The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: October 2014

Ann Ravel: Our Wannabe Nurse Ratched

Real and wannabe censors are up to their
old tricks again. Real censors are the Democratic members of the Federal Election Committee (FEC). The wannabe
censors are also members of
the FEC,
and are Republicans. If the latter didn’t think anyone should be
censored in any venue – print, radio, television, or Internet – they wouldn’t
accept appointments to the FEC, nor wish to be in the same room with the real
censors.
That being said, the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2002
(BCRA,
McCain–Feingold Act of 2002) is
the typical miscegenational product of bipartisanship between Republicans and
Democrats that advances further government controls. But then, that’s all one
can expect of pragmatic bipartisanship efforts, in which the Republicans forget
or discard their alleged principles, but the Democrats don’t and get some or
all of what they want: More controls.
I happened by chance to hack into the
personal blog of the Vice Chair of the FEC and discovered this startling and
secret memo passed on to her fellow Democrats on the Commission. The text of it
follows, and seems to be addressed, not to her ideological ilk, but to a
hypothetical individual for whom Ravel nurtures a revealing, disturbing, if not
psychotic animus:
My name is Ann M. Ravel, Vice
Chair of the FEC. I’m a pal of Cass
Sunstein
. Remember him? And David
Brooks
? And Justice Stevens? They wanted to regulate your speech, too, or
at least “nudge” you painlessly to politically acceptable and responsible
speech. Now, don’t tell me that you, a lone blogger eking out an existence in
Milord Obama’s trashed economy, aren’t a one-man political action committee, that
you aren’t incorporated anywhere, not even in Delaware, you don’t sell your
drivel to others or pay anyone to run it, and that your only expenses are your
time and whatever it costs you to write and publish in the way of printer ink
and paper. It doesn’t matter to me if you’ve spent a zillion dollars or the
cost of a store-brand chicken pot pie, your speech ought to be regulated, and,
if necessary, squelched.
And if you persist
in running off your mouth about things you aren’t qualified to even think about,
I can sic the IRS
or the DOJ on you. All it will take is a phone call and a pen twirling between my
fingers, just as my boss, President Obama, boasts he can do. He’s my guy!
Listen up, plebian!
Allow me to instruct you in current political realities: The basic end of any
censor is: I don’t want you to know this about this person or issue. I want to
keep you in the dark about this issue. You don’t need to know this and I have
the power to keep you ignorant. The flip side of those desires is that I want
to stop you from enlightening people, or telling them what you think, or
writing or producing biased evaluations of persons and events and issues and
broadcasting it on the Internet unless it’s by the leave of this Commission.
You see, I’m not as creative as you and I have nothing to boast of in the way
of actually creating or producing anything, I’m just a career government wonk.
Also I’m an
ambitious censor. I don’t mind being called a censor. Words and pictures can
hurt people, or causes. But that label doesn’t frighten me or cause me to
shrink in shame. In that capacity I’m a protector of the “public good,” or the “public
interest,” at least, as my party defines them.  I’m totally copasetic with the name “censor.”
Don’t think I wouldn’t
hesitate to take drastic action should you not comply with all FEC rules and
regulations. My colleagues on the commission don’t call me “Nurse Ratched” for nothing!
You’ve got to learn the ropes of responsible political speech, and that lesson not
only applies to mere printed words on a blog site, but to YouTube videos and
lectures, as well. Then there’s that nasty Drudge
Report
site, so rich in misinformation and lies and libels.  You and Drudge and all your compadres in the “free
speech” tent must take your medicine, voluntarily, or “some other way.”
You see, I can
delegate the task of washing your mouth out with soap or cuffing you for a
frog-march to jail, just as my pals Barack and Hillary had done to that Copt
creature who made that reckless and irresponsible “The
Innocence of Mohammad
” video. I don’t have to do it myself.
That geriatric dinosaur
Republican Lee
Goodman
actually “ratted
on me to the newspapers and blog
sites
about my wanting to slap cuffs
and gags
on you and your First Amendment chums. He’s the Chair of the FEC
and will retire from it in December. A wonderful Christmas present!. I’m the
Vice Chair, and I hope “Open Borders/Ebola Obama” nominates me as his successor
or just lets me sidle into his place at the table without any fuss and bother
with Congress and the Senate.
Actually, I would
like to be appointed to a Cabinet post in this or the next administration. Then
I could wield more power as a “czarina.” Excuse my drooling!
I understand you’ve
written a number of books, fiction and nonfiction, in addition to your
scurrilous and badly written column. And in many of them you depict government and
public service and the like in a very negative light. That has got to stop. And in three
of your nonfiction books, you practically libel retired Justice
Stevens
and in another portray my friend Hillary as Lady
Macbeth
! Not very funny! We are not amused. Wait until she’s President. She’s
going to have you for dinner and feed the scraps to Huma Abedin and her other pigeons
and lackeys. I’ll have a hand in that, count on it. And wait until we get
Congress to amend the Campaign Finance Law and gives the FEC wider powers of
enforcement! I hope we’ll get our own SWAT team!
But maybe we won’t
need those extra powers and an army of body-armored bodkins . I’m sure the NSA
has had you red-flagged for a long time and is only waiting for the opportunity
to swoop down on you and sweep you off the Internet. Let’s see how long you
last under a few sessions of electrical water-boarding!
Your nemesis and
eternal enemy, Nurse Mildred Ratched. Oh, excuse me! Ha, ha! Wrong name! Ann M.
Ravel, FEC Vice Chair.
And that was the end of the memo. Quite a
confession. Of course, if one proposed that the Campaign Finance Law be
abolished by repeal as being in violation of the First Amendment, and all its
attendant commissions and bureaucracies be disbanded and its personnel put out
to pasture to fend for themselves in the real world, that proposal would be
laughed right out the door, and possibly be frowned upon a politically
incorrect speech.
And that would suit Wretched Mildew a.k.a.
Ann Ravel just fine.
               

Majesty vs. Myopia

I begin this column by offering a measure
of what I choose to uphold what ought to be a standard of esthetics, at least
in portraiture. It is by no means my only measure, but it does reflect a person
I once knew, and who is still close to my conception of a romantic ideal. If
she is reading this, she will recognize herself.


Lady Agnew of Lochnaw
is a luxuriant
representation of the kind of woman a man ought to want: In the frank,
steadfast glance at her auditor is the knowledge of how she is being regarded,
that knowledge shamelessly obvious in the set of her eyes and face, in the
quiet confidence of her bearing, in her total expression. It is, from my own
perspective, at least, a seductive, come-hither look. The hues of her satin
gown, the purple sash, and the relaxed set of her arms, the surrounding colors
of the armchair, the neutral background, in terms of composition, together all
highlight and are all calculated to guide one’s glance to the focal point, that
unforgettable, alluring face….

I have other such conceptions. Some are
photographic, others cinematic. But Lady
Agnew
has been anchored in my gallery most of my adult life. A framed
reproduction of it hangs on one of my walls. Two of my fictional characters are
also painters and portraitists, literary versions of my projection of a
romantic ideal: Stella Dawn in Run From
Judgment
, and Dilys Jones-Skeen in the Cyrus Skeen detective novels.
Well, enough of that. My point here is that
this caliber of art has virtually vanished. There are some capable, unsung
artists able to produce that quality of portraiture, but they are invisible to
the cultural establishment, and if recognized, then shunned, banished, and
deprecated. I happen to know at least two such artists, but only one has a website.
To create Lady Agnew required an enormous context and a measure of beauty. Sargent produced other exquisite
paintings, some of which I like, others I do not. But, regardless of the quality
of his work, it demanded a nominally rational epistemology and metaphysics.
Otherwise, his paintings would be incomprehensible as selective recreations of
reality, just as contemporary art is largely incomprehensible and
incommunicable in meaning.
A canvas of dots and slashes is just a
canvas of dots and slashes, regardless of the artist says it is. A pile of I-beams
welded to hubcaps and fenders is just a collection of junk, regardless of what
the “sculptor” says it is. He could give it some metaphorical name that may
mean something to him, but that is just an arbitrary label.
Lady
Agnew
needn’t
even have a name. One knows what she is. She has an identity apart from
Sargent’s title. She is an abstraction reduced to a concrete.
Novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand offered a
philosophy of art that could’ve been understood by Sargent, had he been able to
read it, but is basically hieroglyphics to modern artists. In her essay, “Art and Cognition” in The
Romantic Manifesto
, she wrote:
Art is a selective
re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.
Man’s profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is
conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and
needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his
immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a
selective re-creation, it concretizes man’s fundamental view of himself and of
existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be
regarded as essential, significant, important. In this sense, art teaches man
how to use his consciousness. It conditions or stylizes man’s consciousness by
conveying to him a certain way of looking at existence.
In her companion essay in the same volume, “The Psycho-Epistemology of
Art
,” she noted:
By a selective
re-creation, art isolates and integrates those aspects of reality which
represent man’s fundamental view of himself and of existence. Out of the
countless number of concretes—of single, disorganized and (seemingly)
contradictory attributes, actions and entities—an artist isolates the things
which he regards as metaphysically essential and integrates them into a single
new concrete that represents an embodied abstraction.
For instance,
consider two statues of man: one as a Greek god, the other as a deformed
medieval monstrosity. Both are metaphysical estimates of man; both are
projections of the artist’s view of man’s nature; both are concretized
representations of the philosophy of their respective cultures.
Art is a
concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man’s concepts to the perceptual
level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they
were percepts.
This is the
psycho-epistemological function of art and the reason of its importance in
man’s life….
Every color, hue, and line in Lady Agnew constitutes a concrete
integrated with countless other concretes to recreate an identifiable entity
which has been reduced to a single, concretized entity.  Those colors, hues, and lines were determined
by Sargent to be essential to the image. They reflect his epistemology and
metaphysics in his sense of life and in an estimate of himself.
But, what makes modern artists tick? Why do
they continue to present artworks that seem to confess a madness or insanity
that is in violent conflict with the norm of “common sense” or which clashes
with everyone else’s sensory experience?
Briefly, their epistemologies and
metaphysics are arrested at the concrete level. Whether that is a matter of
choice or is self-induced or is congenital, is irrelevant. To them, reality is
a chaos and no sense can be made of it. Themes are impossible and comprehension
of anything is subjective.
Modern art is a child of Immanuel Kant, the 18th
century Prussian philosopher who never ventured from his hometown of
Königsberg. His philosophy was that “true” reality was unknowable to man, that
the contents of his mind are subjective according to layers of filters that
sift thru sensory data and produce a false knowledge of existence. Existence
was dichotomized into the noumenal world, which man could never know
“directly,” and the phenomenal world as conveyed by our senses, which distort
or mistranslate the noumenal.
Which, in turn, presents to modern artists
a maelstrom of disconnected concretes, an unintelligible universe, with no
unifying law or system, in which identities or labels are arbitrary and subjective.
In most cases it is very unlikely modern
artists have ever even heard of Kant (or of any of his reality-contesting successors
of the 19th century). But by either conscious, calculated inclination to put
over a fraud (as Picasso
did), or because an artist is an obsessive schizophrenic, chronically nauseous,
and who is burdened with a mental cyclic vomiting syndrome and can only “express”
himself in episodes of expectoration .
For example, Marcel Duchamp’s “Nude
Descending a Staircase
” is not how anyone will see a nude woman descending
a staircase, not even Duchamp. Remove one of the elements in the image, and it
wouldn’t make a difference. Add one or more, and it wouldn’t make a difference.
It could have the same title or any other title, such as a “Rasher of Bacon” or
“Portrait of My Garbage Man.”
Subtracting or adding a drop of paint or
slash of color to or from one of Jackson Pollack’s canvases would not make a
difference to the overall, alleged “composition,” regardless of the name given
it by Pollack. It
could be “Splashes No. 46,” Or “I was drunk as a laird, No. 2,” or have no
name.
The focus of modern artists is not on
universal themes – which require some level of abstraction – but mere concretes.
It is some species of mental myopia that would limit an alleged artist to pick
some concretes that attracts him in the swirling dust devil of existence that
comprises such a person’s metaphysics.
In your mind’s eye picture a modern artist frantically
in search of some one entity his myopia can focus on and recreate (or not) to
the exclusion of context. Ah, there’s Andy Warhol’s eight hour “movie” of the Empire State
Building
. Who can forget his Campbell
Soup Cans
? And then there’s another fellow who photographs a collection of
light bulbs. An American creates a sort-of blowup Christmas tree,
but it actually looks like a sex toy. It sits in the Place Vendome, Paris.  Then there’s a very-well done, “realistic”
sculpture of copulating
crickets
, with commendable attention paid to anatomical detail. The art
that sits inside this Silicon Valley exhibit hall is on a par with the “erotic”
insects. “Composer” John
Cage
focused on sounds
without melody or a shred of continuity.  Or no sounds at all. (He studied under Arnold Schonberg, so
what else could you expect but noise?)
Want to distort the human face (“…a boot
planted on the human face forever….” Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four), then try and compete with Chuck Close’s
gallery of horrible, Halloween-caliber faces. except they aren’t for Halloween,
they’re “high art.” Collectors pay fortunes for these…”portraits.” After all,
ugly or nondescript visages are concretes, too.
See also my column on government-subsidized
art, “The
CIA: Funder of Trash and Terrorists
.”
I could go on indefinitely about the number
of utilitarian objects that have been the subjects of modern artists. It was
not my intention to subject the reader to a menu of modern art, but I couldn’t
think of a better way to dramatize the difference between the minds that could
produce Lady Agnew and the myopic,
very disturbed minds that could produce rubbish.
Please see a gallery of Sargent’s works as an
antidote.

Metropolitan Opera Joins the Jihadists

It’s a sign of how far America has been
corrupted by political correctness, subjectivism in ethics, and relativism in
the arts that a shoddy opera that romanticizes murdering terrorists can be put
on by a major cultural institution, the Metropolitan Opera of New York City.
I am not an aficionado of heavy weight
opera. I won’t go into my esthetic tastes here, because those are irrelevant.
What is relevant is the obscenity of John Adams’s The Death of Klinghoffer, which debuted at the Metropolitan Opera
last night (October 20th), whose libretto is a long-winded, atonal propaganda
piece for the Islamic jihadists who hijacked a cruise ship and murdered Leon Klinghoffer,
a passenger because he was a Jew. Listen to the sing-song screeching here
and also a trailer.
But even the discordant singing and jumbled
orchestral score are irrelevant. Even had Adams’s opus been written in the
disciplined and original style of Georges Bizet or Giacomo Puccini or Giuseppe
Verdi, Klinghoffer remains a sucker
punch to all standards of moral decency and civilized taste.
More importantly, staging The Death of Klinghoffer is in
conformance to the prescriptive steps for “cultural jihad” promoted by the
Muslim Brotherhood in its 1991
memorandum
for “transforming” America from a free republic into a bastion
of totalitarian Islam. The Brotherhood’s “master plan” calls for “eliminating
and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its
miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”
 Peter
Gelb, the Met’s general manager, composer John Adams, and director Tom Morris I
guess don’t mind lending their hands to the PLO, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban,
and other Islamic gangs.
The
Death of Klinghoffer

is fundamentally a U.S. State Department and New York taxpayer-funded exercise
in malodorous agitprop for anti-Semitism and
Islam. John Adams and the Met may as well have staged an adaptation of Leni
Riefenstahl’s Triumph
of the Will
as a musical with dialogue.  Better yet, he could have turned “Springtime for Hitler” from
The Producers into a serious,
Wagnerian style opera, with no dancing and no plumbing for laughs. Why not?
If you’re going to shill for Islam and its
core Jew-hatred and its unapologetic ugliness, why not go whole hog? I’m sure
the cost of producing a musical Triumph
of the Will
can be recouped in the usual ticket prices, which for Klinghoffer are going from $35
to $145 a seat
. I’m sure the Met’s general manager, Peter Gelb, could offer
special discounted prices to Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, and to the
whole staff of the Council on American-Islam Relations. Perhaps even offer
private showings for the staffs of every Islamic front group in the country.
Full houses guaranteed.
The Death
of Klinghoffer
is
being vigorously protested,
and the Met’s Peter Gelb has been hard-pressed to cancel its debut and
subsequent showings.
Yet, the opera has its defenders. New York’s
Communist mayor, Bill de Blasio, for example, according to a New
York Daily News
article of October 20th, said:
Mayor de Blasio
defended the Metropolitan Opera’s right to show “The Death of
Klinghoffer,” and criticized predecessor Rudy Giuliani’s protest against
the controversial work.
“I really
think we have to be very careful in a free society to respect that cultural
institutions will portray works of art, put on operas, plays, that there will
be art exhibits in museum,” de Blasio said Monday at an unrelated press
conference.
“And in a free
society we respect that. We don’t have to agree with what’s in the exhibit but
we agree with the right of the artist and the cultural institution to put that
forward to the public.”…
“I think there
is a serious problem today in the world that has nothing to do with this
opera,” the mayor said.
“There’s an
anti-Semitism problem in this world today, particularly in Western Europe, that
worries me greatly. That’s where my focus is. I don’t think an opera is what
the focal point should be right now.”
“The only
thing I know about the opera is that the Metropolitan Opera has a right to show
it,” he said.
That’s rich, coming from a politician who
hankers after the power to squelch freedom of speech, and who really isn’t for
a “free society” at all. And it’s evidence of his cluelessness, one shared with
countless others about government-subsidized “art,” that he can claim that the
Met has a “right” to force taxpayers to fund any kind of propaganda, which is
what Klinghoffer is.  
Excuse me, Bill, but the Met would have a “right”
to show Klinghoffer if it were
completely privately funded, and even then it would raise issues. But it isn’t
completely privately funded by donors; it’s funded in large part by government money,
that is, taxpayer money. Institutions that receive a single cent from the government
to push rubbish like Klinghoffer to
the forefront of “culture” do not have
“freedom of speech” rights. Taxpayers, who had no choice in the matter,
however, do have a right to protest such “art” and to gag its shills and
promoters.
Further, Klinghoffer is implicitly about Islam. The terrorist protagonists
are Muslims.  Islam also believes in “freedom
of speech,” that is, the freedom to censor any critics of Islam – or behead
them, shoot them, hang them, rape them, stone them to death. Islam believes in
free speech, and will tolerate you as long as you don’t talk back.
Daniel Greenfield, in his FrontPage article
of June 3rd, “Should New York Taxpayers
Fund Pro-Terrorism and Anti-Semitism at the The Metropolitan Opera?”, revealed
some interesting facts about the Met:
The Metropolitan Opera has been having serious financial problems. Its
programs regularly mention support from public funds from the New York State
Council on the Arts. Its 2012 report mentions
$500,000 in support from
the New York City Department of
Cultural Affairs. The year before that it was $100.000.
The Arts
website shows six figure
funding going to the Metropolitan Opera every year
under General Opera Support. There are also other grants. That means that when
a terrorist screams about the Jews on stage, he’ll be doing it with funding
from New York taxpayers.
Maybe it’s time to put a stop to that.
If the Met wants to promote the murder of 9 percent of the population of
New York City, New Yorkers shouldn’t have to pay for it.
That means eliminating all city and state funding for the Metropolitan
Opera. The most obvious place to start is by killing the annual six-figure New
York State Council on the Arts giveaway.
It’s something that a New York State Senator or Assemblyman can do.
At the Federal level, the Met receives funding from a variety of
agencies, including $1 million from the State
Department
and from the usual suspects such as the Department of Education.
Need I say more?
Staging the anti-Semitic The Death of Klinghoffer in the face rising
anti-Semitism around the world is not about “freedom of speech.” It is about the
power to defy all standards of rationality and morality because of political
correctness and an amoral indifference in the ugly, sorry souls of Peter Gelb,
the director, and the whole cast.

It
isn’t only Leon Klinghoffer who has been shot in the head and tossed overboard.
It is the American public and in particular, New Yorkers. 

A Lame Duck’s Lethal Legacies

I don’t think any readers need a refresher
lesson in the many ways President Barack Obama has strived to “transform”
America, beginning with his first day in office in 2008. His latest action is
the appointment of a Muslim of The University of Memphis’ Leadership Education
and Development (LEAD) program. Graduate Fatima Noor has been appointed special
assistant in the Office of the Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services in the Department of Homeland Security. Before
It’s News
on August 31st reported: 
She majored in
psychology with minors in Spanish and international relations. She recently
completed a month-long research fellowship in psychology hosted by
Carnegie-Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh; her research will be ongoing
for this program. Noor was a leader in many honor societies at the U of M. She
has done volunteer work with World Relief Memphis and the Tennessee Immigrant
and Refugee Rights Coalition.
What a perfect choice to help accelerate
the colonization of America with Muslims (do you really think she’s going to
advocate increasing the immigration of Caucasian Danes, Britons, Frenchmen,
Germans and so on into the U.S.?), and, because she “minored” in Spanish,
advocate the further relaxation of the immigration rules for illegal aliens
from south of the border.
The latest administration tactic has been a
refusal to enact a travel ban from countries stricken with Ebola, which, in
deliberate defiance of all rational medical advice (and in conscious violation
of his oath
of office
to protect the U.S.), will increase the probability of the beginning
of an epidemic of the disease in this country. Reuters
reported on October 18th:
Obama made plain he
is not currently planning to give in to demands from some lawmakers for a ban
on travelers from the worst-hit countries.
“We can’t just
cut ourselves off from West Africa,” Obama said in his weekly radio
address. “Trying to seal off an entire region of the world – if that were
even possible – could actually make the situation worse,” he said.
The worst Ebola
outbreak on record has killed more than 4,500 people, most of them in the West
African countries of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.
How isolating Liberia, Sierra Leone, and
Guinea will make things worse, Obama would be at a loss to explain. Just as his
choice for an “Ebola” czar, Ron Klain, would not be able to, either. The
Washington Post reported on October 17th:
President Obama has
asked Ron
Klain
, who served as chief of staff to both Vice President Biden and former
vice president Al Gore, as his Ebola response
coordinator
, according to a White House official. “He will report
directly to the president’s homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, and the
president’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, as he ensures that efforts
to protect the American people by detecting, isolating and treating Ebola
patients in this country are properly integrated but don’t distract from the
aggressive commitment to stopping Ebola at the source in West Africa,” a
White House official wrote in an e-mail.
Klain, 53, is a
longtime Democratic operative who served as Biden’s chief of staff from 2009 to
2011 and as Gore’s from 1995 to 1999. He helped oversee the Democratic side in
the 2000 presidential election recount as its lead lawyer, a role that Kevin
Spacey portrayed in the HBO film “Recount.”
The Federalist
reported on October 17th:
Earlier today,
President Barack Obama announced that he would be appointing Ron Klain as an
additional Ebola czar (he already had one before today). If Ron Klain sounds familiar
to you, it’s because he has a long political pedigree. He has no medical,
scientific, or federal agency administrative expertise, but he has a whole lot
of political experience.
In January of 2011,
Klain stepped down as chief of staff for Vice President Joe Biden. Before that,
Ron Klain was a well-connected Washington lobbyist. According to Senate
lobbying disclosure records, Klain’s clients included Fannie Mae, U.S. Airways,
Time Warner, CIGNA, and Imclone.
Klain also worked
as chief of staff for former Vice President Al Gore, Janet Reno, the Senate
Democratic Leadership Committee, and the Senate Judiciary Committee. But that’s
not all! Ron Klain did debate prep for both Obama and former president Bill
Clinton. And if that weren’t enough, Klain was also general counsel of Al
Gore’s election recount committee in 2000.
No one should be surprised that a career
Democratic wonk, with no medical background except perhaps to take Tylenol or a
cold medicine, would be appointed the “Ebola response coordinator.” This is
tantamount to appointing gaffe-happy Vice President Joe Biden to manage a
linear accelerator program or as an assistant Attorney General in the
Department of Justice. Well, the latter might actually work out, given Eric
Holder’s reign of lawlessness in that agency.
In the meantime, Jonathan Strong of
Breitbart Big Government on October 19th, reported under the headline, “Exclusive:
Obama Administration Quietly Prepares ‘Surge’ Of Millions Of New Immigrant IDs
”:
Despite no official action from the president ahead of the election, the
Obama administration has quietly begun preparing to issue millions of work
authorization permits, suggesting the implementation of a large-scale executive
amnesty may have already begun.
Unnoticed until now, a draft
solicitation
for bids issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) Oct. 6 says potential vendors must be capable of handling a “surge”
scenario of 9 million id cards in one year “to support possible future
immigration reform initiative requirements.”
The request for proposals says the agency will need a minimum of four
million cards per year. In the “surge,” scenario in 2016, the agency would need
an additional five million cards – more than double the baseline annual amount
for a total of 9 million.  “The
guaranteed minimum for each ordering period is 4,000,000 cards. The estimated
maximum for the entire contract is 34,000,000 cards,” the document
says.
This is an “open borders” policy for not
only illegal aliens, but for the Ebola virus. In response to a
Rule of Reason
reader’s confusion over why many white America and British
females abruptly convert to Islam and express a wish to enlist in ISIS’s
campaign of terror, rape, looting, and conquest, and how Leftists and so-called
“feminists” are blind or indifferent to the ideological conflicts between Islam
and the Left, I replied:
The king of
anti-white culture is, of course, Obama. There is no other credible motive for
or purpose to his vicious policy of open borders to Mexicans, South Americans,
Somalians, Muslims of every ethic variety, but to dissolve “white” culture.
That makes him the supreme racist. He has expressed indifference to the plight
of the Yazidis, because they’re “sort of white,” and has said little or nothing
about the ISIS policy of raping their women and killing their men. The Yazidis
are, I’m certain, as bonkers about their religion as Muslims are about theirs.
But they are truly a minority not really declaring jihad against all
non-Yazidis. However, no one is brave enough to state in public that Obama is a
racist, as much of one was Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan (or Al
Sharpton, a frequent visitor to the White House, and Jesse Jackson).

The whole Progressive agenda, birthed by and in lockstep with that policy, is
also anti-white, anti-European, anti-West. Aged former-leftists, like David
Horowitz, were “red diaper babies.” They’re the neo-cons now, siding with
“patriotic” religionists and other parties (including much of the Tea Party).
Their younger brethren are still leftists, but I call them the “Pampers
Babies,” raised by liberal and left-leaning parents from the 1950’s onward, and
suitably brainwashed or at least lobotomized in their critical faculties in
their college years by professors and academics who took their cues from the
Frankfurt School and other, virulent, imported cultural philosophies.
(Parenthetically, this importation of those bad ideas to America began a bit
after the Civil War, when Americans returned from their education, especially
what they picked up in Germany.)

So, they’re not going to look askance at the rape culture of Islam – that would
be “cultural imperialism” or the like – but will natter on about the alleged
campus “rape culture.” That’s what they’ve been taught. They’re virtually
reason-proof. The verities of political correctness, as far as their stunted
minds are concerned, are engraved in stone. And, of course, a “rape culture”
can’t be pinned on anyone but males, especially white males. Blacks are largely
exempt from the charge, even though blacks have committed the most horrific crimes
against white males and females. Those crimes get little or no media coverage.
To report on them risks the charge of “racism.”

The violation of their principles by Islam bothers them not a whit, because to
criticize Islam on that point would also be seen as Western hubris and
“elitism.”

Bad ideas – and especially bad ideas imparted by parents and schools – can work
their insidious ways into the minds of the young. They’re mostly defenseless.
Many of them grow up to be passive yeah-sayers to every and any altruist idea
(aka Leftist), or become activists of one stripe or another. They’re like the
Muslims who protest their innocence regarding the atrocities committed by their
activist coreligionist jihadists; they don’t commit the crimes, but don’t
object to their being committed either, their protestations that ISIS et al.
have nothing to do with Islam to the contrary notwithstanding.

For example, celebrating Columbus Day is
slowly being tossed into the memory hole of political correctness. In his
Capitalism Magazine article of October 12th, “Let’s
Take Back Columbus Da
y,” Thomas Bowden noted:
Nowadays,
however, an embarrassed, guilty silence descends on the nation each Columbus
Day. We’ve been taught that Columbus opened the way for rapacious European
settlers to unleash a stream of horrors on a virgin continent: slavery, racism,
warfare, epidemic, and the cruel oppression of Indians.
This modern
view of Columbus represents an unjust attack upon both our country and the
civilization that made it possible. Western civilization did not originate
slavery, racism, warfare, or disease–but with America as its exemplar, that
civilization created the antidotes. How? By means of a set of core ideas that
set Western civilization apart from all others: reason and individualism.
Demonstrating how virulent by unnoticed accretion
Progressive ideas can be as they poison America, Seattle Portland, OR, and Minneapolis
have renamed Columbus Day “Indigenous People’s Day,” referring to North American
Indians, who before Columbus discovered America or brought the continent to
European attention, lived in a state of primitive barbarism and stagnation. A
CNN report
of October 13th reports:
Columbus Day often
brings to mind the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria. This Monday, some
cities and states would rather you think of the Sioux, the Suquamish and the
Chippewa. For the first time this year, Seattle and Minneapolis will recognize
the second Monday in October as “Indigenous People’s Day.” The cities
join a growing list of jurisdictions choosing to shift the holiday’s focus from
Christopher Columbus to the people he encountered in the New World and their
modern-day descendants.
The Seattle City
Council voted last week to reinvent the holiday to celebrate
“the thriving cultures and values of Indigenous Peoples in our
region.” The Minneapolis City Council approved a similar measure in April “to reflect upon
the ongoing struggles of Indigenous people on this land, and to celebrate the
thriving culture and value that Dakota, Ojibwa and other indigenous nations add
to our city.”
The Romans likewise “discovered” the
British Isles and brought civilization to it. The indigenous peoples there were
the Iceni and a few dozen other Celtic tribes,
who similarly lived in primitive barbarity.  I doubt a “Boadicea Day” is celebrated in Britain.
 (Although the Iceni
queen
was once honored on British coinage, and there is a statue of her
near the Houses of Parliament.)
So, as the Obama Administration winds down
in terms of the calendar, one can be certain that he will stick his “transformation”
agenda with more outrageous executive actions, bypassing Congress and in effect
flipping off Americans and this country.
Muslims and illegals aren’t the only ones
seeking to invest and conquer our country. Look to the man in the White House. If
there is any justice, his legacy name should be “President Pathogen,”
the pathogens being both human and bacteriological. 

Portrait of a Psychopath

Review: It’s
All About Muhammad: A Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet,
by F.W. Burleigh. Portland, OR:
Zenga Books, 2014. 555 pp.  Illustrated.
Cover illustration:
Artist’s rendering of Muhammad entering either Medina after his flight from
Mecca in 622, or entering Mecca on his return in 630 on a pilgrimage prior to
his compelling its surrender and conversion to Islam. Illustrator unknown.
As a “prophet,” Muhammad was a
late bloomer. He didn’t begin hearing voices or having hallucinations about
Allah’s prescription for living and dying until 610 A.D., when he was forty
years old. Twelve years later he and a handful of his converts and followers took
an urgent powder from Mecca, populated by the Quraysh, who were hostile to his
blasphemy against their numerous pagan gods, and fled to Medina (then called
Yathrib), populated by the Khazraj tribe. It was in Medina that he developed
Islam by having numerous personal sessions with Allah through the medium of an
angel, Gabriel (aka, Jibreel). Or so
he would claim at the drop of a turban, which was often.  
Islam, after closer examination, was and
still is all about Muhammad. And about nothing else.  You had to take his word for everything he said had happened or will happen. He
insisted on it, forcefully. Like a berserker. There isn’t a single totalitarian
regime that wasn’t also a personality cult. Islam fits that description.
Muhammad is its personality, and Islam is his
cult.
He was the Billy Sunday of his time in that
region, or if you like, a supreme showman in the way of P.T. Barnum. By the
time of his death in July 632 at the age of sixty-two, Muhammad had converted
all of the Arabian Peninsula to Islam, by hook, crook, military conquest,
banditry, torture, extortion, genocide, terror, and murder. He was born in 570,
the “Year of the Elephant,” but very likely had never seen or heard of an
elephant. But Islam, especially after his demise and because of the missionary
efforts of his successors, spread through the Peninsula and all compass points
like scalding coffee through a cheap paper towel.
Another appropriate comparison would be
that Muhammad was the Jim Jones of his time, skillful in manipulating the
gullible, but his Kool-Aid was Islam,
which didn’t poison men, but instead their minds, and turned them into “Walking
Dead” zombies.
Or, picture Muhammad as a kind of Rev.
Jeremiah Wright, ranting to his congregation about hell and damnation and God-damning
the Jews and Christians and all unbelievers, his Koran-thumping eliciting vocal expressions of spontaneous fervor
among the flock. That was, more or less, Muhammad’s preaching style. He was a
master of working his credulous converts into near hysterics, if not into a
revival tent, rolling-on-the-ground lather and foaming at the mouth for
salvation.
That’s if you believe he even existed, and
have instead speculated that the whole Muhammad story was woven out of whole
cloth over centuries by Islamic scholars and scribes in search of the perfect
and unalterable Koran, supposedly
dictated verbatim by Allah to Muhammad, but which they were willing to emend,
correct, embellish, and edit. These worthies labored to preserve the original
Meccan verses – the banal “peaceful” ones – but abrogate them with the violent
ones, over a hundred of them. It’s the violent ones that defined Islam in
Muhammad’s time and which define it in our own. The implication is that these
ancient editors were also hearing voices. “Press one for Arabic, press two
for Aramaic. You have reached Seventh Heaven….Please, leave a message stating
your question….”
Also the Hadith (plural), the
collection of personal behavior, practices, recollections, and predilections of
Muhammad, underwent serious revision over the centuries in order to make them
comport more closely with the Koran. This
perpetual project was an attempt to “humanize” Muhammad, to demonstrate that he
was just like everyone else.
Or not.
Nevertheless, purists and Islamapologists
near and far will damn F.W. Burleigh’s narrative of the life of Muhammad, It’s All About Muhammad:  A Biography of the World’s Most Notorious
Prophet
, or ignore it and just mutter under their breath. Muslim
demonstrators will more likely froth at the mouth and develop laryngitis, as is
their habit, because Burleigh’s book also boasts twenty-five pen-and-ink line
illustrations, many of them depicting Muhammad at various points in his itinerant
career.
The last one shows him giving a “thumbs-up”
to Allah, both them seated on separate thrones in judgment of a cringing
supplicant on the Day of Resurrection.  In
that scenario, Muhammad is acting as a kind of plea-deal attorney for those
seeking to enter Paradise and be saved from a sentencing to eternal hellfire
but had extenuating circumstances to reveal. He appointed himself to that role.
After all, Allah is nothing if not “merciful” and open to suggestions from his
“prophet,” while Muhammad was, to put it gently, full of himself. There was no
appeal once a judgment had been made.
Among the verses is
a celestial advisory that Muhammad must be obeyed: “It is not fitting for a
Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His
Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah
and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.”—Koran, 33:36. Note 12, Chapter 33, “Terror Has Made Me Victorious,” It’s All About Muhammad.
To call him merely narcissist would be letting
him off easy.  He invented the shadada as the universal profession of
faith: “There is only one God and Muhammad is his Prophet (or Messenger).” Burleigh
relates numerous instances of a person suspected of secret paganism or apostasy
reciting the shadada to Muhammad to
save himself from a beheading or some other form of execution. It was supposed
to act as verbal shield. Often, the recitation fell on deaf ears.
And, yes, Muhammad consummated his marriage
to nine-year-old Aisha, the daughter of his most loyal follower, Abu Bakr,
adding pedophilia to his criminal “rap sheet,” in addition to the rape of
captured women and girls after raids on caravans and Arab towns. “Weepy” Bakr,
who at first objected to the proposed union, nevertheless served Muhammad to
his dying day as his adviser, advance man, press agent, and public relations consultant.
His submission to his employer’s desires served as an example for countless
generations of Muslim parents who arranged the forced marriages of their prepubescent
daughters, and still do, up to this day.
Burleigh’s biography is a compelling read,
at times entertaining, but mostly informative. He brings to life what to most
Westerners, and even to most Muslims, has been an abstraction, an untouchable
icon never to be depicted, slandered, libeled, or mocked under pain of a death fatwa. Drawing on authoritative texts of
the Koran and Hadith, together with the interpretations, histories and revisions
by commentators such as Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Warraq, Al-Tabari, Edward Gibbon, Ahmed
Qiresjo, and the translations of J.M. Rodwell, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, and M.H.
Shakir, among others, the author presents an indelible picture of Muhammad the
Monster who loosed a virulent evil on the world over fourteen centuries.
While Burleigh has proved himself a
creditable and dauntless researcher of all the Islamic sources, and from
translations and interpretations from respected contemporary sources (there are
47 pages of end notes, and a five-page bibliography), one must take those
sources with a generous dose of skepticism, because the Koran and the Hadith were
works-in-progress for centuries. Robert Spencer’s book, Did
Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins
, would be an ideal companion to Burleigh’s work. Burleigh
performed the unenviable task of weaving together fourteen centuries worth of
myriad tribal alliances and animosities, myths, lore, and legends, including commentaries,
corrections, and interpretations by Islamic scholars and contemporary (i.e.,
modern) Muhammad and Islam authorities, into a coherent, linear, and
comprehensible narrative.
Allah, the Supreme Mentor and Author, his
alleged omniscience to the contrary notwithstanding, kept adding and changing
things. There is no evidence that he minded the constant deletions and
retentions and sent down thunderbolts to fry those who dared meddle with his
words.  As for Muhammad, no one else had
been given a ride to Heaven on a winged mule to meet holy notables and stand
before Allah’s blinding throne. Why, in Jerusalem, he had even taught Abraham
and Jesus how to pray properly. So he claimed – or else.
It is difficult for Westerners to imagine
Arabs as other than Muslims. But in Muhammad’s time, the majority of them were
pagans, worshipping a bewildering menagerie of deities. The “prophet” set out
to correct and outlaw this, and once he had destroyed the statues in the Kaaba
in Mecca, he forbad idolatry in all forms, including of Allah and himself. This
will partly explain the murderous riots over the Muhammad
cartoons
of 2005. Not that the cartoonists were idolizing Muhammad. Quite
the opposite.
Burleigh reveals that Muhammad must have experienced
an unhappy, “fatherless” childhood, having been given to a wet nurse for about
three years by his mother. Halimah, the wet nurse, returned him to his mother
claiming he was possessed by a demon. Why?
Burleigh explains that Muhammad must have
had a damaged frontal lobe, and was subject also to epileptic fits (these are
described or alluded to by Islam scholars). In Muhammad’s time, there was no other
name for epilepsy except for the “falling sickness.” These conditions persisted
throughout his life, but it was during these seizures that he had auditory and
mental hallucinations about Allah and Gabriel. This is one reason why Meccans
believed he was “touched in the head” or possessed by a demon. It was the only
diagnosis they were capable of at the time. Combine these circumstances with an
inbred paranoia, an inferiority complex, and a tenacious strain of obsessive compulsiveness,
with an urge to “govern” others, and there was a recipe for the making of a
psychopath. Overall, Muhammad and his record make Hannibal Lector look like a
vegetarian devotee of tea and crumpets.
Of course, one needn’t have an abnormal
frontal lobe to become a terrorist, nor even a dose of paranoia. Just an
unhealthy strain of nihilism, of wanting to kill those who love life, and of a
desire to end one’s own in the same action.
Muhammad demanded loyalty of his followers,
but displayed little of it himself. For example, having met, Zaynab, the wife
of his adopted son, Zayd, and ogled and lusted after her to distraction, he
proposed that his son divorce her so he could marry her. The loyal son
submitted. His reward was to be “divorced” from his adoptive father, who,
sensing his son’s resentment, subsequently reported a new diktat from Allah: Adoption was now forbidden, and retroactively,
Zayd was never his adopted son. Out the window went all inheritance rights, as
well.
Muhammad was thorough in his war against
the Jews (about whom, before his “visions,” he had borne no animus.) When he
conquered the Qurayza Jews near Medina, he had all the males and boys, between
four and nine hundred of them, beheaded, his two cousins welding the swords far
into the night. The women and children were taken as booty by his army, or sold
at auction in distant slave markets to raise money for horses and weapons.
The current onslaught of ISIS, or the
Islamic State, through Syria and Iraq, proves that Islamic methods and ends are
consistent and have not changed a whit since Muhammad’s time. Mass executions,
mass rapine, looting, brutal conquest, and the imposition of barbaric Sharia
law have been the practice ever since then.
Muhammad’s hubris included making himself a
direct descendent or successor of Abraham and Jesus. He borrowed or cadged
elements of Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and various pagan faiths to
cobble together his new religion (just as Christians borrowed from Greek and
Roman religions before him).  
There are interesting stories about the
origin of the term “Allah.” 
Classical Arabic
co-existed with the Old North Arabian languages. In the 5th century BC,
Herodotus (Histories I,131; III,8) quotes the
epithet of a goddess in its pre-classical Arabic form as Alilat
(Ἀλιλάτ, i. e.,ʼal-ʼilat).  
On the other hand,
Allah as Moon-God is a claim put
forth by some that the Islamic name for God, Allah, derives from a
pagan Moon god
in local Arabic mythology.
The word “Allah” certainly predates Islam. As Arthur Jeffrey (A.
Jeffrey, Islam: Mohammed and His Religion) states:
“The name Allah, as the Quran itself is witness, was well known in
pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not
infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North
Arabia”.
Doubtless, one of the many statues in the Kaaba ordered destroyed by Muhammad
upon his conquest of Mecca in 630 was of Hubal, the moon-god.  Apparently it was a regal human form made of
onyx. Perhaps “Allah” was a minor moon-god or goddess whose statue also merited
a place in the temple and in 630 its destruction. The deity was worshipped by
pagans in other parts of the Arabian Peninsula.
The irony is that the Kaaba (or Kabah, or the “Cube”), which Muhammad
helped to reconstruct in 605 when a flash flood damaged the sorry excuse for a
temple that housed all the pagan idols, was virtually rebuilt by a shipwrecked
Copt Christian, Baqum, largely from the remnants of his beached vessel in Jeddah
on the Red Sea. Baqum supervised the reconstruction and was a skilled carpenter
and mason who ensured that the new stone walls, a yard thick at the base, would
not collapse during another flash flood.
Muhammad devised and refined the ablution, or the ritual cleansing, which
Muslims are obliged to perform five times a day.
…It begins with the rinsing the hands and mouth, cleaning the nostrils by
breathing in water and blowing it out, washing the face, scrubbing the right
arm up to the elbow and then the left arm – each step of this routine performed
three times. The ritual continues with wiping the head, ears, and neck with wet
hands. The cleansing is finalized by washing both feet up to the ankles, also
performed three times, beginning with the right foot.
The prayer routine, equally elaborate, is characterized by precise motions
of the body and arms, with exactness in placing the palms of the hands and toes
of the feet while the body flexes forward and the forehead touches the ground.
The prayer protestations are preceded by ritual motions one performs while
standing and are followed by exacting posture while sitting on one’s knees, camel-like.
Muhammad was soon washing and praying like this five times a day, seven
days a week….
Failure [by his followers] to properly perform the ritual cleansing and
prayer routines would invalidate them in the eyes of Allah, Muhammad declared.
(p. 80)
Muhammad performed his ablutions even more often than five times a day, to
set an example for his followers, or because he was anxious about solving a
problem or when he experienced a setback. The head-banging part of it must not
have done much for his frontal lobe. Often his followers would note that his
forehead was black and blue after performing multiple ablutions.
Muhammad also originated everything we are familiar with today when we
encounter or think of Islam: Compulsory veils (of various forms) for women in
public; allowing a Muslim man four wives (Muhammad allowed himself five, and a harem
of concubines and sex slaves); the treatment of all women, including wives, as
chattel; death for adulterous women; death for apostates, homosexuals, and anyone
who slanders Muhammad or Allah; severe corporeal punishment for thieves,
deceivers and hypocritical  Muslims;
justifiable lying to infidels (taqiyya)
to gain their trust before enslaving, subjugating or killing them; poll or head
taxes (jizya) on kaffirs or infidels, or taxes on a whole group; and the prohibition
of alcohol, games, music, and the mixing of the sexes, even in mosques.
Today, however, young “radical” Muslims broadcast what can only be called
“Allah Rock” music over the Internet, or lull themselves into a jihadist trance by listening to
monotonous “official” Arabic music laced with lyrics about the greatness of
Allah and Muhammad and how the world’s going to pay for denying them and how
wonderful it would be to martyr oneself in a suicide vest and take as many
infidels as possible with one.
As he did with Abraham, Muhammad was not above recasting other biblical
and Judaic persons into strictly Islamic roles.
For example, per the Koran,
about the “end days,” when the “Evil One,” Dajjal, besieges
Damascus and threatens the First Mahdi, Jesus goes to the gates, exhales, and
many in the Evil One’s army drop dead because they’re kaffirs or infidels or unbelievers. Then righteous, true-believing
Muslims explode from the mountains to finish the job in an orgy of slaughter.
“Dressed in armor and wielding two swords and a shield, Jesus stalks
the Evil One on the battlefield. He slays him in the grand finale at one of the
gates of the city and leaves the battlefield with his shield splattered with
the blood of the Evil One.” (p. 257)
Not exactly a pacifist fellow who turned the other cheek and loved his
enemy.
Further on in Mohammad’s version of Christ, Christ will succeed the First
Mahdi and rule over a utopian world. Everyone will have a goat and a camel and
bushels of pomegranates each the size of a Chevy pickup. Christ will live on
for forty years, get married (no mention of the number of wives), have lots of
kids, then die, and will be privileged to be buried next to Muhammad. Then, on
the Last Day, in Seventh Heaven, Jesus, resurrected, will act as an
intercessionary in the judgment of the naked billions eligible to enter
Paradise or to be tossed into hellfire (after first being chopped up by Satan),
but may be overruled by Muhammad, the Supreme Intercessionary.  What a court case load, and all the defendants
are nude, too!
Mohammad made up a lot of this stuff during his Friday sermons in Medina,
and people bought it, in fact, lapped it up. He was, as the colloquial line
goes, “a legend in his own mind.” And in the minds of his converts. In Medina,
when he was having one of his epileptic “visitations” with Allah by way of
Gabriel, believers would flock to his quarters in al-Qaeda (“the base”) to
witness it first-hand and to be the first to hear the latest
pronouncement.  If Muhammad happened to
wash his hands in a bowl and spit in it, believers would rush to pass the bowl
around to splash the water and his spittle over their faces. That could be
called “gross groupiness.”
As for non-Muslims, and especially Jews, Muhammad made them the target of
submission (or “Islam”), subjugation, or death.
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge
the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they
pay the Jizya with willing
submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Koran,
9:29).
The truth is that many of Muhammad’s
converts were attracted to Islam by the prospect of seventy-two doe-eyed
renewable virgins in Paradise, especially if they martyred themselves in
battle, or to the promise of loot and sex slaves that their “right hands”
possessed. The nub and rub is that Muhammad could be said to be responsible for
the double meaning of “booty call,” although no Islamic scholar I know of is
likely to admit it. Muhammad made it an iron rule that he would take only
one/fifth of the booty, whatever its form: women to sell, camels, goats, sheep,
gold, silver, land, harvests. The rest went to his army, earlier consisting of
only a few hundred spiritual marauders and opportunists; later they numbered in
the thousands.
After an epileptic episode, Muhammad would
emerge from it and say in two voices – his own and Allah’s in what must be the
oddest ventriloquist act in history – “strike terror into the hearts of the
enemies of Allah” (Koran, 8:60). He
had the habit of speaking to his congregations as though he were, séance-style,
sans Ouija board, transcribing verbatim
the direct commands of Allah. Then he would switch to the humble role of “messenger”
of what Allah had just commanded.
Muhammad wouldn’t recognize Mecca today.
It’s being Disneyfied by the Saudis into a lush pay-as-you-go pilgrimage madhouse
(or anthill), complete with luxury hotels and apartment towers, shopping malls,
and even a Starbucks and perhaps a halal
McDonald’s. Not that it ever wasn’t a madhouse in its brick-and-mortar days, a
whirling maelstrom of white-garbed bodies performing their stations of the
crescent moon around the Kaaba during the Hajj.
But the Saudi makeover of Mecca, to judge by the Daily
Telegraph pictorial
, resembles more Las Vegas than a pilgrimage destination,
with Muhammad the Unforgettable as its attraction.
F.W. Burleigh must be credited not only for
having researched Muhammad’s life and created a person with flesh and bones
(and an addled skull) from a vast storehouse of documented information, but for
having the courage to tell it “like it was” about history’s most notorious
“prophet.” His book is well worth the time to read.
I guarantee you will come away with a new
understanding of what makes Islam and jihadists
tick. Basically, it’s Muhammadan insanity armed with a razor-sharp sword
looking for a convenient neck to strike, or an empty, weak, malleable mind to
fill. And whether they’re called al-Qaeda, or the Taliban, or ISIS, or Hamas,
or Hezbollah, or the Muslim Brotherhood or any of its sundry and cousinly franchises
, they are all nihilistic psychotics.

Waltzing With the Straussians

If you’d asked me three months ago, who was
Leo Strauss, I’d have answered, “Didn’t he write polkas or operas?  Or was he a ne’er-do-well brother or cousin of
Johann or Richard?”
Email correspondents of mine have engaged
in a lengthy discussion centering on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s U.N.
speech
of September 29th and whether or not he was either a “Straussian” or
a tool of the “Straussians.” The statement by Netanyahu that precipitated the
discussion was, concerning the depredations of ISIS –  “It’s
not militants. It’s not Islam. It’s militant Islam.”
– in which he
makes a contentious distinction between Islam and jihadist violence in the name
of Islam. Readers know my position well enough: Islam is what Islam does – what
ISIS is doing – and has been doing for fourteen centuries.
However, not being familiar with Leo
Strauss, I investigated him and discovered some unsettling information. I had
expected to find that he was associated with the Frankfurt School, a
Marxist intellectual clique that emigrated to the U.S. from Nazi Germany in
1933. This was not the case. Shadia
Drury
, a Strauss scholar, wrote in an encyclopedia entry:
Leo Strauss
(1899-1973) was a German-Jewish émigré political philosopher and historian of
political thought, who wrote some fifteen
books
and eighty articles on the history of political thought from Socrates
to Nietzsche….
Strauss was born in
Kirchhain, Hessen, Germany. He studied at the Universities of Marburg and
Hamburg where he came into contact with Edmund Husserl and the young Martin
Heidegger. He left Germany in 1932 and eventually settled in the USA where from
1949 to 1968 he was professor of political science at the University of
Chicago. He amassed a sizeable following of devoted students, who have played a
significant role in US academic life and government.
And what did Strauss write? What did he
advocate? What influence did his devotees and disciples exert on academic life
and government? Apparently, he was a political Platonist.
Drury, in the encyclopedia entry, explains
that:
Strauss thought
that ancient philosophers understood this very well and that modern
philosophers were seriously misguided in thinking that rational self- interest
was a sufficient ground of social life. In Strauss’ view, the modern faith in
reason is at the heart of the ‘crisis of the West’. Reason has destroyed faith
and in so doing has opened the door to barbarism. Ancient philosophers
understood that reason and philosophy have a corrosive effect on the ‘city’, as
Strauss called the state. By the same token, Strauss was committed to
philosophy and had no intention of denouncing it out of hand. He therefore
argued that philosophy must be kept hidden or secret, not simply to permit
philosophers to avoid persecution, but for the sake of the people and for the
wellbeing of the city.
Drury continued:
Strauss’ discovery
of esotericism led him to advance unusual interpretations of classic texts. For
example, Strauss argued that Plato wrote dialogues in order to conceal his true
thinking. And contrary to popular belief, Strauss denied that Socrates was
Plato’s mouthpiece. He thought that in the Republic Thrasymachus, not
Socrates, was Plato’s true spokesman. According to Strauss, the argument made
by Socrates was simply Plato’s exoteric teaching. In arguing that justice leads
to happiness, Socrates was displaying his sophistic skill–that is to say, his
ability to make the weaker argument appear the better.
Strauss thought
that the Socratic argument in favor of justice could not succeed. He was
certain that Plato was wise enough to realize that Thrasymachus was right–that
justice is a function of power, and that in acting justly one serves the
interest of others and not oneself. Strauss surmised that Socrates must have
taken Thrasymachus aside and explained to him that his views were true, but too
dangerous to express publicly. In this way, Socrates managed to silence
Thrasymachus without refuting him. For Strauss, the truth is a luxury meant
only for the few who hunger for the reality behind the necessary myths and
illusions of the city.
In short, as Drury discusses, Strauss
implicitly in some places in his writing, and in others explicitly, endorsed
the notion that the elite few – meaning philosophers and select intellectuals –
have the task to rule the “masses” by instilling in them a
religious/nationalist mantra, and to act as interpreters of the “shadows” in
the caves of their consciousnesses. The elite will also manipulate the shadows
for the greater good. Lying to and deceiving the public were justified, because
reason and morality, according to Strauss, were incapable of sustaining a state
of stability in society. Drury explicates Strauss’s position:
According to Strauss, the fundamental issue that divides ancient and modern
thinkers is the relative importance of reason and revelation in human life.
Modem philosophers such as HOBBES and LOCKE, exalt reason and believe that a
political order can be founded on purely rational and secular principles. But
Strauss believed that this modern liberal project was doomed to failure. He
thought that reason cannot provide the requisite support for moral and
political life; what is needed is belief in a transcendent God who punishes the
wicked and rewards the righteous….
Reason has destroyed
faith and in so doing has opened the door to barbarism. Ancient philosophers
understood that reason and philosophy have a corrosive effect on the ‘city’, as
Strauss called the state.
On the contrary, reason did not destroy
faith. In the West, it was eventually confined to personal beliefs and banished
from secular politics.  
(Also, on the contrary, I’m certain that
Thomas Hobbes, who endorsed supreme state power over everyone and everything,
never exalted reason in any realm. The state was all, the individual nothing.
See The Leviathan
for further details, and a neoconservative’s discussion of it here.)
And, speaking of neoconservatives and their
obsession with religion as the sole foundation of society and government, Jim
Lobe of AlterNet,
in May 2003, more succinctly and directly explained Straussian politics in his
blog entry, “Leo
Strauss’ Philosophy of Deception
”:
Strauss is a
popular figure among the neoconservatives. Adherents of his ideas include
prominent figures both within and outside the administration. They include
‘Weekly Standard’ editor William Kristol; his father and indeed the godfather
of the neoconservative movement, Irving Kristol; the new Undersecretary of
Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, a number of senior fellows at the
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (home to former Defense Policy Board
chairman Richard Perle and Lynne Cheney), and Gary Schmitt, the director of the
influential Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which is chaired by
Kristol the Younger.
It’s hardly
surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration [George W.
Bush’s] obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign
policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics,
he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy,
Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an
elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow
elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these
leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of
Calgary, Strauss believed that “those who are fit to rule are those who
realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the
right of the superior to rule over the inferior.”
One must wonder why Strauss considered
Hobbes’s concept of the perfect polity – a state with absolute power – to be an
antithesis to his own conception of the workable polity. Lobe notes later on in
his column:
Like Thomas Hobbes,
Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could
only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. “Because mankind is
intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed,” he once wrote. “Such
governance can only be established, however, when men are united – and they can
only be united against other people.”
Not surprisingly,
Strauss’ attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian.
“Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united
by an external threat,” Drury wrote in her book. “Following
Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to
be manufactured
(emphases added).”
“Perpetual
war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in,” says Drury.
Offhand, one movie that dramatizes that
policy, Wag the Dog, in
which an incumbent U.S. president, on the eve of a national election, is caught
in a sex scandal and to distract the electorate from it, a fictive war is
dreamed up by a “spin doctor” with the help of a Hollywood producer. On
television, both British and American versions of “The
House of Cards
” dramatize the pursuit of power by the principle characters
by posing as advocates for “social justice” and other “manufactured” causes.
George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four is an exemplary demonstration of that policy
in literature, in which an absolutist government keeps its populace in check and
in thrall with constant warfare, aside from lies by policy about every aspect
of the populace’s condition. In contemporary political commentary, see Daniel
Greenfield’s excellent essay, “The
Empire of Progressive Poverty
” for a discussion of the mechanisms of
reducing a wealthy country into an impoverished one, with a populace dependent
on the state.  Greenfield notes, and
might agree that it is a Straussian tactic, that:
Global Warming
rhetoric is still couched in the usual social justice rhetoric, aimed at the
poorer kleptocracies who are eager to join the line for a handout, but its
logic is poverty driven. It is not out to create wealth, but to eliminate it,
on the grounds that cheaply available food or electricity is an immoral
activity that damages the planet.
The Empire of
Poverty is chiefly concerned with the impoverishing of the West, to maintain
the manufactured scarcities of its water empire it has gone beyond taxation to
entirely shutting down or crippling entire branches of human activity….
The Empire of Poverty
is rising on the skeleton of the West, it is eating out its abundance and
preparing to lock down power, food, transportation, medical services and
countless other elements of the commercial life of the formerly free world.
Concerning the “right” of the “superior” to
lord it over the “inferior” by any means possible, including falsehoods and
manipulation, Jim Lobe lifts the veil of “transparency” from Straussian
politics:
This dichotomy
requires “perpetual deception” between the rulers and the ruled, according
to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says, “The people are told what
they need to know and no more.” While the elite few are capable of
absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not
cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into
nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of ‘Leo Strauss and the
American Right’ (St. Martin’s 1999)….
According to Drury,
Strauss had a “huge contempt” for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed,
was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar
Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a
much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the
Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on
the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as
absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise
would be out of control.
At the same time,
he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be
bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths
proclaimed by religion were “a pious fraud.” As Ronald Bailey,
science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, “Neoconservatives
are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers.”
Lobe concludes his and Drury’s evaluation
of the Straussians, vis-à-vis the relationship between their relationship as a
ruling elite with the masses.
“They really
have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they’re conquering the world in
the name of liberalism and democracy,” Drury says.
Shadia Drury has an interesting video on YouTube, in which she
answers questions about observable manifestations of Straussian politics. I
don’t agree with some of her premises, but it is an otherwise clear explanation
of how the Straussians work behind the scenes and oft times in public. The
system she describes is clearly fascist in nature, given the
government-business “partnership” in politics and public affairs.
 Another
reservation about the Straussians and Leo Strauss I have is that they reflect
the collapse of philosophy and one instance among many of the abandonment of
reason. There is much truth in the Straussian theory, but it smacks also of a conspiracy
theory. Conspiracy theories usually allege that a cabal of evil geniuses is
manipulating people, things, and events. It’s interesting how a description the
secretive Straussians meshes neatly with the description of, say,
Rosicrucianism.  
Rosicrucianism
is a philosophical secret society said to have been founded in late medieval
Germany by Christian Rosenkreuz.  It
holds a doctrine or theology “built on esoteric truths of the ancient
past”, which, “concealed from the average man, provide insight into
nature, the physical universe and the spiritual realm.”
If Straussians go by the collective name of
“neoconservatives” who alone know “nature” and have all the answers and look to
God for guidance and possess the power to fiddle with the public’s perceptions,
then the Rosicrucian shoes fit.  Shadia Drury, in her September
2003 paper, “Saving
America: Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives
,” observed:
The trouble with
the Straussians is that they are compulsive liars. But it is not altogether
their fault. Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was
convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the
truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society – specially a liberal
society – because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the
truth as Strauss understood it.
Strauss’s disciples
have inherited a superiority complex as well as a persecution complex. They are
convinced that they are the superior few who know the truth and are entitled to
rule. But they are afraid to speak the truth openly, lest they are persecuted
by the vulgar many who do not wish to be ruled by them. This explains why they
are eager to misrepresent the nature of Strauss’s thought. They are afraid to
reveal that Strauss was a critic of liberalism and democracy, lest he be
regarded as an enemy of America. So, they wrap him in the American flag and
pretend that he is a champion of liberal democracy for political reasons –
their own quest for power. The result is that they run roughshod over truth as
well as democracy….
But Strauss’s
American disciples continue to complain that they are oppressed, beleaguered,
and ostracized by the liberal academy, and the equally liberal media. But
surely, these are crocodile tears.

The Straussians are the most powerful, the most organized, and the best-funded
scholars in Canada and the United States. They are the unequalled masters of
right-wing think tanks, foundations, and corporate funding. And now they have
the ear of the powerful in the White House. Nothing could have pleased Strauss
more; for he believed that intellectuals have an important role to play in
politics.

As far as the ear of the current occupant
of the White House goes, it is strictly, exclusively, and transparently
receptive to Marxist theory and  practice
as codified by Saul Alinsky. All the Straussians can do at the moment is react,
and not define and steer policy from behind the Oval Office throne. But if a
Republican claims that throne in 2016, the Straussians-cum-neoconservatives
will be back in business after also claiming that they duped the electorate
into electing him.
Come 2016, if my name is on some Straussian’s
dance card, I think I’ll leave the ballroom to duck out for a smoke.

Global Warming ≥ ISIS = The Truth

 Inspired by a column by Sultan Knish about how
Global Warming is blamed by our liberal intellectual elite for the rise of
ISIS, or the Islamic State, Covering
Up Islamic Terrorism for Fun and Profit
,” I decided to expand on his
satirical remarks.
Of course, Global Warming has caused ISIS
to rise like cookie dough on steroids!  I
say that not meaning to impugn the character of ISIS, it has every right to
rise if it wants to.  But, it’s a simple
explanation not beyond the ken of your average liberal or Code Pinky or
transsexual or Democrat. The rise of ISIS is directly analogous to the rise of
ocean levels from melting polar icecaps from Global Warming. If a blackboard
was handy, I could show you the parallels with some deft strokes of my chalk.
Much of the Mideast is subjected to intense
heat and aridity and just downright miserable environmental and living conditions,
worse conditions than in historic memory. So naturally all those ISIS fighters, in order to acclimatize
themselves to the unbearable, exhausting conditions, swathe their heads in
masks of various kinds, swear off barbers, grow itchy, unkempt, long beards,
live and fight in sweltering conditions, wear uncomfortable garb, sweat like
pigs — excuse me, like very thirsty camels — enjoy the heat of battle, just
love their weapons growing hotter in their hands as they fire thousands of
rounds at fleeing civilians and Iraqi soldiers, and digging mass graves,
dripping gallons of salty bodily fluids while marching along dusty roads when
no trucks or SUVs or Humvees are available to take them to the next village to
overrun, rutting like rabbits on screaming female captives, posing in Calvin
Klein male burqas (made in China, as are all their keffiyahs) to behead Shi’ite captives or  Western journalists or Christians or some
other infidels or unbelievers, burning down churches, posing in odiferous
bunches under the hot, merciless sun for group photographs to send home to
friends and family in Europe….
I mean, it’s all hard work, don’t you know,
and Global Warming doesn’t make it any easier. There’s even a verse in the Koran, dictated by the angel Gabriel (Mohammad
nicknamed it – gender unknown – “Gabby”) into Mohammad’s ear in Allah’s own
words, forbidding Muslims from causing Global Warming, and to kill polluters
and greenhouse gas aficionados wherever they might be found and sending them to
hellfire. To wit:
Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their
homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much
greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.”
Quran (9:20.1a) – “Those who defile and offend my
Creation with greenhouse gases and other foul aerial and solidified,
un-recycled pestilences are the enemies of my Works, strike at their necks
wherever you may find them or wherever they may hide, behind rocks, trees,
bushes, sand dunes, hillocks, outhouses, mountains,  dead camels, stop signs, and even the Kaaba.”

 
Furthermore, ISIS hasn’t declared war on the West — nor has Islam, to tell the truth
– just because it refuses to acknowledge Allah as the one and only God and that
Mohammad is his messenger. Islam and ISIS are laboring mightily under a ubiquitous
and libelous misconception.
It is actually because it’s Dar al-Kufr (the West) that causes Global
Warming. ISIS just wants to put a stop to it, that’s all. See? It’s that simple
and so transparent, just as President Barack Obama’s administration has been. Who
needs The Kyoto Protocol when you have ISIS working overtime to control Global
Warming?
Furthermore, I wouldn’t dismiss the notion
as nonsensical, as some pundits do, that the Koran was caused by Global Warming, especially the violent verses
in it. Anyone who knows his global climate data can demonstrate that Mohammad
flourished in the Mideast at a time of extraordinary global climate change. It
was intolerably hot in that region then, too, and it drove Mohammad to extreme violence
to spread his new religion, helped not a little by his sensitive frontal lobe
and epileptic episodes.  In old-time
Mecca, many non-Muslim Arabs complained that he exceeded the limits of
“moderate” violence in pursuing his ends, but to no avail.
For example, once, when the Kaaba
caught fire in Mecca – at the time, it was just a bungalow-sized wooden shack. Mohammad
had just converted it from a pagan temple – it contained an assortment of
statues of nude gods and goddesses – into Allah’s gift to Islam. Many Meccan
tribesmen rushed to the local wells to bring back water to put it out, all
except the Ruwallah.
Noticing them standing idly by, chewing on sunflower seeds and peach pits, he
angrily confronted them and asked them why they refused to help extinguish the
fire.
The senior Ruwaili snorted and replied with some indignation: “The Ruwallah do not
carry water!”
Mohammad ordered
the extinction of the tribe, and the enslavement of its women and girls, the
pretty ones, at least. The men and boys got a free shave and a haircut, for two
bits.
So, Mohammad is entirely blameless for the
murderous jihad he waged for years
and anyone who says otherwise is an Islamophobe and a racist and lower than
pigs and apes. And dogs.
Of course, the West couldn’t be blamed for Global
Warming back then, because after Rome fell the West was expiring into the Dark
Ages. Some smart person ought to research and write a book on how Global
Warming caused Mohammad to author the Koran
(although he was an illiterate nut case and psychopath, diazepam be upon him).
Even his warped prefrontal lobe and epilepsy can be blamed on climate change.
A contemporary medical expert, upon
observing Mohammad’s behavior near the Kaaba
before he inaugurated his permanent jihad,
had remarked to a companion: “His dopamine delivery system has really gone
haywire. It’s unseasonably hot today, isn’t it? That might have something to do
with his peculiar calisthenics, too. That banging his head on the ground can’t
be doing his frontal lobe much good.”
Muhammad’s loyal friend, booking agent,
pitchman, and public relations expert, Abu Bakr, overheard the remark, and
suggested quietly to his employer that the fellow be beheaded. This was done,
not so quietly. Muhammad had to make a public example of the hapless physician
who had questioned the credibility of his messengerhood.  [Koran,
2.217b(d)sub.j]
Let’s stop slandering Mohammad and
misrepresenting ISIS and Islam, and buttonhole the West, instead. It’s Global
Warming that drives ISIS to commit its regrettable excesses, not any kind of
ideological penchant for savagery and bloodlust.  
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Allah
said so.

The Corrosive Power of Political Correctness

The politically correct fear of affronting
Muslims is so infectious and poisonous it will lead a man who takes an
otherwise commendable and irrefutable position on Islam to make a fallacious
distinction between Islam and its allegedly “militant” adherents and
practitioners.
In one sentence, apparently calculated to
mollify Muslims and Islamic states of all stripes, including ISIS, Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated:
It occurs in the fourth paragraph of Netanyahu’s
speech
to the UN on September 29th, 2014.
It’s
not militants. It’s not Islam. It’s militant Islam.
Typically, its
first victims are other Muslims, but it spares no one. Christians, Jews,
Yazidis, Kurds – no creed, no faith, no ethnic group is beyond its sights. And
it’s rapidly spreading in every part of the world. You know the famous American
saying: “All politics is local”? For the militant Islamists, “All politics is
global.” Because their ultimate goal is to dominate the world….
Robert Spencer of Jihad
Watch
called the Prime Minister’s speech “brilliant.” Indeed, it is that in
many respects. But that one sentence has dimmed its brilliance with that single
corrosive politically correct statement.
That single sentence undercuts the clarity
and force of the rest of his speech. I won’t be the only one to have noticed it
and measured its import on the balance of the speech and Netanyahu’s position
on the threat of ISIS, Hamas, and all the other terrorist gangs he names. Our
enemies will have noticed it and evaluated it and reached the same conclusion:
He has pulled back from a blanket condemning of Islam root, trunk, branch and
twig.
So when it comes to
their ultimate goals, Hamas is ISIS and ISIS is Hamas.
And what they share
in common, all militant Islamists share in common: • Boko Haram in Nigeria; •
Ash-Shabab in Somalia; • Hezbollah in Lebanon; • An-Nusrah in Syria; • The Mahdi
Army in Iraq; • And the Al-Qaeda branches in Yemen, Libya, the Philippines,
India and elsewhere.
I really never expected Netanyahu to repeat
the sentiment oft expressed by a political enemy of his, President Barack
Obama
, that the West is not at war with Islam.
Not to mention the supposedly “lone wolf”
jihadists in America and Europe, who have their own personal ways of waging
jihad and becoming “martyrs”: beheadings in Oklahoma and New York and London,
bombings in Boston, the Ft. Hood massacre, honor-killings, sex grooming gangs, sex
slavery brothels, female genital mutilation, anti-Semitism, and etc.
However: “Militant” Islam is “radical” Islam
is “extremist” Islam is “moderate” Islam and however else one wishes to style Islam.
Sugar-coating Islam by divorcing it from itself, from its fundamental nature
and political ends, isn’t going to bring about any kind of peace except that of
the graveyard.
It still reads like the ubiquitous,
off-the-rack denial uttered by Barack
Obama
and other politicians and pundits that Islam
isn’t evil
at root, that it’s a religion of “peace.”  But, in whose time? Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain waved a piece of paper and proclaimed it heralded “peace in our
time.” What he got was war, because Hitler had his own time schedule, and it
didn’t include “peace” until he was finished conquering Europe. 
Like a broken record, Obama told the UN
General Assembly on September 24th:
…[W]e have
reaffirmed that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam.
Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a
sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and
them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the
fabric of our country.
Again, Islam can’t be anything but “militant.” Was there a difference
between Nazism and “militant” Nazism? Between Communism and “militant”
Communism? The distinctions are as artificial and delusionary for those
totalitarian systems as they are for Islam.  It’s one and the same. Netanyahu continued,
making sure he was speaking of “militant” Islam:
Some are radical
Sunnis, some are radical Shi’ites. Some want to restore a pre-medieval
caliphate from the 7th century. Others want to trigger the apocalyptic return
of an imam from the 9th century. They operate in different lands, they target
different victims and they even kill each other in their quest for supremacy.
But they all share a fanatic ideology. They all seek to create ever expanding
enclaves of militant Islam where there is no freedom and no tolerance – Where
women are treated as chattel, Christians are decimated, and minorities are
subjugated, sometimes given the stark choice: convert or die. For them, anyone
can be an infidel, including fellow Muslims.
Ladies and
Gentlemen, Militant Islam’s ambition to dominate the world seems mad. But so
too did the global ambitions of another fanatic ideology that swept to power
eight decades ago.
The Nazis believed
in a master race. The militant Islamists believe in a master faith. They just
disagree about who among them will be the master… of the master faith. That’s
what they truly disagree about. Therefore, the question before us is whether
militant Islam will have the power to realize its unbridled ambitions.
Yes, because exempting Islam from complete
repudiation and moral judgment empowers Islam to continue its mass depredations
– against Israel, against the U.S., against Europe – against the world. Netanyahu’s
qualifier was completely unnecessary and represents the intellectual and moral
virus that is guaranteed to undermine any short-range military action against
it and render such action futile.
An instance of how virulent the politically
correct fear of “offending” Muslims can affect the minds of those faced with
the indisputable evidence of Islamic terrorism: the Oklahoma prosecutor will not suggest that Alton Nolan’s beheading
of Colleen Hufford at Vaughn Foods in Moore was Islamic jihad or a terrorist
act, but as merely the commission of first
degree murder
. In his Washington Post article of September 29th, “After
a beheading in Oklahoma
, debate over what to call it,” Mark Berman wrote:
Authorities have not called the Oklahoma beheading terrorism, instead
saying that it appears to be a case of workplace violence. Some commentators
and politicians have disagreed with this assessment. Television host Joe
Scarborough said this was due to “political correctness.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who
is considering another presidential campaign in 2016, told Fox News that this
appears to be “an act of violence that is associated with terrorism.”
Charging an individual who has committed a
crime is the proper action to take.
All crimes committed domestically in the U.S. in the name of Islam should be
treated as crimes, divorced from an individual’s motive. Secular law should
discount a criminal’s reason for committing a crime. That in itself, in
practical terms, would serve to deflate the importance of any religious
sanctioning of the crime. Western secular law is in direct conflict with
Islamic Sharia law, which should be banned from all levels of America jurisprudence,
and also from law enforcement.  
Charging Alton Nolan with first degree
murder and aggravated assault – as crimes – will serve to focus on Islam as an
incubatory ideology that sanctions crime, and also serve to remind prosecutors
and others in the judiciary and in Congress that Islam is our mortal enemy.
On September 30th, Sean Murphy of The
Associated Press
muddied the waters of clarity:
An Oklahoma man
apparently uttered Arabic words during an attack in which he allegedly severed
a co-worker’s head, and had “some sort of infatuation with
beheadings,” but the killing appeared to have more to do with the man’s
suspension from his job than his recent conversion to Islam, a prosecutor said
Tuesday. Alton Nolen, 30, could face the death penalty after being charged with
first-degree murder in the attack Thursday that authorities say appears to have
been an act of revenge for a co-worker’s complaint that got him suspended.
The FBI also is
investigating the attack, given Nolen’s interest in beheadings and a recent
surge in Middle East violence. “There was some sort of infatuation with
beheadings. It seemed to be related to his interest in killing someone that
way,” Cleveland County Prosecutor Greg Mashburn said. “Other than
that, it seemed to be related to his being suspended earlier in the day.”
“It had more
to do with race rather than trying to convert people,” Mashburn said. He
said there was a “back and forth with Ms. Johnson and that led her to make
a complaint to the HR department.”
Apparently, not publically recognizing Nolan’s crime as an act of Islamic
terrorism – despite Nolan’s record of  proselytizing Islam, having his body tattooed
with Islamic symbols, and loading his Face Book page with Islamic materials – is
the safer way of not being tarred with the brush of “Islamophobia.”
End states that support, finance, and encourage
Islamic terrorism. That will mean taking out at least one major sponsor of Islam
terrorism, Iran or Saudi Arabia, which  are at the top of the list. Small fry like
Qatar and the U.A.E. and Libya and Yemen will submit to the West – and not the
other way around.  

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén