’t shoot a terrorism-related suspect if the
suspect simply assaults him with Chechnyan or Russian or Arabic maledictions.
Or even with broken English ones.  

And no one has any reason to
read this column unless he is seriously concerned about the threat of Islam and
its ongoing invasion of the U.S. at the invitation and with the blessing of our
totalitarianism-friendly government. Those in denial of that threat are already
dhimmis and I do not speak to them.

“Islam’s Reign of Terror”: An Excerpt

The following is an excerpt from my essay, Islam’s Reign of Terror, published this month by Voltaire Press.

Copyright 2013 Voltaire Press

Islam’s Reign of Terror

On April 15, 2013, during the Boston Marathon, two bombs exploded among spectators near the finish line on Boylston Avenue. Three people, including an eight-year-old boy, were killed, and over two hundred injured, many losing their legs and suffering wounds caused by nails, ball bearings and other shrapnel. The murderers were brothers, Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26 – two young Muslims whose parents brought them to America.

The Boston Marathon bombing is the latest episode of violent Islamic jihad – a campaign to wage war on non-believers of Islam to convert them to Islam, or to subjugate them, or to kill them. Globally, incidents of Islamic terrorism since 9/11 alone have passed the 20,000 mark. Islam has been at war with the West, and in particular with the U.S. and Israel, for decades, if one does not count the centuries Muslims have raided European coasts for slaves, estimated to be around two million, and captured American merchant vessels in the 18thand early 19th centuries, and enslaved their crews or held them for ransom. The U.S. has been the subject of dozens of attacks here and abroad.

Violence is in Islam’s DNA. Mohammad died in 632. His successors continued his jihad until all of the Arabian Peninsula and Armenia were under Islamic rule. In 634 the Muslims invaded Palestine. In 639 they invaded Egypt and took Alexandria. In 711 the Muslims invaded and conquered Spain, but were turned back by the Franks at the battle of Tours in 732 from conquering the rest of Europe.

Obeying the will of Allah and wishing to fulfill the purported prophecy of Mohammad, Constantinople, capital of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire, was unsuccessfully besieged twice by Muslim caliphs, between 674 and 678, and between 717 and 718. When the Empire collapsed into anarchy, Islam rushed in to fill the vacuum in the Middle East, just as rampaging barbarian Huns and Visigoths filled the vacuum left in Europe by the collapse of the Roman Empire. Constantinople finally fell to the Islamic Ottoman Turks in 1453.

While Europe was embarking on the Renaissance (with its respect for reason and life here on earth), which in turn spawned the Enlightenment (with its love of science and technology), Islam held fast to the Dark Ages. Islam’s demand for blind acceptance of authority was never defanged by the Renaissance. Its prescription for hell on earth was never uplifted by the Enlightenment. As opposed to other religions of the time, it was never dragged, kicking and screaming, to accept the separation of religion and state. When Ethan Allen, who, like many of the Founders, was a Deist, penned his pamphlet, Reason: The Only Oracle of Man, that idea never reached the Islamic world.

Brutality and violence are endemic to Islam’s history because it rejects on principle the only civilized means of settling disputes peacefully: persuasion, debate, discussion, i.e., man’s faculty of reason. Islam regards man as a helpless plaything in a chaotic universe ruled by a spiteful, omnipotent, supernatural deity (Allah). The common man must submit to Allah (and his representatives here on Earth) because he is by nature incapable of thinking for himself. Every totalitarian ideology starts by attacking man’s faculty of reason. Much is made of the “peaceful” verses in the Koran. But those passages are as irrelevant to Islam’s essence as is the fact that Mafia hit men might be ”peaceful” at a child’s birthday party.

Islam uses Sharia law to enslave citizens under a totalitarian state. In practice, Sharia law is a brutal, primitive system which, among its other barbarities, sanctions the murder of Jews, homosexuals, apostates, and adulterous women (Muslim men are usually exempt from punishment for the latter offense); the genital mutilation of girls and women; the enslavement of infidels, otherwise known as kaffirs or dhimmis; the collection of a poll tax, or jizya (a kind of Mafia-style “protection” money) from non-believers; and the use of force to compel obedience and submission to Islam. Sharia sanctions the lashing of innocent women for some undefined “sexual” offense, of a Saudi woman being harassed by Saudi religious police in a Riyadh shopping mall for wearing nail polish, of a Muslim woman being stoned to death in the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, of four homosexuals being hanged in Iran, and the beheading of an apostate in Tunisia for having converted to Christianity. Sharia condones the tribal practice of “honor killing,” when a female Muslim “dishonors” the family by becoming “too Western,” i.e., when she makes independent choices, for example, about who to marry and what she will wear in public.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s founder proclaimed: ”It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

And this barbarous, totalitarian ideology is being imported to the West. On July 4, 1998, Omar Ahmad, founder in 1994 of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR, allegedly a “civil rights” organization, with over thirty chapters in the U.S.) said: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other religions, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

One cause of Islam’s successful infiltration is the spread of multiculturalism in the West. Multiculturalism is egalitarianism, which seeks to destroy the best, applied to cultures. It proclaims that no culture is superior to another. In practice, the only way to achieve such equality of results among cultures is to tear down the best, i.e., the West. To achieve equality between the great and the depraved, we must, claim multiculturalists, surrender to Islamic terror and tyranny our freedoms and wealth. After all, say multiculturalists, who are we to claim that it’s better to use an airplane for travel than it is to use one for mass murder?

The disease of multiculturalism spreads like this. First it blurs all cultural distinctions, i.e., it performs a kind of value lobotomy on the minds in the West. Then any second-rate, third-rate, or nihilistic cultural “values” rush in to fill the void. One sees examples of this in the demands that the Ground Zero mosque be afforded the same respect as the Iwo Jima monument in Washington D.C., or in the calls for the use of Sharia law instead of Western jurisprudence.

Before the spread of multiculturalism, the Western mind valued Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death,” the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. But those “cultural prejudices” are being wiped clean by multiculturalism. And now, the West’s values are being sacrificed to the lowest and worst culture on earth – an Islamic culture that today demands submission to its reign of terror.

Aside from the physical, violent attacks on America and Americans by Islamic jihadists, of equal, if not greater concern to Americans should be the steady abridgement and incremental “repeal” of the First Amendment or freedom of speech by its enemies in our government and by Islamic advocates such as CAIR and its sister entities. This applies to any and all criticism of Islam, whether it is satirical in any form of expression or scholarly or in newsworthy presentations of facts.

Without the freedom to speak or write, there is no debate, discourse, criticism or truth-telling, and one is forced to submit to Islam in a state of censorship or coerced ignorance or silence.

The West will be safe from Islamic terrorism only if its politicians and intellectuals reject the Koran with its calls for universal slavery and a new Dark Ages, and embrace the Declaration of Independence, a magnificent product of the Enlightenment, with its prescription for individual happiness and freedom.

________________


Edward Cline is the author of the popular Sparrowhawk novels. His articles have appeared, among other publications, in The Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics, and The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. He is the chief columnist for Rule of Reason, and has contributed featured articles to Family Security Matters, Capitalism Magazine, Breitbart’s Big Government.

This is an excerpt from a longer essay published and edited by Voltaire Press. The full essay, which may be freely distributed in electronic or print versions, can be found at: http://muhammadimages.com/essays.php

Why Liberals Love Islam

In my spare moments, which
are few and far between, I have often imagined what the ideal
socialist-communist utopia envisioned by Progressives and their ilk would be
like and how it would function.

Over the years I have read
various collectivist utopian novels, particularly those that envisioned ideal communist
or socialist societies, and dismissed them as unrealistic fables whose authors
had an agenda other than projecting their politics, short-changing their
readers on the political and economic facets and means of their tales. Among many
such novels, Edward Bellamy’s talky Looking
Backward: 2000-1887
, published in 1888, was the best of a literally unbelievable
lot. The most significant and ominous thing about Bellamy’s novel is that for
many years it was a best-seller, trailing behind Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Ben Hur.
It helped to popularize socialism in the U.S.

British Fabian socialist H.G.
Wells’ The Shape of Things to Come (1933)
is of the Marxist utopian genre, in which a clique of airmen takes over an anarchical
world when governments have collapsed after a world war and plague, and is more
optimistic than his dystopian novel, The
Time Machine
(1895). Although Wells predicted some events in Shape of Things with startling accuracy,
such as WWII and the U.S.’s war with Japan, the novel is unique in that the
airmen’s dictatorship eradicates all religions, including Islam, the latter apparently
without much fuss.

According to Marxist
doctrine, or at least Friedrich Engels’ version of it, socialism, once it has
converted everyone into cooperative manqués, would eventually morph into a
fully communist state, with the state itself “withering away,”
shedding the apparatus of government as a snake sheds its skin. This would
happen because society at that point would be driven unconsciously by some
Hegelian historical necessity. And then, somehow, beggaring examination of any
causo-connections, things would all work out effortlessly.

A Marxist utopia would be classless,
of course, having in its aggressive socialist stage extinguished by fair means
and foul “plutocrats” and the bourgeoisie. A purely Marxist society
would be egalitarian – “from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need.”

If food is needed, it would
be produced. Somehow. It would be distributed without error or mix-up, somehow.
Truly communist farmers would automatically grow an abundance of consumables,
and truly communist truckers would distribute them to magical food collection
points (“markets” having been abolished).

If steel is needed, somehow
it would be produced, and fashioned somehow into a vast catalogue of
utilitarian objects. Everything needed for the comfort and leisure of men, from
clothing, kitchen ware, power, machines, medical services and so on, would be
available – somehow.

But, produced by whom? Well,
by the people, naturally, who would automatically fulfill every need. If you’re
an average citizen of the stateless republic, you will not need to be told to
report to the local steel mill to help turn out ingots and pigs. There would be
no state agency or planner overseeing these matters, because the state will
have withered away. No one would direct labor to the right places. No one would
need to redirect or redistribute capital, either, because that cursed vehicle of
the old times, capital, would no longer exist. You would just know that you’re
needed, somewhere, somehow.

In fact, money would not
exist. Money implies trade, which will have been abolished, as well. Everyone
will go around empty-handed, but lack for nothing. Food, clothing, and shelter
are all provided to you – somehow.

So, off you trot to the steel
mill. Do you know anything about producing steel? Do you have the technical
knowledge and the skills to perform the task? Who knows how it happened, but
you just have them. That’s the glory of stateless communism. You’re a universal
adept. You can do anything the collective requires you to do.

In the former era of
universal socialism, many men had to be cajoled or compelled to do things. In
the perfect stateless state of communism, they do things
“voluntarily,” without prompting. You whistle while you work, as does
everyone else, content to work without compensation.

And I could only conclude, in
those spare moments, that the perfect communist state must be a society of
automatons, all programmed and driven by “historical necessity” and
“dialectical materialism,” and that you, the citizen of this
stateless society, are but an insensate cipher, a pawn of some power that
magically causes all other men to “do the right thing” in
frictionless amity. You are a humanoid ant, a manqué, unburdened by a
volitional consciousness.

Now, no
liberal/leftist/Progressive who can read STOP signs and refrain from seasoning
his salads with rat poison believes down, down deep, in such Marxist hokum. No,
such a utopia conveniently remains a cloudy, shimmering fantasy in their minds,
absent of clear details and particulars, never to be attained. Much destruction
must occur first, and that is the primary obsession of the
liberal/leftist/Progressives today, to destroy what exists. Of course, those
mystical powers of historical necessity need a little help from them. They
revel in destruction. Destruction makes them feel useful.

And then came President
Barack Hussein Obama. He is a walking vehicle of historical necessity. Or so he
thinks, and so think all his supporters and the various claques of
liberal/left/Progressives in government and the MSM and advocacy groups. Like
everyone else, Obama is imbued with a volitional consciousness, and chooses to
do what he does. Which, except when he is on a golf course, is destroy. His
purported vision of a transformed America is as chimerical and fantastic as any
other collectivist’s. Down, down deep, he knows this.

Today’s
liberal/left/Progressives, one suspects, must necessarily dread the dawn of true
communism. In such a state, they would have nothing to do. They would be
unemployed.

Now, Islam subscribes to a
similar fantasy, too, and likewise is minus a clear program of how such a
society would actually function and survive. This is the global caliphate that will
have brought “peace” to everyone – that is the meaning of Islam being
a “religion of peace,” in the same way that the United Nations is
touted as an “instrument of peace,” “peace” being something
that destructive organization has never accomplished. All men, but most particularly
Muslims, will exist in a state of blissful, conflict-free comity.

Non-Muslims will behave
themselves and be content with their status as subjugated dhimmis and kaffirs,
obedient to the Islamic State and deferential to Muslims in all instances and
encounters. They willingly pay the jizya,
the Islamic “protection” tax. This impost, if one examines its
fundamental purpose, is a literal tax on your existence; non-payment of it will
be against Sharia law and cause your subsequent and swift non-existence. It is
based on the premise that a Muslim is a first cause, superior to non-believers,
and that your existence, as a dhimmi,
is dependent on his existence; a curious metaphysics of morals, not dissimilar
from the Mafia brand.

Moreover, terrorism and
violent jihad will cease in the global Islamic state; this is what tongue-in-cheek,
taqiyya-skilled Muslims mean when
they say they don’t condone terrorism.

And, as in the
liberal/left/Progressive’s fantasy world, things will happen and work will be
done and no one will want for anything. Somehow. But, there’s a catch. The liberal/left/Progressive
dreams of a post-industrial world that has inherited the standard of living and
technological marvels which the industrial, capitalist world made possible, but
without any of the repellent social mechanisms, such as trade, property rights,
individual rights, and so on.

Islam’s perfect world, on the
other hand, tests the imagination. One can project little more than an
oligarchy of caliphs and sultans and muftis living luxuriously on the labor of
their submissive populations, and answering to some Grand Vizier or Mufti or
Caliph. As with the Catholic Pope (who will no longer exist), he will be
regarded as Allah’s supreme representative on earth. One can’t see in an
Islamic global régime oil tankers, high-speed trains, literature other than
Islamic literature, art, advances in medicine, or even skyscrapers, except for
the bizarre white elephants erected in Saudi Arabia and the various fiefdoms on
the Persian Gulf.

Perhaps those skyscrapers
won’t even exist, for they were erected with Sunni oil money (international jizya), and they might be blasted to hot
atoms by Iranian (Shi’ite) nuclear missiles. 

Unlike the
liberal/left/Progressive fantasy world, however, which is expected to exist in
perpetuity, Islam proclaims that Allah at one point will call it a day and send
in his Twelfth Imam or the Mahdi to announce the end of all things, and to cause
the sun to rise in the West. There will be weeping and wailing and the gnashing
of teeth as “good” Muslims are segregated from “bad”
Muslims and all dhimmis and infidels
are sent immediately to hell. No one will be “left behind” because
the earth will cease to exist.

And that is the gist of the
equally delusional Islamic notion of utopia.

The “totalities” of
the liberal/left/Progressive notion of utopia and those of Islam are
fundamentally, and incontrovertibly, totalitarian.
There is no other way of looking at either projected utopia, or, at least, no
other way of treating the transitional phase between now and the attainment of
those utopias, which is socialism birthing a perpetual heaven on earth on the one
hand, and religiously imposed collectivism and some equally ambiguous but
temporary heaven on earth, on the other.

Why do Progressives,
liberals, and leftists love Islam? Why are Islamists not wholly reciprocal in
that love, and only grudgingly tolerate them? Why do Progressives, liberals,
and leftists refuse to identify Islamic doctrine as the cause of terrorist
attacks, and demonstrate in their denials contorted states of mind once only attributable
to schizophrenics and the mentally ill with multiple personalities?

John Rossomando, in his IPT
article of May 24th, “Media
Analysts Dodge Jihad Connection in Boston, London
,” cites numerous
examples of the behavior of politicians,
commentators and pundits and how they received the news
of the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15th and the broad daylight
murder of a British soldier in London on May 22nd. Even though the
one killer had shouted “Alluha Akbar!” while killing British Army
drummer Lee Rigby, and ranted about Islam on camera, they will not blame Islam.

Commentator
Michelle Malkin [of Town Hall] was singled out in the Media Matters post for
saying the videotaped attacker was “quoting chapter and verse, sura and
verse, from the Quran the justification for beheading an innocent solider
there, and of course they’ve targeted civilians as well.”…Michael
Adebolajo said, “But we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba,
through many ayah in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us,” he
says.

Media Matters also called Fox
News “Islamophobic” in its coverage of the Lee Rigby murder. Media
Matters is funded by billionaire George Soros, who has subsidized a number of
anti-Western, anti-American Progressive and leftist blog sites that comport
neatly with their Islamic counterparts, such as Al Jazeera.

The New
York Times
omitted reference to the attacker’s invocation of Allah,
relegating it to page A7. ABC, NBC and CBS similarly omitted the Islamic reference.

Hours
after Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s names became public [after the Boston
bombing], The Atlantic‘s Megan Garber penned a column titled “The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?” in which
she suggested pinning the Muslim label on them reduced them to being
“caricatures” and “whitewashed” their humanity.

Rossomando notes in his
article the history of how the MSM and others have shied away from blaming
Islam for the terrorism, as well as statements by Islamic clerics who advocate
the kind of jihad that Lee Rigby was
the victim of.

By now, the reader may well
have deduced for himself that the reason why the liberal/left/Progressives will
not acknowledge that Islam is at the root of these terrorist attacks is that
there is an unspoken, almost Freudian symbiosis felt by the liberal/left with
Islam, that is, an unarticulated empathy for another totalitarian system. The
Progressive Movement, spawned in the late 19th century, made great
strides in the 20th with the steady passage of laws that
increasingly robbed men of their freedom with arbitrary, fiat law and
regulations, until today when there is hardly a human action or product that is
not regulated or constrained. This “progress” covers a range of laws
from the Income Tax Amendment to mandated nutritional information on food
packaging and countless measures in between.

The Progressives – a.k.a.
socialists – see Islam, with its head-to-foot regulation of Muslim behavior and
existence, as a friend and ally that will help them to vanquish capitalism and
Western civilization. That is their mutual end. “Moderate” Muslims assure
us that Western precepts of law and freedom can be reconciled with Islam. They
cannot. If Islam is doctrinally a totalitarian ideology, it cannot and will not
be reconciled with individual rights. Capitalism and freedom do not sanction or
advocate the forcible conquest of socialists and collectivists, unless the
latter initiate force against the former. Islam and Progressivism do sanction
and advocate the initiation of force.

Daniel Greenfield, in his May
24th FrontPage article, “Inside
Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out
,” emphasized this
point:

There
is a characteristic feature to tyranny. It isn’t the scowling faces of armed
guards or the rusting metal of barbed wire fences. It isn’t the black cars of
the secret police or the prison camps surrounded by wastelands of snow.

The
defining characteristic of tyranny is the diversion of power from the people to
the unelected elite. The elite can claim to be inspired by Allah or Marx; it
can act in the name of racial purity or universal workers compensation or both.
The details don’t matter, because in all instances, tyranny derives its
justification from the superiority of the rulers and the inferiority of the
people.

Oleg Atbashian, in his May 23rd
FrontPage article, “Inside
Every Liberal Is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out
,” a companion
article to Daniel Greenfield’s, also notes the empathetic symbiosis between
secular statism and Islamic statism:

Progressive
Chauvinism is marked by a strong belief in the divine right of their kind to
hold all key positions in society for society’s own sake, forcing the “lessers”
to comply with superior progressive ways. Believing that their condescension
and pity towards the lower beings are a sign of benevolence and compassion,
they ignite with righteous anger whenever those ingrates dare be displeased
with their enlightened dominion.

The
chauvinist attitude, of course, is not limited to the left, but it is
characteristic of any expansionist totalitarian ideology throughout history. A
force that rivals Progressive Chauvinism in today’s world is Islamic
Supremacism
– also known to its victims as the “religion of peace.” The
attitude is almost identical: in the book of Islamic Supremacism the meaning of
peace is the absence of opposition to Islam.

Islamic
Supremacists similarly dream of an ideal, egalitarian society of the future – a
global caliphate that will govern over a peaceful world populated by a Muslim
majority, while the remaining non-believers would be too intimidated to oppose
their Muslim superiors and prefer to pay the jizya – a special Muslim tax on
non-believers, or “protection money”- as a condition that they be left in
peace.

There is no such thing as
“moderate” socialism or Progressivism, either. “Moderate”
Progressives are otherwise known as Republicans, who cannot but steadily give
ground to the advancing, uncompromising, dyed-in-their-premises Progressives. These
watered-down Progressives must yield ground to their more militant and
consistent cousins because they cannot think of a single fundamental reason to
hold it.

Young John
F. Kennedy
, touring Germany before WWII, expressed an admiration for the
Nazi régime. Remember that “Nazi” was shorthand for “National
Socialist.” The Daily Mail reported on a new book coming out that details
JFK’s penchant for things totalitarian:

‘Fascism?’ wrote the youthful president-to-be in
one. ‘The right thing for Germany.’ In another; ‘What are the evils of fascism
compared to communism?’ And on August 21, 1937 – two years before the war that
would claim 50 million lives broke out – he wrote: ‘The Germans really are too
good – therefore people have ganged up on them to protect themselves.’

And in a line which seems directly plugged into
the racial superiority line plugged by the Third Reich he wrote after
travelling through the Rhineland: ‘The Nordic races certainly seem to be
superior to the Romans.’

The future president’s praise is now embarrassing
in hindsight – a few years later he fought in World War Two against the Nazis
and his elder brother Lt. Joseph Patrick ‘Joe’ Kennedy, Jr.  was killed.



And when he became President, JFK
formally introduced Fascism, or National Socialism, into the United States. Lyndon
B. Johnson, his successor in office, pulled an Otto von Bismarck on the
country, and introduced the full-scale welfare state.

Clare Lopez, in her May 24th
Gatestone Institute article, “The New, Improved
Axis of Jihad
,” ends her discussion of how the various jihadist and
supremacist organizations have reformed for a more aggressive and organized offensive
against the West:

Reportedly,
more than 2,000 targets “including
public places, government buildings and military installations

already have been selected and cased. Separate but parallel reporting indicates
that the “go” order may already have been transmitted from Tehran to
the al-Qa’eda and Hizballah cells inside the U.S., placing them essentially on
autopilot status. Of course, all of Kahlili’s published warnings have been
passed in full detail to U.S. security agencies, but the threat from this Axis
of Jihad remains critical and poses a serious threat to America’s homeland
security.

Effective
measures from America’s national security leadership are urgently needed. Those
measures must begin with an honest acknowledgement of the precepts and
objectives of the enemy threat —that is, as they are derived from the doctrine,
law, and scriptures of Islam—and should include a comprehensive strategic
counterjihad plan as complete as the Axis of Jihad’s plan.

The “honest
acknowledgement” Lopez refers to is an acknowledgement that Islam is an
ideology whose doctrine, laws, and scriptures are as antithetical to freedom –
and indeed to life – as were the doctrines, laws, and precepts of Nazism and
Communism. But politically correct mindsets in government have not only
emasculated any effective measures against the Islamic onslaught, but also have
emboldened the killers. States that sponsor terrorism must be ended, and that
includes Iran and Saudi Arabia. Until then, Americans and Westerners will be at
the mercy of their killers.

Islamic “culture”
is root and branch antithetical to freedom. It requires submission not only of
one’s physical body, but of one’s mind. Secular totalitarians who have bothered
to examine the character and tenets of Islam see this and appreciate it. One
could say that our wannabe overseers are so jealous of the totalitarian nature of
Islam that they wish it well, and are eager to ally itself with a system that
ultimately must eradicate them, too, along with non-believers, recalcitrant
infidels, and apostates.

It is a jealousy sired by envy,
as well, of the thoroughness with which Islam converts individuals into obedient,
selfless serfs in mind and body, something which liberal/left/Progressives have
found difficult to achieve in their best Marxist and fascist indoctrination and
propaganda efforts.

The Incontrovertible Dead-End of Islam Revisited

At the moment, I would rather
be writing about the smiley mask that is falling from President Barack Obama
and his tyrannical administration regarding the fabricated Benghazi
“talking points,” the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting
conservative and Tea Party groups for special attention, and the government’s
stealing the Associated Press’s phone records. There is also the matter of the
federal government stealing millions of personal health records in order to screen
who will and will not be beneficiaries of Obamacare.

On top of all that, I learned
that the Obama administration and the Mainstream Media are “like
that.” Imagine my index and second fingers crossed. For example, CNN vice
president and deputy bureau chief Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary
Clinton’s deputy secretary, Tom Nides. CBS president David Rhodes is the
brother of Ben
Rhodes
, master’s degree holder in fiction-writing from NYU, Obama’s
deputy national security advisor, whose editing of the Benghazi “talking
points
” qualifies as fiction-writing. ABC president Ben Sherwood is
the brother of special Obama advisor Elizabeth Sherwood. And, NBC was co-opted
because its parent company is General Electric, which got $150 billion in
stimulus money. What an incestuous extended family!

That leaves Fox News as the
only other major news outlet that hasn’t been co-opted or corrupted by the
government. But there is one place Fox won’t go, either: criticizing the
Saudis. Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Group, which is about 10% owned
by a Saudi
royal prince
.

The New York Times is
completely liberal/left and shows no signs of wanting a reality check, so it
can be written off. The same goes for the Washington Post, whose only saving
grace is Charles Krauthammer’s weekly column. Whether or not he’s a neocon or merely
a straight conservative, I’ve never been able to determine.

So, we don’t need a 50-story
pyramid housing Minitru in the middle of a squalid London in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four to have a compliant
propaganda entity. We have glitzy studio news sets and groomed talking head
fashion plates and razzle-dazzle special effects to accomplish the same end:
falsehoods and news reportage that is so biased it verges on fantasy.

That being said, I move on to
another subject that must be raised, even though it is tangential to the
foregoing vis-à-vis our foreign and domestic policies.  

The following is a revised
and expanded version of “The
Incontrovertible Dead-End of Islam
,” which first appeared on October
30th, 2010. The revision and expansion are prompted by a May 13th,
2013 article by Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, “Islam vs. Islamism,”
which also appeared in the Washington
Times
on May 13th. His article reflects a troubling central
premise of alleging a necessary distinction between Islam and
“Islamists,” that is, between ordinary, non-violent Muslims and their
violent, “extremist” or “radical” brethren.

Pipes
opens with a reference to the Boston Marathon bombings of April 15th
and the foiled attack on the Canadian rail link to the U.S.:

What
motives lay behind last month’s Boston Marathon bombing and the would-be attack
on a VIA Rail Canada train?

Leftists
and establishmentarians variously offer imprecise and tired replies – such as
“violent extremism” or anger at Western imperialism – unworthy of
serious discussion. Conservatives, in contrast, engage in a lively and serious
debate among themselves: some say Islam the religion provides motive, others
say it’s a modern extremist variant of the religion, known as radical Islam or
Islamism.

As a
participant in the latter debate, here’s my argument for focusing on Islamism.

His argument proposes a false
dichotomy between Islam and “Islamists,” that is, between Muslims who
wage violent jihad on the West and
even amongst themselves for sectarian reasons, and those who don’t.

Islam
is the fourteen-century-old faith of a billion-plus believers that includes
everyone from quietist Sufis to violent jihadis. Muslims achieved remarkable
military, economic, and cultural success between roughly 600 and 1200 C.E.
Being a Muslim then meant belonging to a winning team, a fact that broadly
inspired Muslims to associate their faith with mundane success. Those memories
of medieval glory remain not just alive but central to believers’ confidence in
Islam and in themselves as Muslims.

Major
dissonance began around 1800, when Muslims unexpectedly lost wars, markets, and
cultural leadership to Western Europeans. It continues today, as Muslims bunch
toward the bottom of nearly ever index of achievement. This shift has caused
massive confusion and anger. What went wrong, why did God seemingly abandon His
faithful? The unbearable divergence between pre-modern accomplishment and
modern failure brought about trauma.

Muslims
have responded to this crisis in three main ways. Secularists want Muslims to
ditch the Shari’a (Islamic law) and emulate the West. Apologists also emulate
the West but pretend that in doing so they are following the Shari’a. Islamists
reject the West in favor of a retrograde and full application of the Shari’a.

These paragraphs astounded
me. The first one glosses over the conquest of the Middle East and North Africa
which necessitated forced conversion, butchery, and slavery. Remarkable military
successes, indeed. But for their defeat at the Battle of Tours, the
“Islamists” would have carved out a huge empire in Europe. What
economic accomplishments? The period he cites spans the economically stagnant
Dark Ages and early Western Medieval periods. Cultural successes? Other than a
certain architectural style, translating some Aristotle and other ancient
thinkers – whose works Islam subsequently rejected – I can’t recall any great
symphonies, artwork, or literature Islam produced in those six hundred years.

“Major dissonance” within Islam began over who was going to
be Mohammad’s official successor in the 630’s. Thus the interminable conflicts between
Sunnis and Shi’ites and other splintering sects of Islam. Islam never had any
“cultural leadership.”

Secularist Muslims may want Islam
to ditch Sharia law but only at the risk of being deemed apostates and of their
deaths. Apologist Muslims feign a hypothetical reconciliation between Sharia and
Western concepts of freedom, and demand the incorporation of Sharia into
Western law. “Islamists,” however, are consistent with their creed,
know that it is
“retrograde” and primitive, and wage jihad to achieve that end.

Raymond Ibrahim, associate director
of the Middle East Forum, on October 28, 2010, however, published an article, “Offensive Jihad: The One
Incontrovertible Problem with Islam
,” also in the Middle East Form (October
28, 2010), which seems to be at fundamental odds with Pipes’ article. Ibrahim’s
article addresses one of the fundamental problems of and with Islam, one which I
have continually stressed: jihad. Jihad is a core tenet in what is a
codified system of irrationalism that cannot be “reformed” without obliterating
Islam as a distinct religious creed. Remove the belligerent jihadist commands from the Koran and Hadith to wage jihad, for
example, and it would cease to be Islam, not only in Muslim minds but in
non-Muslim, as well.

There would, of course,
remain a host of other irrational assertions and imperatives, such as the
sanctioning of wife-beating and the murder of apostates and the like, which constitute,
after some astounding mental gymnastics by Islamic clerics and scholars, the
byzantine and illogical underpinnings and text of Sharia law. The jihadist elements of Islam, however, are
easily transmutable into a political policy, which is conquest of all
non-Muslim or infidel governments and societies and their submission to Sharia.
That makes it an ideological doctrine. Muslims are either obliged to wage jihad, or they are not. Mohammad and Muslim
scholars say they are. End of argument, so far as Koranic interpretation goes, and that interpretation is biased towards
the literal.

Reading the debates about what
Islam’s mission is and the role of jihad
in it and what they truly “mean,” I am always reminded of H.L. Mencken’s
observation on religious zealotry: “The urge to save humanity is almost
always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” Islam is a puritanical
creed that makes no allowances for either infidels or apostates or its
adherents. I cannot believe that beneath the pious exterior of any person who
would be seduced by Islam is not a seething, percolating envy of men who are
indeed free, an envy easily and maliciously transfigured into violent jihad.

This policy is operative and
underway today in Western nations with varying degrees of success, and it is
making progress only by default. Islam is strong only because the West’s
defenders are emasculated by multiculturalist premises and a general
disinclination to condemn any religion. Aggravating the problem is an
unadmitted but general fear in tolerance-obsessed pragmatists of “offending”
Muslims, who might start rioting and demonstrating again, claiming
discrimination, defamation, and disrespect, and etc., none of it spontaneous
but clearly organized and orchestrated by so-called “radicals.”

I was initially impressed by Ibrahim’s
quotation from an entry on jihad in
the Encyclopedia of Islam, which is
an admission that “Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated” – until I
realized that it could just as well mean that, after a global caliphate has
been established, there would be no more justification for violent jihad. Every nation would by then be
conquered, recalcitrant infidels slain, enslaved, or reduced to dhimmitude, and Sharia made the law of
every land.  

In short, after all the
killing, enslaving, and oppression, jihad
would be wrong!!

But, if Islam is completely
“made over” in the sense of reforming
it, what would be left of Islam that virtually any other creed could not claim as
its fundamental tenets, as well?  And to
“make over” Islam, its principal font of “kilman” or wisdom, the objectionable
and barbaric Mohammad, would need to be dispensed with. He is a role model for
killers and tyrants and other psychopathic individuals. Remove that one
critical link of the irrational and arbitrary in Islam, and all the other links
fall to the floor or dissolve into nothingness.

What would be substituted for
Mohammad? It would need to be something as enduringly fable-worthy as Mohammad,
but measurably benign. But, Islam has no alternative icons that meet that description.
What then, would be Islam’s driving force, if not jihad as commanded by Allah as told to Mohammad?

Once Mohammad is removed the
text, the next step would be a “blasphemous” exercise and question
the existence and credence of Allah; if he commanded jihad, and if his word is sacred and unalterable, and known only
through Mohammad, then he would need to be subjected to a “make over,” much as
the focus of Christian doctrine was shifted from an Allah-like Jehovah of the
Old Testament to the largely pacific New Testament with Jesus Christ and his
pacifist homilies.

But Christ, to Islam, was
merely an itinerant preacher, not a prophet. If a “reformation” of Islam is
undertaken, who in Islamic lore would take Mohammad’s place? Would it be
Abraham or Moses?  But, in the Old
Testament, neither of them was much better than Mohammad in terms of their
behavior towards men of other faiths; they also advocated the righteous
slaughtering of unbelievers and sinners and distributing slaves, women, and
sheep among their more zealous followers.

From where, then, would any
“sacred word” come? Who would act as the incontestable vehicle of
higher mysteries and moral diktats? On whose divine or temporal authority?

Ibrahim writes: “Worse,
offensive jihad is part and parcel of
Islam; it is no less codified than, say, Islam’s Five Pillars, which no Muslim
rejects.” In sum, it is either-or: repudiate Islam entirely, or submit to the
whole palimony of irrationalism that is Islam, including the imperative of jihad. The one incontrovertible problem
with Islam (aside from the untenable claim of Allah’s existence) is its
dependence on violent conquest, or the initiation of force. This renders the
creed absolutely inconvertible to a
pacific doctrine. That is its unarguable dead-end.

Ibrahim goes to the nub of
the conundrum that faces “moderate” critics of Islam:

Worse,
offensive jihad is part and parcel of Islam; it is no less codified than, say,
Islam’s Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects. The Encyclopaedia of Islam‘s
entry for “jihad” states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a
religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done
until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be
made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated.” Scholar Majid
Khadurri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that jihad
“is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation
of the whole Muslim community.”

Even
that chronic complainer Osama
bin Laden
makes it clear that offensive jihad is the root problem:
“Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately
revolve around one issue… Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power
of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes.
There are only three choices in Islam… Either submit, or live under the
suzerainty of Islam, or die.”

Or, as Ayn Rand might have
put it: “You can’t have your mystic of muscle and deny him, too.” He is either
the source of Islam’s potency, or he isn’t. And if he isn’t, whither Islam?

Andrew McCarthy, in his
Family Security Matters article, “Obama’s
Betrayal of Islamic Democracy
” (May 13th) remarks that it
is difficult for “moderate” Muslims to “democratize”
Islam:  “As we have seen time and
again, however, this is a very hard thing for moderates to do.” McCarthy
sympathizes with them.

It is hard for “moderate” Muslims to do because it would
entail repudiating Islam altogether, and then they would no longer be
“Muslims,” moderate or otherwise. Islam is already a
“democratic” system; once it attains hegemony wherever it reigns,
that is pure “democracy” or majority rule in its original,
unadulterated, and un-sweetened sense. Because “democracy” means
“majority rule,” that democracy would be represented by the Islamic Ummah, or the collective.

Is there such a thing as
“moderate” Nazism, or “moderate” Communism? Or “moderate”
totalitarianism? The “extremists” of Islam despise
“moderate” Muslims because they know that Islam practiced
consistently, that is, practiced root and branch, gives them political power. A
“moderate” form of Islam, were such a thing possible, would deny them
that power.  A “moderate” form
of Islam would be an emasculated form of it and no longer “Islam.”
The “extremists” or “radicals” know this, if the
“moderates” don’t.

Walid Shoebat, in his Pajamas
Media column of May 18th,”Islam
vs. Islamism: A Case for Wishful Thinkers
,” tasks Pipes, and,
indirectly, McCarthy, as well, on not only the terminology of Islam vs.
Islamism, but the core means and ends of Islam, which cannot be conveniently
divorced from the ideology. After making hash of Pipes’ statistical argument
that not all Muslims condone violent jihad,
and after citing Muslim authorities, dead and alive, on the legitimacy of jihad as central to Islam’s existence, he
quotes another authority on jihad and
the establishment of a global caliphate by violence and stealth:

What
about Al-Ghazali, the famous theologian, philosopher, and paragon of mystical
Sufism whom the eminent W. M. Watt describes as “acclaimed in both the East and
West as the greatest Muslim after Mohammed, and he is by no means unworthy of
that dignity”? Scholars like Pipes know the truth, yet completely ignore it.
Al-Ghazali said:

One must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids)
at least once a year… one may use a catapult against them when they are in a
fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…. If a person of
the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book—Jews and Christians, typically] is
enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked.… One may cut down their
trees/…One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty
whatever they decide…they may steal as much food as they need.

Shoebat writes that Pipes “even
went as low to claim that Muhammad was a ‘Muslim not an Islamist’ and even
distinguished him since, ‘Islamism represents the transformation of Islamic faith
into a political ideology.'”

By
switching Muhammad from “Islamist” to “Muslim, Pipes must then answer a crucial
question: Is Islam defined by its founder or by Mr. Pipes? Muhammad defined
Islam as “Al-Islamu deen wa dawla” (“Islam is a religion and a
state”). Pipes then must remove the “and” to substantiate his false case.

Islam is nothing if not a
political ideology. The first time Mohammad raised his sword to forcibly
convert men to Islam, and abandoned persuasion, that was the inauguration of
political Islam. It has not changed since then. Force, coercion, slavery,
death, and submission are the sole hallmarks of Islam.

The problem with Islam is
that it is a religion. Religion is a primitive form of philosophy that explains
existence and purports to give men a moral guide to living. Qua religion, it
depends on faith in the existence of a supernatural being, and a form of
altruism and collectivism, an altruism that is extended only to other Muslims
and the collectivism of the Ummah. One
could also argue that jihad
represents a special kind of altruism: Jihad
as seen as a vehicle of “salvation,” with suicide bombers and plane
hijackers acting as selfless and self-sacrificing drones to spread the word of
Allah.

Allow me to pose this
question: If one removed altruism and pacifism from Christianity, could one
credibly call what was left “Christianity”? One could pose the same
question about Judaism or Buddhism. Christianity, as a religion, it should be
noted, has never been “moderated”; it has only been barred from
acquiring political power. That was another unprecedented accomplishment of our
Founders.

 Pipes, dividing the discussion about Islam
into three groups, writes that he belongs in the third group, which views
“Islamism” as a “modern extremist variant of the religion, known
as radical Islam or Islamism.” He dismisses anyone who views Islam in its
totality as succumbing to a “simplistic and essentialist delusion.” This
is an implicit disparagement of such survivors of Islam as Wafa Sultan and Ayaan
Hirsi Ali, and of such champions against Islam as Geert Wilders. Treating Islam
in its “totality” is as correct a way of treating it as it was of
treating Nazism or Communism in their particular “totalities.”

Those “totalities”
are fundamentally, and incontrovertibly, totalitarian.
There is no other way of looking at Islam, either.

Benghazi: Obama’s “Wag the Dog” in Reverse

Some time ago speculation ran
through the Mainstream Media and the Internet about which “playbook”
the Obama administration has been following in terms of its domestic and international
policies. Was it George Orwell’s Nineteen
Eighty-Four
, or Ayn Rand’s Atlas
Shrugged
?

The consensus came down for Atlas Shrugged, a novel whose villains
seemed to have enjoyed a kind of ethereal, literary karma and wound up in
President Barack Obama’s administration. The premise behind the consensus was
that before you can depict a country in ruins governed by an all-knowing,
all-controlling totalitarian régime, it must first be ruined.

I agreed with that consensus.
But, here’s a new twist on that hypothesis.

In 1997, Hollywood released a
cinematic spitball aimed at President George H.W. Bush, Wag the Dog,
about a phony war concocted by – don’t be too surprised – a Hollywood producer
to distract attention away from a fictive president’s sex scandal just before
an election.  The ruse succeeds, and the (presumably Republican)
president is reelected. The ruse is so successful that its creator is bursting
with frustrated pride and wants to tell the world about it. He is warned not
to. He insists. Consequently, he has a heart attack at poolside and dies, an
unfortunate “tragedy” arranged for him by a fellow spin-doctor
working for the government.

Lately,
reality has had a habit of emulating fiction, even Hollywood’s leftist digital
and celluloid fiction. Today we have, in the geyser of revelations about what
happened in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, just the reverse of
what transpired in the movie. There is a real war, a president and former Secretary
of State are embroiled in a scandal, and there have been real deaths, and not
so much a covered-up sex scandal as a set of lies and fabrications intended to
distract Americans’ attention from the criminal behavior and statements of the
administration just before an election, in this instance, the 2012 election.

President
Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and advisor and
fiction writer Ben
Rhodes
apparently failed to wag this particular dog convincingly enough to
stop the truth from coming out, although it wasn’t for lack of trying by the
stooges and cheerleaders in the MSM and by Obama’s geekish press secretary, Jay
Carney. In fact, a whole kennel of dogs is barking outloud about how their owners
mangled their tails in multiple attempts to wag them. These are dogs that date
back to Obama’s first term in office.

There
is the IRS
scandal
over Associated Press phone records being seized by the Department of
Justice to see who was saying, writing, and doing what, and when, and the IRS
scandal
over that beloved “service” targeting the Tea Party and
other organizations for special attention, all with the implied sanction of an
all-too-real president
to weaken their opposition
to Obama’s reelection.

There
is “Fast and Furious,” Attorney General Eric Holder’s pack of rabid
pit bulls concocted to implicate private gun owners and sellers in the Mexican
drug cartel’s depredations with the aim of  imposing gun controls on the country to reduce
“gun violence.”  

There
are the Solyndra-class, fascist subsidies to companies that ultimately failed
and continue to cost taxpayers.

There
was TARP and the whole subprime mortgage meltdown that cost billions and
billions of taxpayer dollars. There were the car industry bailouts that
continue to cost billions. There is Obama’s opposition to any energy plan that
would make the country independent of the whims and political influence of OPEC
and especially of Mideast oil potentates.

There
is Obama’s endorsement of the so-called “Arab Spring,” which was heralded
as a chance to bring “democracy” to Egypt and Tunisia and Libya, but
which has resulted in the establishment of one of this country’s most determined
and deadly enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood, not to mention the murderous
turmoil in Syria.

There
is the astronomical debt rung up by the Obama administration for which we might
need to coin a new term that would describe it.

There
is Obamacare, a dictatorial “health insurance” scam that forces all Americans
to participate in, and whose true costs are now beginning to reveal themselves.

There
is terrorism itself, and Obama ordering the destruction or redacting of all government
training materials that would identify our enemy, Islam, reducing our law
enforcement agencies to a blinded, bumbling Mr. Magoo.

But,
it’s Ben Rhodes who is the focus of attention here. I focus on him because, as
a novelist, I wish to redeem the good name of novelists who produce fiction. I cannot
speak for other novelists, but I can distinguish between writing fiction for a
reading public and concocting lies to be consumed by the same public. Rhodes is billed
as
Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic
Communications and Speechwriting, overseeing President Obama’s national
security communications, speechwriting, and global engagement. And, before being
appointed to that post, was Deputy Director of White House Speechwriting, and
as a Senior Speechwriter for the Obama campaign.

In short, Rhodes is the Dustin Hoffman character in Wag the Dog, Stanley Motss. It is too
early to project whether or not he will meet Stanley Motss’s fate. Probably not.
More likely he will be thrown under another of Obama’s buses, figuratively
speaking, in the guise of a tearful resignation. He is, after all, an important
“advisor,” and he advised Obama, not too well, and wrongly, at that. His
hand was in the talking points cookie jar, and the jar was fabricated by his
fellow staff spin-doctors.

Rhodes apparently is implicated in the
“talking points” issue over what to say and what not to say about what
happened in Benghazi, why the consulate was attacked, by whom, and who knew it
and when. By “who knew it,” I mean anyone in the government outside
of Al Qada and the Muslim Brotherhood, two organizations which seem to be formulating
our foreign policy.

Obama has more or less laughed
off
the Benghazi investigation. As the Washington Post reported:

“We don’t have time to
keep playing these political games in Washington,” Obama said, arguing that the
more important work is ensuring that U.S. diplomats are adequately protected.
“We dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political circus.”

Rhodes was apparently aided in the deceit by Samantha Power, consort
of former would-be speech censor and Obama staffer Cass Sunstein. Having resigned
from the first Obama term because of an “off-the-record” remark she
made about Hillary Clinton, she is back in the administration and heads the
Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights as Senior Director of
Multilateral Affairs on the Staff of the National Security Council. She is a
Pulitzer Prize winning author and is closely entrenched in Harvard University’s
liberal establishment.

What did she say about Hillary “It doesn’t
matter” Clinton that forced her to resign? It is precious, and it is correct.
The Washington
Pos
t wrote:

” ‘She is a monster, too — that is off the
record — she is stooping to anything,’ Ms. Power said, hastily trying to
withdraw her remark.”

Power was quoted as taking other swipes at Obama’s Democratic
presidential nomination rival, which Gilson says came after the
“monster” comment and which Power did not attempt to place off the
record. Power said of Clinton, “You just look at her and think, ‘Ergh’ . .
. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive.”

Ben
Rhodes, however, got a master’s degree in fiction-writing at New York
University. The only fiction he is known to have written is some of Obama’s
speeches. A puff-piece in the Collegiate
School’s blogsite quotes him:

“For a long time, my focus was on being a writer,”
Rhodes said. “But I was definitely politically engaged [in school], and I don’t
think it would surprise anyone I went to high school with that I ended up doing
something in politics.” [Syntax, sic]

Like
writing fiction for the President ever since 2007, and for former Virginia governor
and now Senator Mark Warner, and for Representative Lee Hamilton of Indiana.

As for
the “talking points” new and old, and how the administration was
concerned about their credibility, The Weekly
Standard
, in Stephen Hayes’ May 13th article, “The
Benghazi Talking Points:
And how they were changed  to obscure the truth,” reported

In an attempt to address
those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made
minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., [State Department spokesman
Victoria] Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did
not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all
my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership
was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later,
according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that
the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One
official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to
President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the
group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials
the following morning at the White House.

By “resolved,” Rhodes did not mean the
resolution of conflicts and plots in a work of fiction. That skill, presumably
(but doubtfully) acquired for his master’s degree in fiction-writing at NYU,
did not come into play here. He meant reaching a credible lie in the work of
fiction that is Obama’s ongoing work-in-progress.

That is, concocting disingenuous statements and
postures to preserve the alleged credibility of Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Obama, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Victoria
Nuland, and Ben Rhodes all cried havoc, but let slip the dogs of war – on their
own houses. For once.

Obama’s Fruits of Falsehood

There is an understandable
reluctance in President Barack Obama’s critics – a reluctance verging on a
fastidious decorum and civility regarding the office of the President – that
stops them from making the ultimate judgment of President Barack Hussein Obama
and his administration. It is a damnation they have avoided. Perhaps it is too
horrible for them to contemplate. They can excoriate him over the details of
his policies and actions, but never quite reach a logical conclusion. Perhaps they
believe he isn’t beyond redemption.

However, I don’t think I’m
putting my life at risk by stating, without apology, regret, hesitation, or
trepidation that:  Obama is evil. Even if he never committed another
evil action, he is irredeemable. As irredeemable as Richard Speck or Charles
Manson.

And by evil I do not mean evil by
accident, or by omission, by hypocrisy, by happenstance, by character flaw, by
insanity, or even by criminal negligence. I mean: Consciously, purposefully,
determinedly evil.

Obama is a public figure. His
policies and actions are fair game for observation, examination, and
evaluation. They’re there for all to see. His private life also has been made
public, from his closeness to America-hating Reverend Jeremiah Wright to his
frequent golfing outings to his numerous lies and cover-ups. There is not a
single speech of Obama’s, not a single pubic gesture of his or a piece of
legislation he has signed or vetoed, that has not telegraphed his malevolent motives
and intentions.

It is fruitless to take him
to task on incompetence or willful negligence or over a character flaw or even
over his ostensible “pragmatism,” which tends to backfire when his
pragmatism encounters the pragmatism of seasoned veterans like Vladimir Putin. One
can understand Mark Steyn, as he wrote in “The Benghazi
Lie
” on May 10th about the insouciance of Obama and Hillary
Clinton about why Benghazi happened:

And,
in the most revealing glimpse of the administration’s depravity, the president
and secretary of state peddled the lie even in their mawkish eulogies to their
buddy “Chris” and three other dead Americans. They lied to the victims’ coffins
and then strolled over to lie to the bereaved, Hillary telling the Woods family
that “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the
video.” And she did. The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula
Basseley Nakoula [maker of the “Innocence of Muslims” video on
YouTube] in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi. It was
such a great act of misdirection Hillary should have worn spangled tights and
sawn Stevens’s casket in half.  

Steyn issues a warning to Obama’s
and Clinton’s defenders and apologists, that they, too, can be policy fodder:

The
dying Los Angeles Times reported this story on its homepage…under the
following headline: “Partisan Politics Dominates House Benghazi Hearing.” In
fact, everyone in this story is a Democrat or a career civil servant. Chris
Stevens was the poster boy for Obama’s view of the Arab Spring; he agreed with
the president on everything that mattered. The only difference is that he
wasn’t in Vegas but out there on the front line, where Obama’s delusions meet
reality. Stevens believed in those illusions enough to die for them.

One
cannot say the same about the hollow men and women in Washington who sent him
out there unprotected, declined to lift a finger when he came under attack, and
in the final indignity subordinated his sacrifice to their political needs by
lying over his corpse. Where’s the “partisan politics”? Obama, Clinton,
Panetta, Clapper, Rice, and the rest did this to one of their own. And fawning
court eunuchs, like the ranking Democrat at the hearings, Elijah Cummings, must
surely know that, if they needed [to], they’d do it to them, too.

The subtitle of Steyn’s
column is, “A failure of character of this magnitude corrodes the
integrity of the state.” I beg to differ. This particular failure of character
had nothing to do with the integrity of the state or of the office. A
character, if it is fundamentally malign, as Obama’s is, cannot fail unless it
is opposed. And he has been opposed only haphazardly. Yes, Cummings and Rice
and Clapper can be sacrificed, if need be. In fact, by extrapolating Obama’s
penchant for sacrifice, of partisans and American lives overseas alike, one can
imagine that he can and will throw Hillary to the wolves, as well, if that will
buy him time.

Daniel Greenfield, writing as
Sultan Knish in his May 11th column, “With
Blood on Their Hands
,” ends his column on the Lady Macbeth theme on which
it is pegged, about the morbid senselessness of Obama’s and Clinton’s policies:

The
social revolution of her 1969 thesis [Clinton’s Wellesley thesis on Saul
Alinsky] is once again here, and like most revolutions, it’s a bloody mess.
Once again social values are under attack by radicals while soldiers die
overseas without being allowed to fight back. And the radicals care for nothing
for the blood that they spill for their radical revolution. Not the blood of a
single man or of a thousand men.

“What is a traitor?” Lady Macduff’s son asks his mother, before being
murdered by Macbeth’s assassins. “Why, one that swears and lies,” his
mother replies. “Who must hang them?” her son asks. “Why, the
honest men,” she answers. “Then the liars and swearers are
fools,” he says, “for there are liars and swearers enow to beat the
honest men and hang up them.”

The liars and swearers have hung up the honest men from Benghazi to Kabul to
Capitol Hill. And the traitors walk through the night with blood on their hands
and do not even see.

Nor, as Greenfield notes, will
they wail in remorse or in fear of the consequences of being party to murder,
as Lady Macbeth did. If they see blood on their hands, well, that’s life, isn’t
it? What difference does it make? They are not guilt-ridden, not shaking with
fear of moral disapprobation. After all, they will think: Aren’t we the epitome
of the oblige noblesse of altruism
and sacrifice? Sometimes that duty requires self-sacrifice, as well, but we won’t
go there, because if we sacrificed ourselves and not someone else, who would be
left to be, well, moral?

Clinton’s aggravated but
arrogontly elitist protest on January 23rd, 2012, of “What difference, at
this point, does it make?” about the lives lost at Benghazi sums up Obama’s
approach to things. Nothing matters to him at any point. Clinton is desperate
to salvage her chances for the presidency. Obama is so hollow, so malign, so
filled with the poisonous glop of hatred, he cannot feel desperation for anything.

I think the outrage expressed
by Mark Steyn and others over Obama’s and his cohorts’ actions and behavior is
misplaced; it is a response which resists acknowledgement that Obama is what he
is: evil. But all the details about the Benghazi cover-up and the Seal
Team
killings in Afghanistan which are coming out, not to mention his de facto alliance with the omnivorous Muslim
Brotherhood
, only confirm the evil. As in any portrait of any Dorian Gray,
the devil is in the details. But the brushstrokes make up the portrait. It’s the
sum of those brushstrokes that matters. It’s what you see when the canvas is
finished and the artist steps aside after explaining how all the brushstrokes
work.

So, I’m going the extra mile by
saying what must be on everyone’s minds: Obama is evil.

So are former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, and all the other policy
makers and advisors in his administration. The recurring leitmotif in all their
actions and policies from the very first day of Obama’s first term in office has
been: Destroy for the sake of destruction. Out of destruction will come
construction of a world more to our liking. Sacrifice your own allies, if
necessary, such as Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, if it will
sustain the falsehood and allow us to continue to destroy without obstruction
or surcease.

But Clinton, Holder and all
the others have merely been enabled by Obama. They are his vindictive flying
monkeys, the stinking, badgering Harpies of Hussein.

Or, try this analogy on for
size: They are the human bagworms killing this country and abbreviating our
lives. Bagworms can strip a tree of its protective bark and foliage and leave it
to die, exposed to disease and the elements. Obama wishes to strip this country
of its defenses to leave it and us exposed to the machinations of the Muslim Brotherhood,
Vladimir Putin, and other predators.

But, what, after all, is evil?

The Oxford English Dictionary has two principal definitions. The first
is “morally depraved, bad, wicked, vicious.”  The second is: “Doing or tending to do
harm; hurtful, mischievous, prejudicial.” I would amend the second
definition to read: Doing or wanting to
do harm, to be hurtful, to be insidiously nihilistic.
It would complement the first definition.

You cannot accuse him merely
of fiddling while Rome burns, even though it becoming apparent that he ordered
the arson. After all, Obama is not blindfolded and whacking a stick at a piñata
to see what falls from it once he’s smashed it. He stuffed the piñata himself,
presented it to the country as a gift, and dropped it in the country’s lap. It has
broken open and what has spilled from it is offal and excrement and toxic bile.

You doubt it? Take a look at
the shape of the country. At the character of our foreign relations.

You will excuse the imagery. I
am not given to exaggeration. I have been calling this man evil for years. I have
never hesitated to identify the reality of the man and of his motives. It was
time to be frank and that cannot entail decorous language or distaste for acknowledging
the moral repulsiveness of this creature. Kid gloves don’t agree with me. It is
time to divorce the office from the man who occupies it, to make a distinction between
the dignity of the office and the low character of the man who works every day
to rob it of every vestige of dignity.

What must be understood by Americans
is that, whether it’s Benghazi or the Afghanistan Seal Team killings or what
he’s done to this country economically and politically since taking office in
2009, is that he doesn’t mind these things happening. The “perfect”
world message propagated by Obama and his stooges in the MSM
isn’t possible. He knows this if his stooges don’t. His perfect
“transformed” America is a continent lying in ashes, overrun by Third
World illiterates and religious barbarians picking through the ruins and
savaging the survivors. At the present, the only thing he might be worried
about is how a full-blown Congressional investigation of Benghazi might hurt
his being able to continue doing what he’s been doing. He is only afraid of
being found out.

And the only thing that might
worry Clinton
is how it might sink her chances of running for president in 2016. But, down
deep, that hatred of existence, and of this country, and of us, is her driving
force, as well. It just isn’t as obvious.

Obama is more obviously evil.
That is the long and short of it.

“Mad Men”: The Left’s Hidden Persuader

Lest anyone think that I oppose
advertising, I wish to correct that assumption. I can enjoy print and TV advertising
when it’s innovative and attention-getting. A 2012 Bloomberg Businessweek
book review of Jane Maas’s Mad Women: The
Other Side of Life on Madison Avenue in the ’60s and Beyond
(conforming to
a consensus that it was hastily thrown together to exploit the popularity of
“Mad Men”) notes that

Advertising has one aim: to pitch a product as
something desirable. There are different ways to move the merchandise—this car
or that cereal or this beer will make you feel younger, slimmer, sexier. This
may be the only thing the Pillsbury Doughboy and David Beckham have in common:
They mean to persuade you that dinner rolls and cotton briefs, respectively,
are something you need—or better yet, crave.

Well, no, not necessarily
“crave,” want, or even need. Vance Packard and his thesis in The Hidden Persuaders (published in
1957) to the contrary notwithstanding, I can watch and enjoy a car or cereal or
clothing commercial without being hypnotized into “craving” the
product. I think I speak for most TV watchers. Advertising is a means of
letting you know that a product exists. The keys to good advertising are
getting your attention and persuading you of the value of the product. An ad
can be entertaining, bland, crude, or a bucket of lead. I have an envelope somewhere
at home fat with some of my favorite print ads, mostly from the 60’s and 70’s. I
remember the last Benson & Hedges cigarette TV ads, and also the smarmy
Northwest Airlines TV ad in which the captain announces to passengers a
plane-wide no-smoking policy, and all the actors cheer.

“Mad Men” is a
collectivist effort copasetic with the anti-individualism theme of the series.
To date, eighteen directors and counting have directed all the episodes, several
many times, including Matthew Weiner, the genius behind the series. Two
principal cast members of the series have directed episodes, Jon Hamm and John
Slattery. By the end of Season Six, there will have been 78 episodes. There
is a bewildering trainload of writers. So many hands in the pot accounts for
the rudderless direction of what I call a super-sized soap opera.

In “Villains,
Victims, and Lies
,” I focused on how lies are a crucial element and
driving force of the series. They are important from a leftist and naturalist
literary perspective, because without the constant evasions, lying, and
deceptions – of each of the principal characters to each other, and internally to
themselves – there would be no story and no overall plot/theme, which is: Man
is a weak creature who must fake reality for others and for himself in pursuit
of an illusory happiness promoted by a capitalist society that worships
materialism and money.  

In keeping with Marxist
dogma, the wealthy men of “Mad Men” just can’t help themselves. They
are the bourgeoisie pawns of an evolving dialectical materialism, and so their arrogance
and duplicity, which cannot be forgiven, come naturally to them. The class
these “Mad Men” hucksters represent will be overthrown because their
greed, avarice, selfishness, and corruption are internally self-destructive. Ultimately,
when the revolution comes, they will be either sent to the guillotine or to reeducation
camps to get their minds straight. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Pol
Pot, the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez, Bill Ayers, Obama, oddly named North
Korean dictators, and the Clintons all said so. Also, Osama bin Laden and his
heirs in terrorism.

That’s the slick but unspoken
Marxist premise, the “hidden persuader,” and schedule of coming
events underlying the series. The “exploiters” will be exploited in
turn and trounced by “the people.” Don Draper, Pete Campbell, and
Roger Sterling will all get their dialectical comeuppance.

In “Mad Men” this
Hegelian process eventually leads to the depiction of the “natural”
intrusion of the civil
rights
movement and the invasion of the hippy-dippy, pot-smoking
“counter culture,” of the rise of feminism
and gays
and lesbians
coming out of their closets. Fans not entirely satisfied with
the Progressivism of the series are watching it closely to see if Don Draper and
his partners and the 60s culture dissolve into their deterministic futures. And
soon all the monarchs of mendacity will be shown the door. It’s “historical
materialism
,” you see. Resistance is futile.

The dogma is there, ever so skillfully
worked into the characters’ words, actions, and personas. A correspondent
objected to the length of my “Villains, Victims, and Lies” column,
saying that Mad Men is just a rubbishy remake of Lover Come Back, the 1961 Doris Day and Rock Hudson comedy that’s
also set in the advertising world, and in which an advertising man must create
a product that’s already been advertised.

One question about the
creators of “entertainment” such as “Mad Men” which I have
never seen asked by other critics is: Why are they stuck in that particular
creative rut? Why are stories that are pro-individualism, pro-happiness, and
pro-freedom impossible to them to conceive of and develop? Is the world so dark
and conspiratorial in their epistemological and moral outlook that baneful
tales of deceit and corruption are all they can produce? In the end, it is a
rut of their own choosing. But what causes them to choose a rut so often
traveled by their predecessors that it is now as deep and muddy and appealing as
a World War I frontline trench?

I offer one explanation: An
orthodoxy no one dares challenge, the orthodoxy of the Left. It is not
necessarily the only one, but it is an important one. Like the typical Islamic
terrorist or suicide bomber – and like Marx himself – Marxists and Progressives
and socialists of all the varieties of pink as a rule hale from well-to-do
families and circumstances. Their penchant for “revolution” reflects
a guilt for their “privileged” upbringing and comfort.

Weiner, for example,
attended the Park
School
of Baltimore, an upper-class school modeled on John Dewey’s
educational philosophy, and then the equally exclusive Harvard School
for Boys (now Harvard-Westlake, coeducational) in Los Angeles. Then he went to Wesleyan,
and finally to the University of Southern California’s Film School.

The Wall
Street Journa
l interviewed Weiner about the impact of “Mad Men” and
its cinematic antecedents. Weiner confessed several influences:

“Rod Serling’s ‘Patterns‘ [1955] had a
deep impact on me,” Mr. Weiner recalled. “So did a movie called ‘Cash
McCall’ [1960], with James Garner. When I created Don Draper, in my mind I saw
Garner, whose ease I always liked. People describe Don as an antihero, but he
is not—at least not to me. Jon Hamm reminded me of Gregory Peck, who starred in
‘Mirage’ [1965], about a businessman who’s lost his memory. That was definitely
there when I was writing ‘Mad Men.’ And I shouldn’t leave out ‘Dear Heart
[1964],’ with Glenn Ford and Geraldine Page. Another big one for me is ‘The
Bachelor Party’ [1957], with E.G. Marshall and Jack Warden.”

The impact of these pictures, none of which
depicts an ad agency, can be felt in various ways on “Mad Men,”
including its ethos and mise-en-scène.
But the show’s defining dichotomy originates elsewhere. “It seemed there
was this great story to tell of the battle between the creative and the
commercial,” Mr. Weiner said. “That’s why I picked advertising,
because it’s a great way to ask this big question: Is there a job where you can
be creative and also make money?”

Yes, there are jobs in which one can be creative
and make money. So Weiner trashes advertising, where one can make money by
being creative. His seemingly eclectic cinematic influences, all of which were

produced before he was born in1965, are not so eclectic. In all those movies
deceit, evasion, and faking reality are contributing themes.

Serling’s “Patterns,”
for example, is a teleplay about the cruel and heartless tactics of a business owner,
played by Everett Sloane, to force an executive colleague to resign, instead of
firing him. In the end, he causes the man, played by Ed Begley, to die of a
heart attack. In the climax, Sloane delivers a brief and nominally correct
philosophy of business. Begley’s newly-hired replacement, a younger man played
by Richard Kiley, expresses disgust with Sloane’s tactics, and accuses Sloane
of being inhuman and without decency. But, instead of quitting as he had originally
intended, he agrees to stay on and swears to exact vengeance on Sloane, and
become as “cruel and heartless” as his new enemy.

The politics and corporate ambiance
depicted in the one-hour show are recreated in “Mad Men.”

I am supposing that creators
like Weiner see themselves as modern day moral heirs of Charles Dickens and Jacob
Riis, both champions of the poor and the “disenfranchised.” The question
might be posed: Were Weiner and his co-producers and directors consciously pushing a Marxist worldview
of Madison Avenue (and by implication, of the rest of the country)?

I doubt it. Weiner and his
cohorts were simply expressing the worldview they were taught all their lives
and that it was correct and right. It’s the only thing they know. They were
prepped from grade school on up through graduate school to reject anything or
any idea that conflicted with or contradicted their worldview orthodoxy. They
are not on George Orwell’s intellectual level of being able to write or produce
fiction with explicit political themes (such as Nineteen Eighty Four and Animal
Farm
). And they are certainly not on Ayn Rand’s level. If they were, they
would not have used Rand’s novel Atlas
Shrugged
in so brief a throw-away instance of sly agitprop.

That was a shrewdly contrived
device, but I doubt that any of the directors, including Weiner, have ever read
the novel in its entirety. They had heard that it was about greedy, selfish
businessmen going on strike against the welfare state, and because they had
been taught that greed and selfishness were evil and certainly had no place in
a kinder, caring society where everyone looked out for one another and made
sacrifices, that novel and that philosophy had to be dismissed as the playbook
of amoral scoundrels, such as those who populate “Mad Men.”

Weiner and Company are the
products of an ideology they never bothered to question or examine, an ideology
that proposes to override an individual’s volition and freedom. Instead, as
congenital advertisers of statism, they have imbibed the Alinsky
tactic of targeting, isolating, and freezing a specific liberty, and escalating
a campaign for or against it. They do it without thought. Which means that
Hollywood leftists are knee-jerks. The tactic has been used by government and
advocacy groups for a very long time, sometimes crudely, often with stealth,
long before Don Draper downed his first martini and lit his first Lucky Strike.

For the morally and
intellectually defenseless and susceptible, “Mad Men” is indeed
“subliminal.” For those who are intellectually alert and on guard
against the “hidden persuaders” of altruism and collectivism in all
its forms, the series is part and parcel of a culture that induces spiritual claustrophobia
and an innervating cultural alienation Marx could never have imagined but would
have approved nevertheless.

“Mad Men”: Villains, Victims, and Lies

I suffer from cultural claustrophobia. What is “cultural claustrophobia”? It is the feeling of being imprisoned in a culture that is basically anti-freedom, anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-reason, and anti-value. In short, of being marooned in an alien, hostile, leftist culture determined to wear or beat down anyone who won’t yield to its propaganda and beseechments and stealthy osmosis and refuses to get with the collectivist program. Writing critiques like this one is my way of pushing away the moldy, fly-specked walls that threaten to suffocate me, of kicking down the closet door, and breathing some fresh air, before the walls close in again, and I push back anew.

I do not think I am alone in suffering this phenomenon. It is quite common among men who see the civilized world slipping into anarchy and tyranny and cannot understand why. Ayn Rand called it “our cultural value- deprivation.”*

Oft times, as an antidote to contemporary culture, and feeling lonely for a cleaner, rational, and more honest world, I will re-read a classic novel or nonfiction book, or watch an older movie (pre-1965, when the last of the epics was made), or just listen to music that was meant to be listened to and enjoyed, and not endured. Mostly classical, some popular, but rarely contemporary.

“One can feel nostalgia for places one has never seen,” remarked Greta Garbo in Queen Christina. And, of course, one can feel it for times one has lived through.

But, some sojourns of nostalgia do not necessarily take one back to happier times. It all depends on who is tinting the photographs. A Marxist will blur Rockefeller Center and call it a slum. The creators of “Mad Men” populate it with scoundrels, prostitutes, neurotics, power-lusters, and fools, and call it “life in America.”

AMC’s “Mad Men” is a lavishly produced instance of literary naturalism, “things as they were” in the early to mid-1960s, with no real plot direction, no real resolution or denouements of any of the plot or subplots, posing as “social criticism.” Actually, is it a super-sized nighttime version of a daytime soap opera. There are no heroes in the series; virtually all the characters are manipulative, dishonest, repressed, or blindly avaricious frauds. If a character isn’t a villain, then he is a victim of the villains.

But then, literary naturalism cannot tolerate heroes. Heroes overcome conflicts and solve problems. There is a multitude of conflicts in “Mad Men,” but no defining resolution or closure of them, except by happenstance or on the whim of the director; there is no way to distinguish which. All the principal characters repeatedly succumb, and without much resistance and often with relish, to their flaws, foibles, and amorality.

I watched all five available seasons of “Mad Men” on Netflix. There are plot spoilers ahead, for anyone who has not seen any of the series episodes. The sixth season has already debuted, which I have not yet seen. A seventh is in the works.

When I lived in New York City, I worked on Madison Avenue, in the 1970s, for two large firms as a teletype agent and as a proofreader. I recognized the trade culture in the series, and the ads, the brand products, the offices, the smoking, the drinking, the clothing styles, and all the other recreated concretes that went into lending “Mad Men” a large and credible dose of verisimilitude.

“Mad Men” obviously, as a “slice of (nostalgic) life” of the 1960s, seeks to indict a country seemingly free of government controls and regulation, when in fact the groundwork for a welfare/regulatory state had been laid many decades earlier. This is what happens when men take for granted and approve of a welfare/regulatory state, and view remaining liberties with a jaundiced and critical eye. Consequently, the 1960s seem to creator Matthew Weiner to be a period of unbridled freedom that needed to be reined in, when in fact the political trends of the preceding 1950s and earlier had doomed those “excessive” liberties to ultimate regulation if not virtual extinction. Today, smoking, cigarettes, cars, employment, professional associations, and even diets are regulated by the government.

Before overseeing the production of “Mad Men,” Weiner was an Emmy-winning writer and co-producer of “The Sopranos” series.

The chief, and, incredibly, the most popular fraud is Don Draper (played by Jon Hamm), creative director of a Madison Avenue advertising agency, Sterling Cooper. He’s handsome, ruthless, and debonair, gets all the women, and looks like a casting gem for a hero of Atlas Shrugged. But, he’s a fraud, a liar, and a master of deceit.

He was born Richard “Dick” Whitman, who enlisted in the Army during the Korean War. His commanding officer, Lt. Don Draper, is killed when, after an attack, an accident blows up a fuel dump and the officer is burned beyond recognition. Whitman, who is merely wounded, exchanges dog tags with the officer, and is sent home with a Purple Heart as Don Draper, while the body of the officer, now identified as Dick Whitman, is also returned to the States.

Years later, the actual wife of Don Draper, Anna, tracks down the false Draper and confronts him with the knowledge that he is not her husband. Whitman tells her what happened in Korea. The storyline glosses over how they both agree to let bygones be bygones – requiring enormous evasion on both their parts – and they become friends. Technically, the false Don Draper is married to Anna. They do not enter into a romantic relationship, but the false Draper agrees to take care of Anna for the rest of her life but divorce her so he can marry another woman he has met. Anna agrees.

This relationship is based on a disturbingly twisted – nay, corrupted – sense of benevolence, on especially Anna’s part. She is willing to help Whitman maintain the pretence that he is Don Draper, her late husband; in short, to help the man who stole his identity sustain a lie. However, we learn nothing about what she thought of her late husband, the real Don Draper. In an authentically adult storyline, she would have insisted that the imposter stop faking reality. She could have turned him in to the authorities. From a storyline perspective, she did him no favors by abetting his crime, which resurfaces later on and causes him angst and problems with his new wife, Betty, and with other characters in the series.

Later, a sole surviving relative, Adam Whitman, a younger half-brother, comes to New York after seeing Draper’s picture in a newspaper story, and tries to befriend Whitman-alias-Don Draper, who is now a successful advertising executive. Fearing that the truth about his false identity will harm his career and marriage, Whitman-alias-Draper spurns the man, denies their relationship, and bribes Adam with money to go away. Adam, distraught over the rejection, sends his half-brother a shoe box containing photographs and other evidence of his past life, and hangs himself in his hotel room.

Whitman-alias-Draper is tempted to destroy the contents of the box, but keeps them because he doesn’t want to entirely erase his past. His wife, Betty, however, angry about his suspected philandering, finds the box in his home office desk. This discovery adds fuel to their conflict, which ends in divorce. She could have legally turned him in and that would have been the end of Whitman-alias-Draper’s career. But later in the series, when Whitman-alias-Draper is being checked for a security clearance for a client’s government contract with the agency, she is interviewed by the FBI and lies when the agents ask if she suspects he isn’t who he claims to be. She answers no. Her motive for the lie is left begging, contrasting with her hatred of Whitman-alias-Draper.

But the incriminating box was first mistakenly delivered to a colleague at the ad agency, Pete Campbell, who discovers Whitman’s secret. Campbell tries to blackmail Whitman-alias-Draper, and failing, tells a senior partner of the firm. The partner expresses indifference to the discovery. “Mr. Campbell, who cares?” The lie means nothing to him, either.

This character, Bert Cooper, twice recommends in the series that Whitman-alias-Draper read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Cooper’s nonchalant attitude about the truth is somehow intended to reflect ironically but not flatteringly on the novel. This was not a throw-away reference; it was a subtle, but intentional smear of the novel. Dishonest men with knowledge of a fraud, it is implied, read great novels that contain themes alien to “Mad Men,” in this instance, honesty, facing reality, and exposing frauds.

Why didn’t Weiner and the screenwriters use Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, or Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, instead? The choice of book title wasn’t random or whimsical. It was conscious and deliberate. It was intended to indict the author. “See?” Cooper says in unwritten dialogue, “This is what selfishness and greed lead to. But, that will be our little secret, eh? We’re all frauds.”

Whitman-alias-Draper contributes to another death when he learns that another partner, a Briton named Lane Pryce, has embezzled a large amount of money to pay his British taxes and forged Whitman-alias-Draper’s signature on a bonus check. He tells Pryce that he will not call in the authorities or tell the other partners about the crime if he resigns from the company. Pryce subsequently hangs himself in his office, leaving behind a short letter of resignation that reveals nothing. Whitman-alias-Draper does not enlighten his partners about Pryce’s motive.

While the revelation of Whitman-alias-Draper’s shady past causes emotional fireworks between Betty and her husband, leading to a divorce, the same revelation is made “off stage” without explanation or drama to Whitman-alias-Draper’s new wife, Megan. She apparently is comfortable with the lie. Betty, now married to political huckster Henry Francis, maliciously attempts to ruin Whitman-alias-Draper’s new marriage with the information (using her pre-teen daughter as a cat’s paw), but fails when Megan concedes that she knows the truth about Whitman-alias-Draper.

When Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce, the new agency, loses the Lucky Strike cigarette account, Whitman-alias-Draper, still the creative director, concocts a sly but deceptive saving gesture by buying a full-page ad in the New York Times in which, over his signature, he announces that the agency will no longer accept tobacco company business. It reads like a conscience-ridden apologia. It is in conformance with the government’s and advocacy groups’ campaigns against cigarettes and smoking of the time. Whitman-alias-Draper and his smoking colleagues, however, continue to smoke and drink to distraction and, from their perspective, continue to help their clients tell “lies” about their products. The ad was a ploy to draw attention to the agency, a tactic that ultimately brings it more business and saves it from folding.

Product placement” in movies and novels is an anathema to advocates of “pure” literature, unless the placement helps to denigrate the product. Ian Fleming’s James Bond novels are chock full of “product placement” – such as his cigarette brands, cars, his favorite drinks, his wardrobe, even places, such as Monte Carlo – but no one ever objected because those very real products helped to romanticize Bond and reality. The anti-business New York Times, however, received an invaluable “product placement” boost in the series, thanks to Whitman-alias-Draper’s controversial ad. Whether or not the Times paid for the placement, or received it gratis, no one is saying.

Finally – although this isn’t the last instance of lies, frauds, and deceptions – Joan Harris, office manager for Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce, has a baby conceived by one of the partners, Roger Sterling (shortly after they are mugged, in a bizarre heat of inexplicable passion only a few feet away from where they were robbed), but passes it off to her husband, an Army doctor serving in Vietnam, as his own. Later she is divorced by him, but only because he prefers his career in the Army (because he is “needed” there) and never learns the truth from her.

When the new agency, Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce, stands a chance to win a prestigious Jaguar car account, a fat, obnoxious dealership executive says he will help the agency land the account if Joan spends a night with him. The partners delicately suggest to her that she oblige him. Initially outraged by the proposition, she ultimately agrees to the “trade,” but bargains for a lucrative partnership in the agency in exchange. Whitman-alias-Draper, ostensively disgusted by the partners’ readiness to proposition her, salvages his friendship with Joan when he tells her that he wasn’t present when the partners voted to behave like pimps. But he doesn’t discourage her from accepting the offer, either, and acquiesces without a word when the agency wins the Jaguar account. No one discusses Joan’s “sacrifice” or mentions it to the company’s staff.

What is Whitman-alias-Draper’s philosophy of life, and philosophy of advertising? Here are some choice quotations that reflect on his character and on the whole “Mad Men” series:

“The reason you haven’t felt it is because it doesn’t exist. What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons. You’re born alone and you die alone and this world just drops a bunch of rules on top of you to make you forget those facts. But I never forget. I’m living like there’s no tomorrow, because there isn’t one.”

Translation: Love is chimerical, artificial, and false, and so are all your other values. Reality is an illusion and optional.

“Advertising is based on one thing: happiness. And do you know what happiness is? Happiness is the smell of a new car. It’s freedom from fear. It’s a billboard on the side of a road that screams with reassurance that whatever you’re doing is OK. You are OK.”

Your happiness is fraudulent. You are basically unhappy, which is all capitalism’s fault because it persuades you to value and buy things you don’t really need and would be better off without.

“When a man walks into a room, he brings his whole life with him. He has a million reasons for being anywhere, just ask him. If you listen, he’ll tell you how he got there. How he forgot where he was going, and that he woke up. If you listen, he’ll tell you about the time he thought he was an angel or dreamt of being perfect. And then he’ll smile with wisdom, content that he realized the world isn’t perfect. We’re flawed, because we want so much more. We’re ruined, because we get these things, and wish for what we had.”

A wise man knows that he’s a fraud, a walking Kleenex box of tissue-thin lies and self-deceptions, and not an angel or perfect. He’s flawed, and that is all he can expect to be. Freedom only helps him maintain the self-deception and the lie. He is a helpless pawn of his social environment. “Everyone knows” that social conditions, heredity, and environment shape his character and influence his choices. He is the capitalist dupe of determinism.

“Mad Men” is a glitzy, fashion-conscious, slick, exposé-obsessed rendition of the kitchen-sink, “social criticism,” anti-capitalist genre whose better-known practitioners are Frank Norris (The Octopus), Upton Sinclair (The Jungle, the Lanny Budd novels), and James T. Farrell (the Studs Lonigan trilogy). Upton Sinclair, who unsuccessfully ran for president and the governorship of California, was particularly savvy about marketing his socialist ideas and getting them accepted by Americans. In a September 1953 letter to fellow Socialist Party of America member and unsuccessful presidential candidate Norman Thomas, Sinclair wrote:

The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to “End Poverty in California” I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.

That deceptive out-flanking “brand name” label is Progressivism. Hollywood is over-populated with Progressives, from its directors down through its casts, cameramen, and key grips. President Barack Obama and his whole cabinet and all of his political appointees are “Progressives.” So is most of the Mainstream Media.

So are the ranks of critics. Critics and blog roadies of the series have tittered over the series like high school girls raving about or dissing some envied Prom Queen’s gown and escort. See The New York Times Arts Beat blogs to read the screaming squirrels as they discuss the pros and cons of “Mad Men” and fawn over it, too, fans who behave like housewives yakking about a favorite daytime soap opera. “Mad Men” has received dozens of awards, including four consecutive Emmys and four Golden Globes.

No one bothers to note, or cares to observe publically, or direct the TV audience’s attention, to the fact that “Mad Men” is a lie itself, created to advance a political and social agenda which, too, is a lie, if all the failed socialist, progressive, and communist experiments around the planet and over the last century are any guide.

And when one examines the political and artistic premises of Matthew Weiner and his colleagues, one can only conclude that they, and not the TV-watching American public, are the helpless, uncritical, deterministic pawns of the culture, the doyens of “our cultural value-deprivation,” moved by a vested interest in sustaining a moral fraud.

*”Our Cultural Value-Deprivation,” by Ayn Rand, in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought. Ed. Leonard Peikoff. New York, NY: New American Library, 1989.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén