The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: January 2015 Page 1 of 2

Global Urban Renewal

An unholy alliance between former
president Al Gore, former Mexican president Felipe Calderon, and Britain’s Prince
Charles, and the entire membership of the World Economic Forum, affectionately
nicknamed by its lower echelon members, “The Chicken Little Society,” but sourly
discouraged by senor members, has formed, and it has a plan for you.  
An article by Daniel Greenfield
on FrontPage on January 28th put me onto the trail of another horrendous idea
from the whirligig  mind of Al Gore, “Al
Gore Wants to Spend $90 Trillion to Create a World Without Cars
.”
If you ever wanted to live in a giant slum with no way to
get anywhere except by waiting on the poorly operated local public transit
system in hock to municipal systems, you can have it for just $90 trillion. Come on. That’s pocket
change. And just
think, you’ll be able to live
in a horrible futuristic nightmare.
(See either “Soylent Green,” “Logan’s Run,” “Metropolis,” “THX 1138,” or sunless, always-raining
Los Angeles in “Blade Runner
for a foretaste of your future – if Gore’s fantasy gels into reality.)
“Former Vice President Al Gore and Mexican President Felipe
Calderon proposed a $90 trillion plan to redesign every city on earth so that
motor vehicles would become obsolete due to more dense populations.”
It is a scheme to relieve you of
the time, expense, and bother of owning a car. And also of owning your own
home, of having nice neighbors, of your privacy, of your career, and of living
your own life. Gore and Calderon have better uses for your time on earth as a
reckless and irresponsible occupant. Western
Journalism
reported:
“We cannot have these
cities with low density, designed for the use of cars,” Calderon said. “We
recommend those cities should have more density and more mass transportation.”
The
better for you to be stamped, hole-punched, assigned a number, and bar-coded so
you can be better managed, controlled, redirected, watched, and reduced to
serfdom and dependency.
Remember
that Calderon was president of a country that keeps sending hordes of illegal
immigrants across our border to idle American workers or become welfare state “clients.”
 It’s all for your own good. Don’t complain.
Don’t you want a clean, safe, and healthy planet?
No,
we can’t have “low density” cities. They’ve got to be evacuated, emptied out,
declared forbidden zones, and ploughed under for Mother Earth to reclaim in her
own good time. Everyone now living in them should be forcibly moved to the
giant, high-density slum where everyone and his mother is underfoot and in the
way. In the 1930’s and 1940’s this was called compulsory “resettlement.” When
all cities are scoured of cars, and you have been dispossessed, you will be a
displaced person until a walk-in closet has been assigned to you by your
friendly government real estate agent or licensed and certified relocater. When
your time to “move” comes, remember that you will be allowed to take only what
will fit into a carry-on bag, or a back-pack. 
Gore
and Calderon can always start with Tokyo, Japan, the city with
the highest population in the world. People living in nice homes in the suburbs
can be moved into their own shacks with tin roofs and plywood walls and no
sewage and haphazard running water and electricity. You’ll be greeted by friendly
neighborhood criminals who’d be happy to relieve you of your valuables. They
won’t be stealing hubcaps off your car, either, because you won’t have a car. Cars,
except for official ones, will be illegal. They’ll settle for the food you’re
about to put into your mouth. The more efficient criminals will be hired by the
government as roving “consumption cops” and “ration enforcement
patrols.”
You
won’t be able to escape Gore Town or Calderon Ciudad except with a special
travel pass and permit, but they’ll be hard to come by because you’ll need to
have a legitimate purpose for exiting the city. Your sick mother on the other
side of the country just won’t qualify. She’ll need to take her cough medicine
by herself. Bereavement leave will never be denied; just don’t have so many
relatives who may die at any moment. Gore and Calderon will have taken a leaf
from Maryland which taxes rainfall runoff from your property, and imposed a
“breathing tax” for every cubic square foot of oxygen you inhale, and
also tax your CO2 exhalents, to help control greenhouse gases. After all,
plants have got to breathe, too. 
It’s
all for the good of Mother Earth, you see. If you don’t buy the Global Warming
mantra, then you must be a racist, or a bigot, or are certifiably “disturbed.” 
Business
Insider
asked Calderon where the $90 trillion was going to come from to
finance this global urban renewal:
Business Insider spoke
briefly with Calderon after the panel to ask him to explain where this $90
trillion was going to come from and how exactly one might persuade every city
on earth to go along with it.
It turns out the $90
trillion is the total of infrastructure investment that is likely to be spent
anyway building and upgrading cities. Gore and Calderon are arguing that it be
spent more wisely, to produce cities that don’t encourage people to burn fossil
fuels just to get from A to B.
Not
to be outdone by Al Gore and Felipe Calderon, and envious of the limelight
being shined on them at Davos, Prince Charles has joined in a pact with them to
make the earth safer…for the earth, and for the plants. Eager to display his stratospheric
intellectual prowess and grasp of history, he has proposed that nations sign up
for a “New
Magna Carta
for the Earth” to combat global warming. The Guardian, ever excited
by any gossamer-like idea that wafts from the Prince’s head, quoted him in
its January 26th article by Fiona Harvey, “Prince
Charles: global pact on climate change could be Magna Carta for earth”:

Sort of plagiarizing former Obama staffer and now mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel
to “never let a serious crisis go to waste,” Charles solemnly offered his “thoughts”: 
A new global pact on
climate change, due to be signed this year in Paris, should be a “Magna Carta
for the Earth”, Prince
Charles
has urged.
He said this year
marked potentially the “last chance” to save the world from the perils of
global warming, with the Paris conference and the United Nations’ plan to
replace the millennium development goals with a new set of sustainable
development targets. “We simply cannot let this opportunity go to waste. There
is just too much at stake, and has been for far too long.”
He told a meeting of
forestry and climate experts in London: “In the 800th anniversary year of the
Magna Carta, perhaps this year’s agreement of the new sustainable development
goals and a new climate agreement in Paris should be seen as a new Magna Carta
for the Earth, and humanity’s relationship with it.”
Global
warming! Also known as “climate
change
.” Weather forecasters have been arm-wrestling with “climate change”
ever since the invention of television, and have generally made a poor showing.
But Charles has the problem licked. He’s a college graduate, you know. He went
to Cambridge. The savant has spoken. 
Of
course, Al Gore, Prince Charles, and Felipe Calderon and others of the elite won’t
be your next-door neighbors. They’ll be living across town in triple-gated enclaves
and sanctuaries with guards armed with .50 caliber machine guns fixed with
night scopes to deter intrusive burglaries, or resting from their labors in
their similarly secured mansions in the countryside. They’ll be far away from
the noise and ordure of the general population, planning more population engineering
controls.
They’re
saviors of mankind, even though they’ll have sentenced it to grinding and
perilous poverty. But, after all, isn’t life nasty, brutish, and short,
for every one of us, except for occasional episodes of numbness? Why would you
want to prolong it? 
Our
and the planet’s saviors, of course, will experience the joy of remaking the
world in their own minds. You and countless other minions will be but tiny,
insignificant elements of a megalopolis tree
house
world.  Still, our saviors will
expect to be swamped with expressions of gratitude.
Excess
population issues will be referred to death panels which will order malcontents,
recidivists, and other useless people to “joy camps,” where they will be relieved
of the grimy burden of living and as charges upon the planet and society. These
panels will be dubbed “Compassionate Human Recycling Referral Committees.”  As long as the hoi polloi is controlled, managed, redirected, kept busy, and in
everyone’s way, and where they can be exploited to the best advantage, Gore and
their World Economic Forum ilk will have achieved their goal of a
“well-balanced and contended populace.” And of a happy planet.
Every
city can begin to “de-auto” by contracting with new companies that are
converting retired shipping containers into housing units.  While not as commodious or attractive as a
Frank Lloyd Wright’s pre-fab Usonian
House or even a mobile home in a trailer park – trailer parks??  Those are right out, they require cars! –
they may prove to be an economic solution to stacking people on top of each
other as high as the ozone layer.  PFNC Global
Communities
will await government contracts for starter kits. 
 With operations in New Mexico, PFNC has built
a prototype 320-square-foot home.  The home, although small, has room for
a kitchen, bath, toilet, and sleeping areas.  It also has windows for
natural ventilation, electrical and water systems, and hookups for air conditioning. 
But no room for a library, pool table, pictures, or
kids. IQ
Container Homes
will also be in queue for the filthy subsidy lucre, as
well.
Here
is a tiny home built out of a recycled shipping container that is a great
example of just how easy it is to create a comfortable and functional home
using one of these awesome building blocks. The home was ingeniously designed
by Brenda Kelly of IQ Container Homes, and built from a single 20-foot shipping
container.
Brenda
has been a fan of cargotecture for a while now, and she has now used all she
learned in her career to design her tiny home. The house measures just 107
square feet, and she kept it this small so that she did not require a council
building permit.
Neither Brenda nor anyone else will be able to
perform a pas de deux in one of these
walled zoo cages, but who will want to dance after being shoe-horned into one’s
new high-density home? What did you need with all that other space for anyway?
To indulge your personal preferences at the expense of the earth? How selfish
of you! Remember! The rule is: To each according to his abilities (or value to
society), to each according to his spatial needs. Dissenters in our
high-density world of tomorrow will have their mouths duct-taped.
There will be controls on noise pollution, too! So,
watch what you say! Speech monitors, incognito,
like “secret shoppers,” with the authority to arrest, will be riding those
natural gas-powered buses, solar-powered elevated trains, and windmill-powered
subways in a wonderful mass transportation system, on the alert for careless
dissatisfaction.  Clean energy will mean
clean minds and clean speech! You’ll be expected to be an enthusiastic citizen
of your of your high-density community, and carry banners proclaiming that and
other truths in parades. A lack of enthusiasm will be frowned upon with deleterious
consequences.
So, welcome to the Megalopolis conceived of by that
triumvirate of visionaries, Gore, Calderon, and Charles. “Home, Sweet Home” will
never sound the same again.
You won’t be saying it much.

The Muslim’s Conundrum

One of the most succinctly put
conundrums facing “moderate,” passive, non-violent Muslims was cogently put by Saba E. Demian in his Gatestone article of January 25th, “Europe’s
Civil War: The Politics of Separateness
.” In it he states:
One unanswered question is whether Islam is a
religion of peace. First, the Arabic word Islam does not mean
“peace” but an act of subjugation to God (Allah) and His will.
Second, the basis and teaching of Islam is understood universally to consider
non-Muslims as infidels. Third, infidels have to be wiped out [or compelled to
submit to Islam and pay jizya or the
protection tax] There is no gainsaying the word of Allah in the Koran, the hadith
of the Prophet Muhammad and the shari’a. Thus, Muslims by birth or
conversion, regardless of whether they are ultraconservative, moderates or
secularists, are trapped in this vise-grip of enforcing the will of Allah on
everyone, non-Muslim or Muslim, if they veer away from the straight and narrow.
[Brackets mine]
Or attempt to veer away from the contentious, violence-sanctioning
elements of Islam, or to renounce Islam, or to repudiate it.
And there you have it: Muslims of whatever stripe are stuck between a
rock and a hard place – between the totalitarian nature of Islam, and its
absolute, non-negotiable imperatives of Islamic dogma. Demian is one of the
very few analysts and critics of Islam who clearly, correctly, and honestly
dissects Islam’s comprehensive character without reservations or qualifications
about “benign,” non-violent Muslims.  There is nothing in Demian’s statement that
suggests: “Oh, not all Muslims are bad people. Many wouldn’t harm a fly,” or,
“There are nice Muslims who want to reform Islam to make it compatible with
Western culture.”
Except that Islam can’t be reformed without killing it. The violent verses in the Koran
are the principal sources of any power it might have. Remove them, or concoct
pretzel-like explanations of what they don’t mean, and what you’d have left is
an unstructured mishmash of banal homilies and exhortations to be a “good” Muslim,
whatever that might mean. “Kill
the Jew hiding behind a tree
” doesn’t mean “kill him with Seinfeld jokes,” and
by your right hand
possess
” doesn’t mean embracing a woman’s waist during a ballroom dance.
And your friendly Muslim next door may regard you as less
than a fly
and eminently swatable.
As Saudi Imam Issa
Assiri recently lectured his congregation in Jeddah earlier this month about
the Charlie Hebdo massacre by devout Muslims on January 7th:
“When someone
curses or mocks the Prophet Muhammad – what should be his punishment? Cursing
or mocking the Prophet is an act of apostasy, as all scholars concur, whether
it is done seriously or in jest. Anyone who does this, Muslim or infidel, must
be killed, even if he repents.”
                     
The violent verses in Islam’s sacred texts, whether they’re read in
Arabic or in English or any other translation, are quite clear and unambiguous.
 Because they are supposedly Allah’s own
words, one must take those verses literally, and not attempt to “interpret”
them or quote them out of the context, as Allah’s words as supposedly whispered
into Mohammad’s ear are unalterable and exempt from correction, emendation, and
line-editing. They mean what they mean. Period. For example, in the Shi’ite
view of the rape of women capture by jihadists,
Koran 4.24 says:
“And all married women (are forbidden unto
you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of
Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek
them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye
seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And
there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath
been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.”
This applies especially if the captured spouse of the married woman has
been beheaded or otherwise slain. Married one moment, widowed the next. And
then the Muslim warrior can do with her what he wishes.      
The verse does not imply that the jihadist
(or Muslim) will set up house with his captive and live in permanent marital
bliss. “Temporary” means a one-night stand for both the Muslim, who may already
be married, and the woman. Or it can mean the immediate or eventual rape of a
captured woman. The Religion of
Peace
site focuses on this aspect of sex slavery or “temporary” marriages
or permanent and involuntary concubinage. To wit:
Qur’an
(33:50)
“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom
thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses
out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”
 This
is one of several personal-sounding verses “from Allah” narrated by
Muhammad – in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex
partners.  Other Muslims are restrained to four wives, but, following the
example of their prophet, may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the
following verse make clear:
Qur’an
(23:5-6)
“..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to
them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands
possess…”
   This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex
with his slaves.  See also Qur’an
(70:29-30)
.  The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable
space to repeat the same point four times, then sex slavery must be very
important to him.
Qur’an
(4:24)
“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those
(captives) whom your right hands possess.”
  Even sex with married
slaves is permissible.
Qur’an
(8:69)
“But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and
good”
  A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a
part.  The Muslim slave master may enjoy his “catch” because
(according to verse 71)
“Allah gave you mastery over them.”
It’s not an issue of having your cake and eating it, too. It’s an issue
that Muslims must eat the whole cake, and not what is convenient
for them to consume, or of what is palatable from individual Muslim to
individual Muslim, for otherwise they will have no authentic Islamic identity.
They must wage jihad (internally as a chronic
anxiety, or externally by violence
against infidels or Muslims of another sect). If it is only by internally
wracking one’s brains about whether or not one’s submission to Allah is
sincere, with no visible actions taken against the infidel or to advance the
conquest of the West, and developing a neurosis about it, only then can one be
called a conscientious Muslim. Otherwise, he is a MINO, or a Muslim in name
only.
The alternative is to wage violent jihad
against everyone and everything that is not by definition or is not perceived
by Muslims as Islamic. This requires the jihadist
to prefer death and “martyrdom” to life.
Reading the Koran and the Hadith, both of which were
works-in-progress for centuries, one naturally gets the sense that they were
being made up as the interpreters and scholars went along.
What’s to stop them from realizing their desire for death? What stops conscientious
Muslims from jumping off Brooklyn Bridge or slitting their wrists in bathtub? The
knowledge that they can’t take everyone who loves life with them; they want to
hear us scream before we die. They won’t be satisfied until they know that no one is left alive who loves life. On
one hand, Muslims are the meek who want to inherit the earth. On the other
hand, if the meek can’t inherit the earth, if they are arrested in a kind of
Islamic stasis, then they want to
ensure that the living who love life won’t inherit it, either.
An earth cleansed of all infidels and Jews would be an Islamic earth:
desolate and inhabitable except for the Muslim manqués and the semi-zombies of
the faithful. That is the Islamic vision of existence. Heads, it’s death.
Tails, it’s death.  Islam is not a “religion
of peace,” but a death cult that worships and preaches a living death, or
literal death.
That is nihilism
with a capital N. This is what more Americans and Westerners must grasp, and
ignore the blandishments and excuses and evasions of our corrupted,
ostrich-like political, academic, and media establishment, which is more a
peril to the West than is Islam itself.  
If the establishment will not countenance or tolerate any words or images
that might “offend” Muslims, then there is no defense against the stealthy and
incremental Islamic incursions into Western culture, and the jihadists will be free to say or do what
they please. The jihadists near and
far – from London to Dearborn to Stockholm to Mosul to Karachi – know this, and
say and do what they please.
This is not a conundrum or conflict we Westerners need to wrestle with. The
problem is wholly the Muslim’s own.

Crying for Argentina

But
shed not a tear for King Abdullah
                                                                                        
Argentina is a lovely country if you forget all the
dictators, juntas, strongmen, and assorted socialists, fascists, and communists
who have run the country ragged, or that Fidel Castro’s favorite killer, Che Guevara,
was an Argentine. It’s a far nicer country than is Saudi Arabia. I have been
to Argentina, stayed in Buenos Aires and visited the  Alpine-like resort town of San Carlos de
Barilochi on Nahuel Huapi Lake in the west near the Chilean border.
Argentina is a country settled and populated by
people from a variety of European countries: Italy, Germany, England, Ireland, Spain,
Russia, Scandinavia, and by Jews from the same nations. It is as nearly a
“melting pot” as is the U.S.  From the
late 19th century until the early 20th Argentina was an industrial nation that
rivaled the U.S. and Great Britain in GNP and productivity and wealth. Then,
around 1930, it caught the European collectivist/nationalist disease that was
half Fascism and half Marxism, spiced with Latin American passion, and it has
been in decline ever since.
But then the U.S. caught the same bug just a little
earlier than that.
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is an arid, hot country.
Or is it an inflated tribal fiefdom in thrall to a Wahhabist theocracy? Was the
Vito Corleone
crime family ever recognized as a nation? Go figure. I would never set foot in Saudi
Arabia even had I been forgiven all the critical things I’ve written about Islam.
Saudi Arabia is a country that thrives on loot extorted from industrialized
nations. It has been doing so since the end of WWI.  
Saudi Arabia is not a “melting pot” populated by
people from other nations. It is overwhelmingly Arab in population. Immigration
to the place is severely limited, if not outright prohibited. Non-Muslim
foreign nationals residing there, such as diplomats, engineers, and the like,
are there on
sufferance
, and are restricted in where they can go and what they can do,
confined to kaffir ghettoes. Freedom
of speech does not exist there.  The
slightest squawk about Islam or the slightest infraction of Sharia law earns
one horrific punishments. The 1,000 lashes “earned” by Raif
Badawi
, a Saudi blogger who offended the theocrats on the Internet, is a
measure of the utter irrationality and barbarity of Islamic “justice.”
It hangs gays, amputates the hands of thieves, and strives to keep women under
wraps, literally, not to be seen, nor even heard.
Saudi Arabia is not a “republic,” nor a
“democracy,” nor even a “people’s state.” It is Saudi property, lock, stock and
barrel.
It is a nominally “socialized” country in which all
Saudis are guaranteed an income.  It
builds white-elephant skyscrapers and funds terrorism against the West and also
mosques and schools around the world that preach the Sunni Wahhabist brand of
Islam. There are dozens of such mosques and Muslim “cultural centers” in the
U.S. and the U.K., and in Europe.
Last week two men died: King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, on January
23rd
, at age 90, with a net worth of $17
billion
.  I could introduce some
levity here about this paragon of morbid obesity, but the man was such a
disgusting, useless, pig of a creature I can’t be bothered composing it.
The other
man was Alberto Nisman, age 51, an Argentine prosecutor who had collected and was
about to deliver damning evidence of the corruption of the Cristina Kirchner
regime in that otherwise wonderful country.
Abdullah was born in Riyadh in 1924, one of the
dozens of sons of Saudi Arabia’s founder, King Abdul-Aziz Al Saud. I mention
the elder Saud in my detective novel, The
Black Stone
, set in 1930 San Francisco, and my suspense novel, We
Three Kings
. It may come as a surprise to most people that the elder
Saud, during WWI, did not fight the Ottoman Turks on the Arabian Peninsula, and
was not an ally of T.E. “Lawrence of Arabia.” He sat out the war sipping tea
with the British. When other Muslim high-muck-a-mucks beat the Turks (with
British military aid), he consolidated his power, nudged his rival aside, and
claimed all of the Peninsula as his own kingdom. See my column from January
2014, on the true historical background of the epic film, “Lawrence
of Arabia
.”
However, what is even more disgusting today are the
verbal wreaths of praise from Western heads of state on the occasion of the
Saudi obscenity’s overdue passing.  Fox
News lists several American statements of condolences, to wit:
In
a written statement issued shortly after the announcement of Abdullah’s death,
President Obama expressed condolences and said, ” I always valued King
Abdullah’s perspective and appreciated our genuine and warm friendship. As a
leader, he was always candid and had the courage of his convictions….”
Secretary of State
John Kerry, who was in London for a meeting of the coalition fighting Islamic
State militants in Iraq and Syria, called Abdullah “a brave partner in
fighting violent extremism who proved just as important as a proponent of
peace.”
Defense Secretary
Chuck Hagel called the king “a powerful voice for tolerance, moderation
and peace — in the Islamic world and across the globe.”
Read the other tawdry,
off-the-shelf statements at your own risk. In the past George W. Bush held
hands with Abdullah in Texas, and he was praised by Bush’s Secretaries of State
and Defense. There are more of these testaments to Abdullah’s alleged wisdom
and deceitful friendship on the Fox News link. Ronald Reagan, GW’s father HW,
Jimmy Carter, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and many other politicos in the past
lavished Abdullah with adulation
. See the link here for
all the Americans who have held Abdullah in high esteem.
The mainstream media also shed tears for the passing of the caricature
of this allegedly benevolent despot. For example, S. Rob Sobhani  of The Washington Times, in his article, “Why
Saudi King Abdullah Mattered
, aspirated 
this wildly craven encomium and vomitus about the late king:
The world lost a
leader of consequence this past Friday. King
Abdullah bin Abdulaziz
of Saudi Arabia was
unique among world leaders. He was a pious man whose word was his bond. The
sixth king of this long-time American ally held the keys to the world’s largest
oil reserves but never used this enormous power as a weapon against others. He
was the custodian of Islam’s two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, but preached
moderation, tolerance and interfaith dialogue among peoples of faith. He stood
up against religious extremists and called them out for what they are. This
past Friday the people of Saudi Arabia
lost their father-figure and the world lost one of the main pillars of global
stability.
I first met King
Abdullah
five years ago in Riyadh. Beyond his gentle smile and fatherly
presence, what caught my attention was the twinkle in his eyes when he spoke of
the love he had for his people. Our meeting was brief but he captured the
essence of his vision for Saudi Arabia and
the world by quoting from the Koran: “God cannot change a nation unless they
change themselves.”
                                                                                                                                               
Concerning the settlements in Europe (and also in America) by Muslims in large
numbers and at the invitation of Europe’s governments (and of our own), one
argument I’ve heard is too bizarre to even credit: That these governments will
eventually persecute Muslims and put them in concentration camps.
I counter that at the rate that European governments are surrendering
to Islam and requiring their non-Muslim populations to surrender and defer to Islam,
too, and at  the rate by which Muslims are accruing political power, i.e.,
getting elected or appointed to office, winning concessions from government,
building mosques, and by factoring in the rate of immigration into Europe, and
the expanding demographics and birth rates of Muslims throughout the continent,
it’s more likely that it will be Muslims who’ll adopt some form of fascism, and
they won’t be building concentration camps for Muslims. Europe may resemble in
the near future, in many particulars, Weimar Germany when the Nazis and other
fascists and communists waged ongoing urban warfare under the  nose of an
anemic, helpless government, except that the warfare will be between Muslim
gangs and non-Muslim gangs.
This is why I have a jaundiced view of organizations such as Germany’s
PEGIDA. Do its movers and shakers have a wider perspective on the crisis? Do
they in France? The Swedish government has given Muslims carte blanche to do
whatever they want. Denmark and Norway aren’t far behind. Britain is
practically lost, as well, with the least criticism of Islam and Muslims automatically
branded as “hate speech” and inviting one to an “interview” with the
authorities. Finland one doesn’t hear much about, but Muslims have settled
there, too.
So, I don’t see European  Muslims
imprisoning other Muslims, not even Muslims from rival sects (e.g., Sunnis vs.
Shi’ites).
On that note, and in apparent acknowledgement that the true
monarch of Great Britain
is not Elizabeth II, but any Saudi royal who
happens to succeed a deceased one, the British government ordered British flags
lowered to half-mast to mark King Abdullah’s passing.
The second man, Alberto
Nisman
, was an Argentine prosecutor who claimed he found evidence of a
Buenos Aires-Tehran deal to cover up responsibility for the Hezbollah
bombing
of a Jewish community center in 1994. He died on January 17th (or
perhaps after midnight on the 18th), allegedly by a self-inflicted gunshot
wound, but now apparently was murdered by someone’s bunglers. Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner, president of Argentina and widow and successor of
the late president, Néstor
Kirchner
, at first claimed that Nisman had committed suicide, but then,
when the evidence indicated murder, back-pedaled and claimed that his murder
was an attempt by “right-wingers” to “defame” and discredit her and her
administration.
Daniel
Greenfield has written extensively on FrontPage about the growing transparency
of a plot to silence Nisman, one incompetently executed by either Iran, by
Kirchner, or by a partnership of both. In three probing FrontPage articles he
excoriates Kirchner and her Obama-style administration. On January 17th
article, “Prosecutor
in Iran Bombing
Found Dead Before Testifying Against Argentine President,”
he wrote:
President Cristina Kirchner’s regime always
looked dirty, but now it suddenly looks like a whole other kind of dirty.
The
Argentinean prosecutor investigating the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in
Buenos Aires was found dead in his apartment on Sunday night with a gunshot
wound to the head, hours before he was set to testify before lawmakers on his
accusations of a cover-up by his country’s president in the case.
Argentinian
media reported early Monday that Alberto Nisman, 51, was found in a pool of
blood in the bathroom of his home in the capital’s Puerto Madero district.
Police were investigating and Argentinian media reported that they had
initially ruled the death a likely suicide.
Sure. Like those suicides that keep happening
in Russia.
                           
And then
the plot thickens. On January 22nd, in his article “Argentina
Gov Plotted
to Blame Islamic Terror Attack on Jews on ‘Right Wing’,”
Greenfield wrote:
That would be the transcripts cited by the prosecutor who
“committed suicide” without leaving any gunpowder on his hands hours before he
was supposed to testify against the president and her apparatchiks. Intercepted
conversations between representatives of the Iranian and Argentine governments
point to a long pattern of secret negotiations to reach a deal in which
Argentina would receive oil in exchange for shielding Iranian officials from
charges that they orchestrated the bombing of a Jewish community center in 1994….
The
transcripts were made public by an Argentine judge on Tuesday night, as part of
a 289-page criminal complaint written by Alberto Nisman, the special prosecutor
investigating the attack. Mr. Nisman was found dead in his luxury apartment on
Sunday, the night before he was to present his findings to Congress….
The attempt to exonerate Hezbollah and Iran
of any responsibility for the bombing, in which 85 people died, was hush-hush but
apparently not hush enough.  Nisman
charged that:
….the
effort seemed to begin with a secret meeting in Aleppo, Syria, in January 2011
between Héctor Timerman, Argentina’s foreign minister, and Ali Akbar Salehi,
Iran’s former foreign minister. At the meeting, the complaint contends, Mr.
Timerman informed his Iranian counterpart that Argentina was no longer
interested in supporting the investigation into Iran’s possible role in the
attack. Instead, Argentina initiated steps toward a détente, with an eye on
improving trade between the two countries….
Mr.
Nisman said the negotiators, including intelligence agents, were given the task
of “constructing a false hypothesis, based on invented evidence, to incriminate
new authors” of the 1994 bomb attack.
Greenfield concludes this article with: “The
rock has been lifted and the bugs are scurrying.”
In his article
of January 23rd, “Murdered
Prosecutor
: ‘In Case Someone Murders Me, All the Data is Saved’,”
Greenfield begins with:
It’s always awkward when you murder a
prosecutor, fake his suicide, just before he was supposed to testify, and not
only did he back up the data, but you didn’t even bother putting his hands on
the gun to leave gunpowder residue.
No wonder President Kirchner’s government is
going bankrupt. It’s not only evil. It’s also incompetent.
Greenfield
quotes The
Jewish Press
:
Just
days before Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman was found dead in his Buenos Aires
apartment on Jan. 19, 2015, he took measures to make sure his research into the
Jewish Center bombing and high-level conspiracy didn’t disappear with him,
according to a Makor Rishon report. Nisman sent an email to three friends with
a backup of his research and report.
         
It
was the last email that Israeli-Argentine writer and educator, Gustavo Daniel
Perednik, received from Nisman. A few days later Nisman was found with a bullet
in his head. A month before, Perednik met with Nisman in a cafe, where Nisman
told him about what he was working on. Nisman told Perednik, “In case someone
murders me, all the data is saved.”
And
President Kirchner? She first put her foot in her mouth claiming that Nisman
committed suicide, then, when the evidence indicated a botched fake suicide and
murder, she made like Porky
Pig
:
Kirchner,
after flip-flopping on the suicide theory, is now trying to convince the public
that Nisman was duped by people whom he wrongfully thought were intelligence
agents and who gave him false information.
That’s all,
folks! said Kirchner. Nisman participated in his own murder just to make her look
bad. Who’s aspirating vomitus now?
Shed no
tears for the passing of a useless parasite, King Abdullah. But spare a few for
a man who sought justice and who was murdered by  
los parásitos inútiles of Argentina and Iran.

The Muslim Ministry of Funny Complaints

The Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris on January 7th
of twelve of the publication’s staff members, and also of the murder of four
Jews in a Paris kosher shop by one of the terrorists, is having some curious
but not all that surprising reverberations. The
New York Times
published an article about a week afterward originally
soliciting from Muslim settlers accounts of their horrendous experiences of
living in countries whose cultures they detest anyway (and in which they refuse
to assimilate), while the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), according
to Arab News, wants
to take the satirical magazine to court and massacre its staff with legal
expenses and noisome litigation.
After the New York Times received some heated
queries from spokesmen of other “minorities,” chiefly from Jewish organizations
that wondered why the Times did not also solicit the “experiences” of Jews in
European countries in light of repeated attacks on Jews by Muslims, the Times
amended its solicitation to one of a general nature, so as not to seem bigoted
or discriminatory in favor of Muslims. (I don’t think the ruse fooled anyone
familiar with the Times’ anti-Israel bias.)  The Tablet
reported on this sleight-of-hand on January 15th.
                      
*Sometime today, the Times changed the
headline on this
feature from “Share Your Experience as a Muslim in Europe” to “Share Your
Experience After the Paris Attacks.” As of 5:20 p.m. Thursday [January 15th],
the text of the piece issues the same call, initially directed to Muslims, to
Europeans more broadly.
A
Twitter search of the article URL shows that the feature changed Thursday.
                           
I can only satirize the episodes of harassment and victimhood
sampled by the Times related by put-upon Muslims in Germany:
  “I was coming out of a falafel shop and I
felt something hit my back. I thought I’d been shot by a cowardly kaffir! Then this bigoted Islamophobe
rushed past me. People gave me strange looks as walked home. Then one of my
wives asked me while I was praying why I had a GO PEGIDA! sign taped to my
back. I was mortified! I beat her for interrupting my shadada.” RA, Dresden
 – “I was pushing my pram with my four kids in
it when I was out shopping when this Islamophobe gave me the eye, practically
looking right through my burqa! It was humiliating. I really expected him to
try and rape me then and there. My kids began crying!” ZZ, Cologne
 – “I was being interviewed for a job in a
cheese shop and the kaffir pig who
was the interviewer pulled an Obama on me and asked if I knew the Swiss
language. I said I didn’t, and he dismissed me, saying ‘Ignorant Muslim
raghead! There is no Swiss language!’ I left with tears in my eyes! How was I
to know that? Educational opportunities for Muslims don’t exist here.” MC, Potsdam
 – “I work in an auto repair shop as a tire
inflator and all day I have to look at all the “pin-up” pictures that plaster the
walls of the shop put there by these subhuman apes and grease monkeys I work
with. They show Kate Upton and Kate Middleton and Megyn Kelley nude on the
beach and doing disgusting things, flaunting their uncovered meat most
immodestly! I go home every night with a severe headache and blurred vision.
I’ve asked the manager many times to take down this filth out of respect for my
faith, but he always tells me, ‘Don’t look at them.’ As though I had a choice!”
AK, Dusseldorf
                                                                                            
As I remarked in a past column on Charlie Hebdo, no
one has ever strapped a Muslim to a chair, pinned open his eyelids (as happened
to Malcolm McDowell in Clockwork Orange),
and forced him to look at a series of Mohammad cartoons with the object of
having him vomit in “conditioned” revulsion all over his keffiyah or perhaps
causing him to die as a “martyr” from a Koranic
aneurism.
The New York Times vetted the authenticity of these
complaints with filed petitions of redress and correction with the German
Ministry of Muslim Moaning and Malefactious Misrepresentations (Deutsch Ministerium für muslimische Stöhnen und
Malefactious Verfälschungen). The Times
has scheduled for publication next week a similar litany of complaints with its
French sister agency, The Bureau
of Muslim Whining and
Malefactious Misrepresentations (Le Bureau des musulmans
de pleurnicher et Malefactious Fausses déclarations).
Just kidding. The New York Times vets nothing. Its
left-wing bias excuses it from fact-checking, from adhering to any kind of
truth, and from reality.  
As an atheist, my columns regularly attract
Christian religionists who either agree with what I have to say about Islam,
and assure themselves that God is going punish the perpetrators who will burn
in hell for eternity, or they immediately charge me with being a Stalinist in
league with the liberals, the Left, and Obama. In fact, Communists are imbued
with their own brand of mysticism, one shared with liberals and the Left; Obama
is merely the new mystic of muscle poster boy.
The Obfuscator-in-Chief’s State
of The Union
Address, aside from sounding like a broken
record
of  Obama’s past State of the
Union addresses, was a verbal trip through a Fantasy Land which Obama wishes
you would believe existed, in spite of the evidence of your senses, a realm in
which non-A is A and everything is just hunky-dory and getting hunkier under
his imperial direction.
It’s
why we speak out against the deplorable anti-Semitism that has resurfaced in
certain parts of the world. It’s why we continue to reject offensive
stereotypes of Muslims — the vast majority of whom share our commitment to
peace.
                       
“Deplorable anti-Semitism”? Expressed by whom?
Martians, or Muslims? “Stereotypes of Muslims”? Or caricatures of its icons,
such as of Mohammad in Charlie Hebdo? By “stereotyping,” does he also include
profiling likely terrorists, or simply making cogent observations of an
insidious ideology that brooks no tolerance of any disagreement or incisive
examination and of its principal “holy” texts, which pointedly sanctions and
encourages anti-Semitism? The answer is: Yes, he includes all of that.
Obama referred to the anemic
attacks on ISIS
which nevertheless has expanded the territory it conquers
in spite of the air campaign to stem its tide:
In
his remarks, President Obama underscored the importance of “assisting people
everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism.”
He will sanction the assistance to everyone except
Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, and any other group he’d really rather not know
anything about. Which means: No assistance to anyone. That would implicitly
“defame” ISIS and Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood.
“This
effort will take time,” Mr. Obama said. “It will require focus. But we will
succeed. And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are
united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force
against ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).”
Just don’t “focus” too intently on that “violent
extremism.” You might think it has something to do with Islam’s fundamental and
irrevocable nature, which is violence to the core.
Not to be left behind in the assault on freedom of
speech – a.k.a., “stereotyping” – various Islamic organizations want the West
to codify censorship in order to suppress the study and/or mockery of Islam. The
Daily Mail
(London) in its January 21st article, “Muslim scholars urge UN to outlaw ‘contempt’ of religions,” reported:
The
Qatar-based International Union of Muslim Scholars, headed by influential
preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi, appealed to Muslims to continue peaceful protests
against images of the Prophet Mohammed but “not to resort to any
violence”….
In a statement released Tuesday, the union
said there should be protection for “prophets” and urged Islamic
countries to submit a draft law to the UN calling for defamation of religions
to be outlawed. The union said the UN should then issue a “law criminalizing
contempt of religions and the prophets and all the holy sites”.
It also called for the West “to protect
Muslim communities from attacks, whether they are citizens or residents or
visitors”.
Referring to the Charlie Hebdo cartoon
of Mohammad that was published about a week after the massacre of the
publication’s staff by jihadists,
The
union has condemned the publication of a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed
holding a “Je suis Charlie” sign under the headline “All is
forgiven” in the first Charlie Hebdo edition since Islamist gunmen killed
12 people in an attack on its offices.
It
said that the new drawing would give “credibility” to the idea that
“the West is against Islam” and warned the image would incite further
hatred. Qaradawi, 88, is seen as a spiritual guide of Egypt’s banned Muslim
Brotherhood, the movement of ousted former president Mohamed Morsi.
Yes, the West should
be
against Islam, qua ideology
and as a threat to Western civilization. Islam is a kind of ideological polio that
enfeebles the West and confines it to the wheelchair of accommodation and
submission to Sharia law. The condition attacks specifically Western cultures
that deny that the infection can
disable or kill, and, taking no steps to combat it, relegates it to the
symptoms of the common cold. You see, it’s just a handful of “extremist” germs
that are causing all the trouble. Islam is a contagious ideological disease
only among cultures and nations that refuse to identify it as malign and virulent.
Western nations that attempt any compromise with it are doomed to dissolution
and submission to it. And in that submission lies the wholesale negation of a
nation’s identity.
The major objector to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as
well as to freedom of speech is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). On
January 18th
, the OIC sanctimoniously proclaimed:
The OIC Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC)
is appalled by the recent repeated publication of sacrilegious caricature of
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) by the French magazine Charlie Hebdo and squarely
condemns this act as an intolerant, disrespectful and manifest expression of
hatred as well as insensitivity towards the feelings of more than 1.6 billion
Muslims around the world.

Last week, the entire Muslim world, as well as this Commission, had expressed
strong profound shock and revulsion at the attack on the Charlie Hebdo office
by some errant French nationals.  
I’m betting that Obama regrets he hadn’t coined the
euphemism “errant French nationals” himself. As most Western politicians and
the mainstream media have shouted until hoarse, the attack had nothing to do
with Islam. The “errant French nationals” only thought the Koran told them to kill or enslave infidels, and also
to murder Jews. The killers obviously hadn’t taken any courses in
Post-Deconstructionist studies and performed “close readings” of the Koran. Had they underwent such
education, they might have become, instead of killers, James Joyce scholars or
teachers of “creative writing.”
While
condemning these acts, the Government of France as well as the international
community overwhelmingly stressed the fact that the attacks had nothing to do
with Islam or any other religion for that matter. However, the Commission has
noted with deep regret that the first edition of Charlie Hebdo after the
attack, deliberately carried the most disrespectful and provocative caricature
offensive to all Muslims, thus betraying the sense of abhorrence against the
attack, as well as the sympathy towards the families of those killed during the
incident. 
Tea and sympathy. Crocodile tears. Sham piety.
Muslims are very good at it. But even Arab scholars and Islamic mouthpieces,
such as OIC secretary general Iyad Ameen Madani, apparently believe that Islam
is a race, and not just a “religion” subscribed to by countless members of a
variety of ethnic groups.
Manifest
stereotyping and ridiculing the most revered personality of a pristine religion
is nothing but an extreme form of racial discrimination.
I wonder when was the last time Madani visited
Indonesia, the country with the largest population of Muslims. I think he knows
full well that Islam is not a “race.” The racism charge I suspect is a
boilerplate device that can handle anything the OIC has overlooked. There must
be a secret Islamic text I’ve not yet discovered, called How to Talk From Both Sides of One’s Mouth: Successful Examples of
Taqiyya and Islamic Dissimilation From the Pros.
Its popular title is
probably Taqiyya For Dummies.
And one can only gawk at the characterization of
Islam as a “pristine religion.” Not with knowledge of all the blood on its
hands, blood it has shed over fourteen centuries.
On January 20th, The
Clarion Project
reported on just how Islam is committed to freedom of speech
about a January 17th “funny and well-funded conference” about how to combat
Islamophobia. .
Less
than two weeks after the massacre of French journalists for insulting Mohammed,
the founder of Islam, American Islamists held a conference last Saturday
 titled, “Stand
With the Prophet in Honor and Respect
.”
Only
selected press was allowed into the event and only for the first 20 minutes.
The
conference was billed as a fundraiser to establish a “Strategic Communication
Center” to combat “Islamophobia”
and train young Muslims in media relations.
Islam has no “honor” to defend and has earned not
“respect” but fear and loathing. The young Muslims will purportedly be
introduced to the art of fabricating and disseminating funny complaints.
If the West is ever going to see a cessation of Islam’s
murderous onslaught, then the chief funders and instigators of that onslaught
must be taken out: Saudi Arabia and Iran.

A Miscellany of Observations

The
Fallacy of Workable Tyranny
I was asked to watch and rate the first episode of
an up-and-coming series for Amazon Instant Video, which was an hour long, and
to provide remarks. Here is an expanded version of my assessment of the
episode, or what I would have said had there not been a word count limit set by
Amazon.  
Please help us improve Amazon Instant Video
by rating the video and audio quality of The
Man in the High Castle Episode 1:
The Man in the High Castle
.
                  
I read The Man in the
High Castle
(or Tower) when
it was first published decades ago, or a little after 1962, when I was still in
high school.  Interesting alternate
history fiction. The production values of High
Castle
are in the same league as those of Fatherland,
which differs significantly from the novel by Robert Harris; with House
of Cards
, a species of “contemporaneous” alternate history fiction, and
which differs radically from both the novel by Michael Dobbs and the British TV
version; and with V for Vendetta,
which differs so radically from the original graphic novel that to describe the
differences here would merit a separate column.  
The Amazon presentation of High Castle is being adapted by Ridley Scott of Blade Runner fame.
The salient point about Amazon’s High Castle, however, is that it
stretches credibility about what would have happened had Imperial Japan and
Nazi Germany won WWII, carved up the U.S., and militarily occupied the
continent. The Japanese were savagely brutal in their conquests, as were the
Nazis. Remember, for example, what the Japanese did to Nanking, China, and
what happened to British,
Indian, and Canadian
men and women and their Chinese dependents
after the surrenders of Hong Kong and Singapore. (Atrocities were the byword of
all Japanese conquests, much as it is ISIS’s today in Syria and Iraq.) This
perspective is buttressed by recent revelations of the Japanese atrocities
committed against American
and Philippine
POWs.
American civilians here at home, black, white and
Jewish, would have been brutally treated by both the Japanese and the Germans
had the U.S. been conquered. Someone might object: Ed, this is just
entertainment, get a grip. But my unshakeable fealty to history will not allow
me to “entertain” any other possible scenario. Readers of my Cyrus Skeen period
detective novels will know how close I hove to actual history.
Totalitarian regimes, as a rule, do not reign over
productive countries; they only loot them and if they survive at all it is only
as parasites on neighboring countries willing to trade with them. This is why
the Soviet Union lasted so long, as well as Red China (not to mention North
Korea, Communist Cuba, Venezuela, etc.).
Also, Americans in either the Japanese zone (the
West Coast) or the Nazi zone (the East Coast) wouldn’t have been able to move
about as freely as they do in this production. Their movements would have been
severely restricted and monitored. Further, the America depicted in this
production looks prosperous, when just the opposite would be true. Germany
looked prosperous in Fatherland, and
Britain looked comfy in “V.”
In passing, I suspect Philip K. Dick’s 1962 novel
was inspired by George Orwell’s Nineteen
Eighty-Four
(1949) which was also a kind of alternate history novel. I have
read nothing in his biographical information that would contradict that
suspicion.
“Realism” in Hollywood
productions, however, doesn’t necessarily mean the recreation of reality.
The
Left’s Infatuation with Islam
A reader commented on my column, “Islam,
CAIR, and Politically Correct Speech
”, in which I dwell briefly on the word
war between Rupert Murdoch and Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling:
Rowling
is a Leftist. No fan of her books am I…but from seeing the movies I see that in
the end Harry Potter was an anti-fascist themed story. What else would a
Leftist give you? A story against Marxism? Of course not. So she sees evil
white Christians everywhere. And of course she serves as an apologist for
Islam, the world’s most violent religion.

But here is a deeper question I put to you Ed. Maybe you can write on it. The
Left has 3 major client groups: 1) gays 2) Blacks 3) women. It can be very well
argued that Islam represents not just a light threat to all three but a grave
threat to all three. In fact, there is no ideology in human history, including
Christianity, that has such a poor record to all three of those groups,
especially today.

So, why does the Left so desperately defend Islam? Think about it. Think about
Rotherham. Muslims raped 1400 young girls!!! And yet the Left doesn’t even want
that story reported or sensationalized. Compare that to the Leftist outrage
over the fabricated “frat house gang rape” at the University of
Virginia; entirely made up by a lying woman. Why is the Left so hell bent on
attacking white Western males and so intent on ignoring brown Muslim savagery?

IMO, the answer to that question lays bare why the Left is the greatest evil on
earth. Orders of magnitude more evil than Islam. Also, I can’t help but add
that I guarantee that no mainstream Objectivist would know the answer.
Frankly, I don’t know what the “official”
Objectivist position is on the Rowling novels. I don’t think there is one. As
for what Objectivism has to say about the copasetic relationship between the
Left and Islam, this may have been articulated in various “official” and
independent venues, but I don’t much keep up with “official” Objectivist
positions on anything, so there’s nothing substantial I can say on that
subject.
Yes, the Left is as nihilistic as is Islam. It will
side with any movement that will up-end or destroy moral, economic, and
political norms.
 The Left is
pro-gay, and will advocate legislation and judicial decisions that criminalize
any actions or speech that can be construed to be anti-gay. It will celebrate
florists, bakeries, and wedding photographers being compelled to accept gays as
customers.  Islam, however, throws gays
from rooftops or hangs them. The Left says little or nothing about it.
 The Left
always sides with blacks, provided blacks are portrayed as victims of a white
culture, or of police brutality, and so on, but one never reads of the Left
praising the black middle class or black intellectuals such as Walter Williams
or Thomas Sowell. Islam, however, regards blacks, even black Muslims, as on a
level with apes, or as subhuman. Islam
has a thousand-year history
in the black slave trade, especially in east
Africa. After Omar Quadaffi was overthrown in Libya, Muslim gangs rounded up as
many black Muslims and non-Muslims they could lay hands on, imprisoned them,
and probably executed them. (This is not meat for one of Al Sharpton’s rants,
nor is the slaughter of blacks by Boko Haram in Nigeria, nor is the slaughter
of black Sudanese. His silence is deafening.) 
Chicken Little leftists have little to say about that.
The Left will champion women as long as they’re
eligible for entitlements, are portrayed as victims of a patriarchal society,
and stand to be enriched by the usual Marxist shopping list of “rights.” But Islam,
as it should be clear to anyone by now, regards women as chattel or third-class
citizens, rape-able at leisure, especially if they’re taken prisoner by Muslim
gangs such as ISIS, or are caught alone on a British or Swedish or Danish
street and subjected to Muslim racism, or as many-wived baby factories, and as vehicles
for additional welfare payments. Rarely does one read of a left-wing pundit
deploring the Islamic treatment of women. That would not be in line with
cultural diversity or multicultural tolerance and sensitivity.
                                                                    
The Left and Islam are seemingly odd but
nevertheless natural bedfellows. The Left allies itself with its ideological
nemesis because it is as totalitarian in means and ends as is Islam. The Left
enables Islam to spread and commit its depredations. The Left consciously or by
default sanctions the stealthy imposition of Sharia in this country as a stew
of “civil rights.”
On the other hand, Islam is not known to have much congratulated
the Left for any political or social victories against America it may claim. The
Left regards Islam as a kind of fellow traveler. Islam regards the denizens of
the Left, once everyone is shackled by Sharia law, as prime candidates for
hanging, beheading, raping, lashing, or working in the jizya salt mines, once the two totalitarian imperatives have been
joined in marriage and Islam reigns triumphant.
Members of the Left might then repair to the ACLU or
the National Union of Lawyers to plead the injustices imposed on them –
although by then those particular fellow travelers will have been replaced by
the American Sharia Lawyers’ Council. And then they’ll learn that to question a
Sharia ruling, or Sharia itself, is to deny that Allah is the one true God and
that Mohammad is his prophet. Islam will have said to the Left “I divorce thee”
three times. Even apostasy, they’ll also learn to their dismay, is not a
necessary requirement for the severest punishment.
And they’ll learn that the penalty for thinking is…death.

Islam, CAIR and Politically Correct Speech

There was an interesting storm-in-a-teacup brouhaha
last week that took place after the January 7th Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris,
between Rupert Murdoch and J.K. Rowling. Terrence McCoy, in his Washington Post
January 12th article, “Why
J.K. Rowling is so incensed about Rupert Murdoch’s tweet about ‘Moslems
’,”
wrote:
Aging conservative icon Rupert Murdoch
has never had a problem lacing his Twitter account with provocative opinion….
On Sunday, Murdoch struck again. “Maybe most
Moslems are peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing
jihadist cancer they must be held responsible,” Murdoch declared.
Then he dug his heels in. “Big jihadist danger looming everywhere from
Philippines to Africa to Europe to US. Political correctness makes for denial
and hypocrisy.”
Murdoch’s
tweet raised the hackles of numerous Muggles and mudbloods. Never mind that,
overall, he was correct in his perspective. Observable facts and incontestable
evidence must never get in the way of liberal/left and Muslim anger. Feelings,
don’t you know, determine reality, and manufacture facts.
Enter Harry
Potter to do battle with the evil media mogul.
One of people leading the outrage was author
J.K. Rowling, who immediately took issue with Murdoch’s proclamation and let
loose with a barrage of pugnacious tweets.
“I was born Christian,” she said. “If that makes Rupert Murdoch
my responsibility, I’ll auto-excommunicate. … The Spanish Inquisition was my
fault, as is all Christian fundamentalist violence. Oh, and Jim Bakker. … Eight
times more Muslims have been killed by so-called Islamic terrorists than
non-Muslims.”
Rather heated snoggery from someone whose political
opinions are best presented in a refereed debate between Harry Potter and Voldemort.
I’d like to ask Rowling what she defines as an “Islamic terrorist,” as opposed
to a “so-called” one. Are they the little green Martians from Mars Attacks!, or boleadora-armed Argentine gauchos who
lost their way on the pampas? Has Rowling a glimmering of the internecine conflict
between Sunnis and Shi’ites? Sure, the two sects slaughter each other by the
bushel-full, but I doubt her grasp of the butchery is anything more than
hearsay from the liberal/left press.
But that squabble lead to McCoy’s brief
disquisition on the differences in meaning of the terms Muslim and Moslem. One is
offensive to Muslims, and one is not.
 McCoy notes:
Those asides implied
Murdoch had said something culturally insensitive, if not bigoted, when
describing Muslims. But is the spelling “Moslem” bigoted, as commenters
indicated on Sunday? Has Standard English evolved beyond “Moslems,” which was
once as common as using “the Orient”? Or are “Muslim” and “Moslem”
interchangeable?
The answer to those
questions lay in the years following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
when thoughts on “Moslem” changed rapidly, according
to the book “Discourse Analysis and
Media
Attitudes: The Representation of Islam in the British Press.”
Instead, the
British press employs the euphemism “Asian” to identify Moslems. Or Muslims.
What have you.  It was presumed that the
Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians, Malaysians, Tibetans, et al. would not feel
hurt or stereotyped.
But
then, after Sept. 11, that lackadaisical attitude changed. “Muslim is
preferred,” according
to the United Kingdom’s Society of Editors. “People refer to themselves as
Muslims. Many regard Moslem as a term of abuse, like people of African descent
like being called negroes. Also avoid Mohammedan and Musselman.”
I shall make it a point of composition to employ Mohammedan and Musselman, if I remember them. Also “raghead,” “urban turban,” “whirling
dervish,” and so on. I am not known for my delicacy of pen. I refuse to stand
at the bar of any country’s society of editors.
“They
specifically objected to the spelling Moslem, as they noted that it can be
pronounced as ‘mawzlem,’ which is the Arabic word for oppressor,
according to “Discourse Analysis.”
The
History News Network, hosted by George Mason University, agreed the roots of
the word betray its prejudice. “Muslim” means Muslim. But “Moslem” means
something entirely different. “Whereas for most English speakers, the two words
are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different,”
the article said. “A
‘Muslim’ in Arabic means ‘one who gives himself to God,’ and is by definition,
someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast a ‘Moslem’ in Arabic means ‘one who
is evil and unjust’ when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, ‘Mozlem’
with a z.”
I would adopt the term Moslem from here on in, except that, from a coolly rational
perspective based on causo-connections inherent in Islam, I see no difference
in ideational content between the terms Muslim
and Moslem and “Mawslem.” If a jihadist gives himself to God as he is slaying
infidels and being slain in turn, then he is necessarily evil, unjust, and an
oppressor. And good riddance.
Au contraire,
Mr.  McCoy and all those semantic
bean-counters out there: From an Islamic terrorism standpoint, the terms are
indeed synonymous and interchangeable.
This leads us to the demand of Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that Fox News
purge
its anchors and guests of “Islamophobes.”  Islam authority Robert Spencer at Jihad
Watch
reported on January 12th:
The
Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been
designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, today included in
its “American Muslim News Briefs” mailing an item entitled “CAIR Asks Fox News
to Drop Islamophobes.” Most of it was made up of the usual smears, lies and
distortions that Hamas-linked CAIR pumps out by the gallon. It also contained
this:
“Fox
News’ continued use of Islamophobes, such Steven Emerson and many others like
him, only serves to harm the network’s reputation and to promote hostility
toward Islam and ordinary American Muslims,” said CAIR Department to Monitor
and Combat Islamophobia Director Corey Saylor.
He
said Fox News continues to utilize the nation’s most notorious Islamophobes and
Islamophobia enablers — like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
Brigitte Gabriel, and Zuhdi Jasser — as regular commentators on issues related
to Islam and Muslims.
Obviously, CAIR objects to what is said on Fox
about the connections between Islam and the current onslaught of Islamic
terrorism. It objects to anyone bad-mouthing Islam, especially when the “most
notorious Islamophobes” have a strong national audience.  It is not Argentine gauchos or crazed Amish
who are attacking newspapers and murdering Jews. Not even by Westboro Baptist
Church
primates. It’s Muslims. Devout Muslims. Obsessed Muslims. Muslims
wishing to be true to Mohammad and Allah and the Koran. Muslims who have pledged unswerving fealty to the
fundamental premises and tenets of Islam. Activist Muslims. Muslims who have
given their lives to Islam. Muslims who are walking vehicles of nihilism.
Muslims who hate life as much as their victims and prospective victims love
life. Muslims who
love death
– or non-existence – and who wish to ensure that no one exists
who loves living.
I have not wondered long about the symbiotic
relationship between secular politically correct speech and CAIR’s notion of
the correct way by which to perceive, judge, and discuss Islam.  CAIR wishes to impose its own style of
political correctness and politically correct speech on Fox News (and on most
of the rest of the news media, and has done so quite successfully). CAIR fears
the language of the truth. CAIR knows that Megyn Kelly, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Brigitte Gabriel and
others are not going to change their language or their outlook and positions on
Islam and jihadists. So CAIR wants them off the air, so they can be neither
seen nor heard.
Doubtless CAIR is encouraged by the news that President
Barack Obama
has promised to lean on journalists to stop producing
anti-jihad (or anti-Islamic) news and opinion pieces that cast Islam (and
Hamas-Brotherhood-connected CAIR) in a bad light, ostensibly to prevent more
Charlie Hebdo type Islamic jihad.
CAIR wishes to convert Fox News into its own
exclusive platform from which to propagandize Islam, to use itt as its own
vehicle of dawa, with the cooperation
of a blinkered, compliant newscast and Islam-friendly guests who will explain
why Islam is a “religion of peace” and “Islamophobes” are the mortal, hateful
enemies of mankind. CAIR wishes to propagate its Big Lie about Islam unopposed.
See my two columns on politically correct speech
and how it cleanses the mind of objectivity and clarity, warps or corrupts the
evidence of one’s senses, subverts one’s intellectual honesty, and abets in the
advancement of politically preferred speech and thought, “The
Ghouls of Grammatical Egalitarianism

from  
from October 2013, and “Speechless
Speech
” from November 2010.
As Western-conceived, secular politically correct
speech is honed to protect the feelings and sensitivities of others – and the
list of groups, ideas, expressions, and behaviors to be protected or scoured of
“bias” is long – Islamic correct speech is calculated to protect the feelings
and sensitivities of Muslims and to insulate Islam from gross criticism (à la Charlie Hebdo) and cogent.
And there the twain between East and West meets in
pernicious symbiosis.
Western politically correct speech;, a product of
the West’s abandonment of reason, reality, and the ideas of the Enlightenment,
empowers the CAIR-approved Islamic kind. Without that desertion, CAIR and its
sister organizations such as the ICNA, ISNA, MSA, and a score of affiliated
Islamic entities would never be able to 
make inroads in America.
You say Muslim. I say Moslem. But jihadists are not
going to call the whole thing off.

Force, Blasphemy, and Freedom of Speech

Blasphemy is in the news. Blasphemy and Mohammad
and Charlie Hebdo, most of
whose staff was executed by Muslim terrorists in Paris on January 7th,
including its defiant editor, Stéphane
Charbonnier (“Charb”), who
prided himself in publishing cartoons that mocked Mohammad and implicitly Islam.
The terrorists
shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and “The Prophet is avenged!” The killers were hunted
down and in turn killed.
The new
Charlie Hebdo
issue, its front page featuring an ironic cartoon of Mohammad
shedding a crocodile tear and holding a sign that reads Je Suis Charlie (“I am Charlie”), has sold
out
in France.
Charlie Hebdo has been
avenged, by the French authorities, by Charlie Hebdo’s surviving staff, and
even by the French public.
But is this
in issue of vengeance? Of tit for tat? Of an eye for an eye?
No. it is
an issue of force – of the initiation of force, and of retaliatory force. The Muslims
who massacred twelve people at Charlie Hebdo initiated force in “protest” of
the paper’s continued mockery of a religious icon. Not a single Muslim was ever
coerced to look at the cartoons. They did not write letters to the editor
objecting to the depiction of Mohammad as a laughable, pathetic “prophet,” they
did not start their own magazine and publish their own outrageous cartoons. No.
They invaded the offices of Charlie Hebdo and murdered twelve people. One of
the killers subsequently invaded a Jewish food shop and murdered four Jews.
In a
brilliant display of retaliatory force, the French authorities extinguished
both killers. That was justice, not vengeance. Vengeance is an emotional
catharsis, sometimes justifiable, too often not. Justice must be based on
facts, not on emotions.
Two fine
writers and indefatigable champions of freedom of speech, Diana West and Daniel
Greenfield, have addressed the subject of blasphemy in recent columns. West
explains why censorship, a government’s or self-censorship vis-à-vis images of
Mohammad, are Sharia-imposed and Sharia-compliant, and is a violation of  freedom of speech or the voluntary negation
of it, and that the West should submit to neither our own government’s
censorship and certainly not to Islam’s.
In her January
8th column, “The
West Must Reject Islamic Blasphemy Law
,” West wrote:
It is not enough now to assert the right to
“blaspheme,” as many are doing. We, media, citizens,
politicians, everyone, must assert and manifest the right to live free of
Islamic blasphemy law, the crux of Sharia, or Islamic law. 
West
explains that we have been incrementally submitting to Sharia law for over two
decades. The Islamic assault on freedom of speech is not the most recent
instance of submission to Islam. From installing foot baths for Muslims in
airports and other public and private venues because Muslims demand
accommodation for their degrading prayer rituals, to removing Christian symbols
in schools because they offend Muslim students, to purging FBI counter-terrorism
training materials of all references to Islam and Muslims because that would be
“illegal” “profiling,” to criminalizing criticism of Islam, no matter how crass
or cogent, as “hate speech,” the steady Islamification of speech – a.k.a.
censorship – goes on virtually unopposed by all but those who see the
consequences and aren’t afraid to point them out.
With
each Free-World killing or attempted killing (or protest or boycott or death
threats), with our every acquiescence or accommodation of this new
“normal,” the lingering fear factor further chills public expression,
further entrenches Islamic blasphemy law, further paralyzes political action to
reject Islamic law. To save liberty in the West, vigorous and widespread and
complete rejection of Islamic law, beginning with Islamic blasphemy law. is precisely what is
needed. 
This
still isn’t happening — such is the advanced state of our dhimmitude.
In the meantime, in other acts of submission, Duke
University
will broadcast every Friday the Muslim call to prayer from its
Chapel tower. At Oxford
University Press
, authors have been prohibited from including images and references
to pigs and sausage in any future children’s books published by OUP.  Are these instances evidence of fear of Islamic
retribution, or just plain agreement that Muslims must not be offended?
Daniel Greenfield, in his January 7th column, “The
Importance of Blasphemy
,” brings his seemingly limitness range of
perspective to the subject of Islamic blasphemy law. There isn’t a single
religion, he writes, that doesn’t explicitly or implicitly “blaspheme” every
other religion.
For
non-Muslims, the right to blasphemy is also the right to believe. While we may
think of blasphemy in terms of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, each religion is
also mutually blasphemous.
Muslims
argue that the West should “respect prophets” by outlawing insults to Mohammed
and a panoply of prophets that it gathered from Judaism and Christianity. But
Islam considers the Christian view of Jesus to be blasphemous and Christianity
considers Islam’s view of Jesus equally blasphemous.
While
Charlie Hebdo pushed the outer limits of blasphemy, every religion that is not
Islam, and even various alternative flavors of Islam, is also blasphemous
relative to Islam.
Greenfield drives home his point:
Everyone’s
religion is someone else’s blasphemy. If we forget that, we need only look to
Saudi Arabia, where no other religion is allowed, as a reminder.
Blasphemy
is the price we pay for not having a theocracy. Muslims are not only outraged
but baffled by the Mohammed cartoons because they come from a world in which
Islamic law dominates their countries and through its special place proclaims
the superiority of Islam over all other religions.
Greenfield concludes:
Mohammed
cartoons exist because of the Islamic inability to cope with a non-theocratic
society. Islamic Cartoonophobia is not only a danger to cartoonists. It’s a
threat to all of our religious freedoms.
And to freedom of speech. To freedom of thought and
the freedom to say what one thinks must be said. Even if it offends or insults
the subject of one’s thought.
 When we talk
about blasphemy, we must also talk about censorship: force or the threat of
force against the practitioners of blasphemy. Government censorship is the
direct application of force; threats of censorship through murder and terrorism
are what Islam is good at. Islamic censorship can be codified in the laws of an
Islamic country; in non-Islamic countries with a purported separation of church
and state (or of synagogue and state, or of mosque and state, or of Wiccan
temple and state, what have you), Islamic allegations of blasphemy against
Mohammad and/or Islam, can result in self-censorship. It achieves censorship
without having to resort to government force to still the minds and pens and
even Hollywood productions of expressions of one’s estimates of Islam and its
icons.
A government becomes a criminal when it
criminalizes free speech. Criminals, i.e., terrorists, without the intervention
of the state criminalize free speech with murder and terrorism, can resort to
direct force, or to intimidation, or the threat of force to inculcate
self-censorship.
The best species of censorship – if it can be
called that – is simply to not look at or watch whatever it is that strikes one
as blasphemy. For example, I’d never wish to or be tempted to watch a new TV
series, HBO’s “Girls,” which, as Clash Daily, reported, without going into
graphic detail, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian
Williams reflected
on his daughter’s scene involving simulated anal sex.
This is not so much an instance of blasphemy as it is a repellant form of “entertainment”
which I’m not really interested in auditing (not even in a critical essay).
Random House, Yale University
and other publishers
and publications
have implicitly become Sharia-compliant,  offering the ostensible, lame excuse that they
will not imperil their employees’ lives by publishing a book, novel, or image
that may offend Muslims and provoke an act of terror.  
However, the excuse is not so “lame.” No company
can function qua enterprise by becoming a fortress to deter or repel terrorists
bent on killing the “blasphemers” and causing material destruction. Businesses
are not in the business of erecting redoubts and parapets to repel armies of
barbarians.
That is the business of government. It is the task
of government to protect one’s freedom of speech or expression. It alone has
the resources and the mandate to fight jihadist censorship with retaliatory
force.
But our government doesn’t wish to protect freedom
of speech. This includes our judicial system.
To censor the expression of one’s thoughts is to
suffocate one’s mind. But that is what Islam, which forbids questioning its
tenets on pain of death, is all about. It not only forbids Muslims freedom of
thought and speech, but is working tirelessly to forbid it in all non-Muslims. Islam
is totalitarian, root, trunk , branch, and even twig.
The huggy-bear moment of the Paris
Je Suis Charlie march
on January 11th was a nauseous thing to behold,
because there wasn’t a single “world leader” in it who wouldn’t impose
censorship – soft or hard – at the drop of a Mohammad cartoon.   
President Barack Obama, who did not march with the
millions that day, has promised to put pressure on American journalists to shy
away from offending Muslims, jihadists, and Islam, lest Muslims go on another
shooting spree. A search of his executive powers does not turn up such an
option.
Not that such limitations have ever stopped our Islam-friendly,
de facto Caliph-in-Chief.
The
Daily Caller
revealed January 13th article, “White House: Will Fight Media
to Stop Anti-Jihad Articles,” that Obama will be pro-active in squashing blasphemous
“hate speech” in the mainstream and alternative media. HIs press secretary, without
dithering and without a single blush, claimed that:
President
Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism
community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause
a jihadi attack against the nation’s defense forces, the White House’s press
secretary said Jan. 12.
“The
president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps
that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men
and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks,
spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.
The
unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the
president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he
tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of
anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
Dancing between defending freedom of expression and
wanting to stuff a sock in journalists’ mouths with the agility of a pro
tennis-player, Earnest added:
Throughout
the press conference, Earnest repeatedly said the media would be able to decide
on its own whether to publish pictures, articles or facts that could prompt
another murderous jihad attack by Muslim against journalists. But he did not
say that his government has a constitutional and moral duty to use the nation’s
huge military to protect journalists from armed jihadis, but instead hinted
strongly that journalists should submit to jihadi threats.
That’s the “practical” course of action. After all,
one shouldn’t expect our government to propose destroying state sponsors of
terrorism. That would be “Islamophobic” to the max, right? But, you read it
here: Obama wants to “fight” anti-jihad columnists, not jihad itself.
In the meantime, while the West refuses to declare
war on Islam, Islam has declared war on the West. British imam Anjem Choudary opined,
in a Breitbart column on January 14th, ”Radical
Imam Anjem Choudary Calls Charlie Hebdo Front Page ‘Act Of War
’” on the
occasion of the publication of the new post-massacre Charlie Hebdo front-page cartoon,
that the:
… latest front cover was “blatant
provocation” and claimed insulting Islam and Muslims is “part of the war that
is taking place”. He went on to demand that Western societies be “sensible and
sensitive to the emotions and the feelings of the Muslims”, and accused
governments of refusing to “nip it in the bud”.
His comments came as Charlie Hebdo announced
they had sold out of their first million copies of the post-attack edition.
This had been widely expected and the publishers had made provision to print a
total of three million copies, using the printing press at Le Monde. The
further two million copies are now being printed.
Choudary wants Western governments to impose the equivalent
of “campus speech codes” on the Western media, whatever its form: journalism,
books, images, the audio-visual media, and even on gestures. If I happened to
be on the campus of Duke University, heard the adhan (the Muslim call to prayers) being broadcast and stuck my
fingers in my ears, could that be interpreted as “insulting” Islam, or defined
as “hate speech”? Very likely, in today’s climate of thought-aborting political
correctness – and of submission to an ideology inimical to Western civilization.
Blasphemy, urges Diane West, may be our salvation,
not our death knell. It could lead to letting the wind out of political
correctness, as well. There was a time when everyone drew Mohammad. Let’s
everyone now take part in a “Blaspheme Mohammad Day.”

My Dangerous New York Times Interview

In a startling and unexpected turn of events, I was
granted the opportunity to interview over lunch the two top journalists of the
New York Times, Steven Wackenhut and Jody Faelton, with Barbara Goodish and
Rashid Owst of the Washington Post standing by for moral support of its sister
publication and who will write their own accounts of the interview. A somewhat
incestuous zeitgeist, I thought, but there it is. The subject was the terrorist
attack on the French newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, and the murder of twelve of its
staff, together with three other terrorist incidents in Paris, including the gratuitous
 murder of a French policewoman and two
hostage-takings by Islamic terrorists.
What I focused on was the Times’ report of January
7th, “’Dangerous
Moment’ For Europe, as Fear and Resentment Grow
,” which nattered on about
the rising anti-Islam and anti-Muslim immigration feelings among non-Muslims in
Europe. While Mr. Wackenhut and Miss Faelton did not write the story, they did
not seem in the least uncomfortable with the idea of discussing another
reporter’s story,  after we had
established our talking points over the phone.
I had wanted to interview the actual authors,
Steven Erlanger and Katrin Bennhold, but was told by Mr.  Wackenhut that they were unavailable for an
interview, having been sent to Buffalo to report on the lake effect on that snow-bound
city. I had been told by Mr. Wackenhut over the phone that being assigned a
story in Buffalo was tantamount to being sent to Beirut, Lebanon, or some other
strife-ridden foreign capital. “They were very excited about the assignment,”
remarked Wackenhut over the line.
We were seated around an indoor café table in Le
Occupé Bagatelle, quiet, a tony, secluded bistro just a block away from the
garishly anonymous headquarters of the New York Times on Times Square. The
place was once a tawdry pornography and sex toy arcade, one of many such
enterprises which once populated Times Square and 42nd Street before the Square
was Disneyfied. Here a glass of Evian mineral water goes for $7.50, and a
minuscule chunk of Angus prime, about the size of my palm, topped with a
handful of off-color Brussels sprouts or some other hapless vegetable, will
sock you at $35.00, not including side dishes (or tax, or gratuity). We
loosened up with some pungent house wine (“from our deepest cellar,” the wine
list read), at $11.00 a shot glass. I gather that meant the basement. God knows
whatever else was still aging down there.
Mr. Wackenhut is head of the overseas desk, having
been the Times’ deputy bureau chief in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia for several years,
and then senior correspondent in Berlin and Buenos Aires. Miss Faelton has
written about political and social women’s issues her entire career, first for
the Bismarck, North Dakota Bugle, then as foreign editor for the Arkansas Yahoo,
before moving to the Times as women’s issues editor.
I did not enquire into the journalistic antecedents
of the Post’s Goodish and Owst.
I let the Times and the Post engage in their tech
talk and journalistic camaraderie before the waiter took our drink and lunch
orders. I didn’t want to frighten them yet with my extraordinary and soul-scouring
questions. They were a jolly group and I was reluctant to spoil the mood. I
sipped my mineral water. I’d already finished the colored vinegar.
At one point, Mr. Wackenhut said with a chuckle and
in an execrable French accent, “My nickname for Ulaanbaatar was ‘Oulan-Bator,’ or ‘Ooh-la-la! That’s better!’”
The Post pair giggled. I guess they thought it was a
sexual innuendo. Or something equally lascivious. But it was lost on me.
Jody Faelton scowled and replied, “You told me once
it was ‘Oh, my ulcerous bladder!’”
Mr. Wackenhut sighed and shook his head. “Oh, it
was that, at times, Jo. That Mongolian rotgut they call a native port there
really kept me jumping up to excuse myself. It was a lot like seasickness.”
“You must’ve drunk the water, too!” ventured Rashid
Owst with a snicker. Barbara Goodish slapped her colleague on the back with a
peal of laughter. Owst, I noted, wore a Keffiyah with an American flag pin
affixed to one of its folds.
The humor was over my head. There was more of that
kind of banter until our orders came. In a show of gourmandish  unity, the four journalists each had the
shepherd’s pie lamb ragout.
I had the mesquite-roasted chicken breast, which
was really quite good, all three forkfuls. It must have been a very small
chicken. I didn’t touch the limp-looking rabbit food on the side. I finished
first, and sat twiddling my thumbs, waiting for my guests to look up from their
ragouts.
The four scribes finally finished them with a
chorus of smacking lips. I took out my tape recorder and planted it on the
table. I pressed the button. “Let’s get down to business,” I said.
“Hold on,” said Wackenhut, pushing his plate away
with a burp. “Who’s paying for this party? I forgot to ask over the phone.”
I shook my head. “The New York Times. It’ll be getting
free publicity from this interview. The least it can do is pay for the lunch.
It’ll come at the price of a quarter-inch ad in the obituaries.”
Wackenhut signaled the waiter. He ordered a bottle
of Glenlivet. “Four glasses, and leave the bottle,” he said. “Put it on the
same Times tab.” The waiter rushed a way.
“All right,” said Wackenhut with reluctance and a
frown. “We’re talking about a tab of a grand tab here, you know, but…Shoot.” He
held up a hand. “Wait. You’re not going to be hostile, are you?”
“That depends on your answers.”
“I mean, you’re not going to pull a number on the Grey
Lady like that bald guy does on The
Revolting Truth
all the time?”
“Yeah, Cliff Clavin,” chimed Jody Faelton. “He’s
always calling us a ‘former newspaper.’ How insulting!” 
“No, the bald guy is Andrew Klaven.  Cliff Clavin was that jerk mailman barfly in
‘Cheers.’” said Goodish.
Wackenhut smirked. “Same intellectual class, as far
as I’m concerned. And those gaudy shirts of his give me Tylenol head storms. He
needs a fashion consultant.”
“And maybe a hair piece,” giggled Barbara Goodish.
Faelton leaned closer to me. “You know, we’re
thinking of filing a blasphemy suit against Klaven. You can’t go around
slandering the Grey Lady, just as you can’t go making fun of Mohammad. She’s an
icon. A goddess. You can’t disrespect her. Been around for over a century and a
half. Well, not as long as Mohammad, but, still….” She paused and shook her
head.  “We are privileged, you know, exempt
from such cruel mockery. There ought to be a law.”
“Let’s stay focused, people,” I interjected.
Wackenhut and Faelton looked slightly offended, but
sat back in their chairs and looked serious.
“Now,” I began, “that ‘Dangerous Moment’ piece your
people wrote, seemed more about the paper’s worry that Europeans are getting
fed up with their government’s immigration policies that seem to favor immigrants
than it was about twelve of your journalist colleagues being murdered in cold
blood – “
“Asylum seekers,” Wackenhut interrupted.
“Freedom lovers,” Faelton added.
“Refugees,” said Goodish.
“Displaced persons,” insisted Owst.
“ – and afford those immigrants favorable terms and
treatment,” I continued,  “over the
people who’re expected to ‘tolerate’ them with no evidence of reciprocation on
the part of the Muslims and to foot the bill – “
Wackenhut interrupted again. “Asylum seekers.”
I held up my own hand. “Allow me to quote from the
article in question,” I said, pulling out a marked-up clipping of the article.
“’The sophisticated, military-style strike Wednesday on a French newspaper known for
satirizing Islam staggered a continent already seething with anti-immigrant
sentiments in some quarters, feeding far-right nationalist parties like France’s National Front.’”
“Fascists!” barked Wackenhut. “I saw those 27,000
Dresden Pedidas practicing their goose-steps!”
“Right-wingers full of hate!” chimed Faelton. “Clinging
to their wallets and purses!”
“Far right fanatical bigots!” said Owst. “They’ve
planted burning crosses on Muslim lawns, and in front of mosques!”
“Racists!” said Goodish. “The videos of whites
fighting back against their refugee gangs were disgusting!”
Owst added, “We’re steeling ourselves for the first
massive anti-Muslim backlash. I’ve seen secret photos of those bigots fondling
their whips!”
I asked, “Why use the term ‘seething’? It connotes
an unreasoning emotional response to a threat, in this instance, of the
swamping of a civilized society, with the connivance of a government, with
adherents of an ideology that permits no tolerance or criticism of that
ideology – “
“Islam is a religion of peace,” said Wackenhut
calmly. “Any acts of violent extremism committed by Muslims in Germany or
France or Britain or Spain or Belgium have nothing to do with Islam. They’re
committed by renegade Muslims who’ve never read the Koran.”
I made a face. “Even when they quote verses from
the Koran, and post them on Facebook or in tweets?”
“Imposters!” said Owst.
“Phonies!” agreed Goodish.
“Mental patients!” echoed Faelton.
“Anyone can read the Koran!” said Wackenhut. “That
doesn’t prove anything! I mean, if I quoted repeatedly from Catcher in the Rye, does that mean I’m a
Salingerite?”
“ – when it’s actually Muslims who are emotionally
motivated to attack non-Muslims, or non-Muslims who say something derogatory about
Mohammad or who mock Islam’s purported peaceful nature,” I continued, finishing
my observation. “There are so many buttons to push in the average Muslim mind I’m
surprised that so many Muslims just sit on the sidelines and quietly perform
cheerleading sets, because it would be difficult for their cheerleaders to perform
leg-splits and pyramids sheathed in burqas and chadors. Difficult, and comic.
Worthy of a Monty Python skit.”
Owst scowled. “That’s not funny!”
“It wasn’t meant to be.” I sat back in my chair. “As
for charges of racism, it’s Muslims who practice it, as when they consistently
and repeatedly attack Caucasian men and women and Jews and even Hindus.”
Faelton’s face grew ugly and she glared at me. “Eight times more
Muslims have been killed by so-called Islamic terrorists than non-Muslims! J.K.
Rowling said so!”
I shrugged. “If that statistic is true, it simply points to the
internal Hatfield-McCoy conflict within Islam, that’s all. The Sunshine Sunnis
hating the Shady Shi’ites and vice versa. Salacious Salafists at fisticuffs
with the Awesome Alawhites. In terms of fundamentals, it’s all one and the same
show. Between the sects, details of doctrinal differences are irrelevant. All Muslims
wear aluminum skullcaps.”
All four journalists pursed their bottom lips in a collective pout and
pummeled me with their baleful expressions. I  grinned and leaned forward. “I should add that
the Post ran its own ‘anti-immigration fears’ piece, yesterday, ‘Far
right in Europe sees opportunity after wave of terror in France
.’” I took
out another clipping and read from the first paragraph: “The wave of terror
that left 17 people dead in and around Paris has ushered in a new sense of
insecurity across Europe – but also what could be a defining moment for the anti-immigration,
anti-Islam forces of the far right.” I tucked the clipping away. “So, on one
hand there’s a ‘dangerous moment,’ and on the other a ‘defining moment.’  Copasetic to the extreme, even to the contents
of the two articles. An indecent instance of being on the same page.”
The two pairs of rival journalists glared at each other.
“Copycat!” sneered Wackenhut.
“Monkey see, monkey do!” Barbara Goodish shouted back.
I could see that my interview was going nowhere except to the realm of
the invective. The minds of these alleged journalists were so battened down in
their insulating narrative they were incapable of answering objectively any objectively
posed questions. These people were reason- and fact-proof. But, I gave them one
more chance. “Mr.  Wackenhut,” I began, “what
is the Times’ position on President Barack Obama not attending the massive Je suis Charlie  march in Paris last Sunday, and insulting the
French by watching football playoffs instead?” Not  that I put much faith into the march, but I didn’t
say that.
Wackenhut wagged a finger at me. “We’ve taken him to  task on many occasions for his poor optics,”
he said. “Time after time, he walks right into bad picture, on the golf course,
in the Rose Garden, at Wendy’s. And then he too often hams it up, like he was
playing a planned prank on everyone.”
“And he can’t sing, either,” said Faelton. “He really ought to stay
away from karaoke. It’s all taking a toll on his poll numbers and eating into
his popularity.”
Rashid Owst opined with a sigh, “If only the man didn’t seem to take
pleasure in flaunting his incompetence.” He paused and shook his head. “Even at
golf, never mind debt management and foreign policy.”
That was the first intelligent remark I heard from anyone during the
interview. I made it the last. I turned off the recorder, tossed down the last
drops of the Glenlivet, and rose, knowing it was pointless to go on.  I said, “Thank you for your time. I’ve had
enough.”
I turned and left the company.  I
was desperate for a smoke. But a few feet from the front door I encountered a
man in a French Foreign Legion uniform being escorted to a table by the maitre ‘d.
He looked a little stocky for a Legionnaire, having a barrel chest under a beribboned
and be-medaled tunic.  A fleeting memory
of Buster
Crabbe
and La
Boudin
(The Sausage) crossed my mind.
As I went out the door, I heard someone yell, “Mohammad is avenged!!
Allahu Akbar!!”
The blast propelled me clear down to Herald Square, and I landed in the
lap of Horace Greeley.  
Bronze hurts.
 The pain caused me to wake up in
a cold sweat.

A Reply to a Muslim Caliban

On January 10th, Enza Ferreri ran on her
blog spot
an excerpt from the late journalist Oriana Fallaci’s
predictions about the fate of Italy (and of Europe) in the face of unopposed
mass Muslim immigration from the Mideast and North Africa. In the excerpt, she
argues that the minuscule size of the activist, fundamentalist, jihadist
element in any European Muslim population is irrelevant. It is the inescapably
virulent ideology which that population also carries with it like leprous
lesions that enables and emboldens the terrorism-minded among it.
The canard of
“moderate” Islam, the comedy of tolerance, the lie of the
integration, the farce of multiculturalism continue. And with that, the attempt
to make us believe that the enemy consists of a small minority and that small
minority lives in distant countries. Well, the enemy is not a small minority.
And he’s in our home. He’s an enemy that at first glance does not look like an
enemy. Without a beard, dressed in Western fashion, and according to his
accomplices in good or bad faith perfectly-assimilated-into-our-social-system.
That is, with a residence permit. With the car. With family. Never mind if the
family is often made up of two or three wives, never mind if the wife or wives
are constantly beaten up, if he sometimes kills his blue-jeans-wearing
daughter, if sometimes his son rapes the 15-year-old Bolognese girl walking in
the park with her boyfriend. He is an enemy that we treat as a friend. Who
nevertheless hates and despise us with intensity.
He is, Fallaci continued:
An
enemy who, right after settling in our cities or countryside, engages in
bullying and demands free or semi-free housing as well as the right to vote and
citizenship. All of which he gets easily. An enemy who imposes his own rules
and customs on us.
He represents an advance force that intends to implement
a total conquest of Europe to fashion a mammoth individual caliphate (with the
cooperation of the behemoth European Union) or pick off each country singly to
create many caliphates. He is here to aid in the conquest of Europe. He will
refuse to assimilate or will assimilate only in non-essential ways, such as in
his dress. He might even learn the native language. But, otherwise, he is here
to command and lord it over non-Muslims. He is a foot soldier of Islam. He is “martyring”
himself by enjoying a higher standard of living and an enhanced longevity not
possible in his pest hole of origin. His pain and suffering stem from having to
rub shoulders with the filthy kaffir
and ogling the “exposed meat” of European women in their mini-skirts.
He’s ready to become “radicalized” by a “religion”
that is radically primitive and totalitarian. He’s ready to become an
“extremist” or a “militant,” or an “activist militant,” or a “militant activist
extremist” in pursuit of Muslim “justice” – which means murder, rape, and
income redistribution through taxes to support a European welfare state. Those
taxes also support prisons populated disproportionately by Muslim criminals.
Name me the country without a large
Muslim count of inmates. It must be Patagonia. Patagonia isn’t a country, you
say? Well, there you are.
He carries two bayonets: Islam’s, and the
gilt-edged invitation of  multiculturalism, diversity, and
political/sensitivity correctness. Europe might be able to fight the first,
militarily, and effectively (as France did in Mali, as its police and security
forces did in the post-Hebdo hostage-takings), but its self-imposed Rules of
Engagement with Islam forbid it to question Islam and whether or not it is
benign or malign. That is an ideational conflict which the European elite (and
American politicians) refuses to fight.
Fallaci regarded Islam and its occupying,
parasitical populations (aka, “settlers”) as a cancer that has invaded an
anemic body – anemic because the governments that invited them are unable or
unwilling to form any practical policies to fight the invasion, the brunt of
which falls on the indigenous population in terms of crime, taxes, harassment,
anti-Semitism, enforced compliance with Sharia, and threats of violence.
Muslims have established their own Sharia-governed “separate but equal” ghettos
or areas that are “no-go” zones for the police, firefighters, and the local and
national law.
No sooner had Ferreri posted her Fallaci column
than a Muslim troll signed in and left a ranting diatribe against freedom of
speech. He has since been answered by me and several other readers who found
his assertions bizarre, ludicrous, and overwhelmingly hostile. He signed his
rant with “IA” together with a link to his alleged organization – http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk.
I searched for such an organization, found several
Islamic “schools” of Islamic studies in London, but none of whose URLs matched
the troll’s URL.  A search using his URL
turned up nothing.
The troll’s name is Iftikhar Ahmad. A
Facebook-style photograph of him was appended to his rant. A search on that
medium turned up eight namesakes; not a one of them resembles him, none sports
a Muslim-style beard, as he does, or any beard at all. They must be apostates.
Iftikhar Ahmad’s minor discourse in his lengthy
comment on the blamelessness of Islam and Muslims and the wickedness of the
West is such a tongue-twisting, mind-bending instance of Islamic taqiyya that it deserves a response. It
is representative of the level of deception, falsehood, and dissimulation
regularly practiced by Muslim spokesmen when addressing the West, and bought
whole or in diet-conscious portions by Western politicians, liberal and leftist
pundits, and the mainstream media. In this column I discuss only two paragraphs
of  Ahmad’s entire diatribe. You will
need to read the whole thing yourselves.
I begin with his last paragraph. It’s zanier than
the best Marx Brothers routine.
The
vast majority of terrorist attacks on US soil have been by non-Muslims. The
vast majority of terrorist attacks in Europe have been by non-Muslims. And
Muslims are more often the victims of terrorism. The Muslims today are a
demonized underclass in France. A people vilified and attacked by the power
structures. A poor people with little or no power and these vile cartoons made
their lives worse and heightened the racist prejudice against them. Even white
liberals have acted in the most prejudiced way. It was as if white people had a
right to offend Muslims and Muslims had no right to be offended? The difference
was, when white people were offended, they had the state, white corporate media
and the threat of a right wing mob to make their point — Muslims had nothing.

Ahmad appears to be plagiarizing Al Sharpton. Whites are all devils. This is
Sharpton talk in olive-skin. (That is Ahmad’s complexion in his photograph).
Ahmad forgets that Islam is not a race, it is an ideology subscribed to by the
olive-skinned, by blacks, by Asians, and by whites. So much for that vaunted “racial
prejudice” against Muslims.
Charlie Hebdo was not a part of the French “power
structure”; if anything, it and Charlie Hebdo were committed enemies of each
other. Muslims are not “more often” the victims of terrorism, except during
Sunni-Shi’ite slugfests in the Middle East and North Africa. Non-Muslims have
not conducted any terrorist attacks in Europe or elsewhere, except for the very
occasional paint- or pig’s-blood splattered mosque. (Total casualties: one
oinker.) The vast majority have been committed by…Muslims.
Muslims are not a “demonized underclass” in any
Western country. If anything, they’re coddled and treated with kid gloves by governments,
who go to great lengths to stop any vilification of them with speech laws. They
are not a “poor people with little or no power.”
At last count, President François Hollande received
93% of the Muslim vote
in France during the last
election
, which guaranteed that he would continue his coddling policies. As
for Muslims being “poor” (aka, “disadvantaged,” or kept at subsistence level,
but how to explain all those photographs of roly-poly, burqa- or chador-draped
women roaming European streets, pushing expensive-looking baby prams?).  It’s a universal practice among multi-married Muslim
men in every European country to collect welfare state benefits for each wife,
gauged again by the number of his other dependents, such as children. These people
can afford so many cars in France that they burn about a thousand of them every
New
Year’s Eve
, and shop for newer models to replace them. It must be the Muslim
version of French automotive industry subsidies, similar to our bail-out of
General Motors.
French
economist Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) discussed
a similar economic fallacy: Breaking windows keeps the glassmakers in business.
Someone in Moslemland must have read Bastiat’s Parable of the
Broken Window
, and had a brilliant, pyromaniac idea.
The next to
last paragraph of Ahmad’s goes:
As
for the killing of Charlie Hebdo staff by two or three gunmen, I hold my head
high and say that even though I don’t sanction, encourage, or endorse what they
did, I’m not going to shed any tears for the vicious, racist, and malevolent
victims who were the target of their excess. If a drug dealer gets run over by
a car in my neighbourhood, I’m not expected to do a #Je_Suis_Drug_Dealer hash
tag on twitter. I have more self-respect than that as a human being and as a
Muslim. I do feel some pity for the Charlie Hebdo staff. I feel sorry that they
chose to live a life of hate and die a death of hate, and that they could not
find the stuff of human goodness in their hearts to do something better than be
the Pharonic slave driver whipping the poor Hebrews of French society under
their lash. I think there should be a uniform policy against publication of
material that hurts religious feelings. Freedom of speech is all very well but
with freedom should come responsible behavior or laws to ensure responsible
behavior. There are limits to freedom of expression. These guys TRESPASSED
them. They paid the fine for doing so.

This is mostly sanctimonious drivel. Ahmad doesn’t “sanction, encourage, or
endorse” the “excessive” murder of twelve unarmed people, but, because they
were “vicious, racist, and malevolent,” that’s okay with him. After all, they
were as bad as drug dealers. Who’ll miss them? The victims “trespassed” on his
feelings and those of other Muslims, inflicting irreparable emotional and
material damage . Ergo, even though Charlie Hebdo and its cartoonists never heard
of Ahmad, they were “vicious, racist, and malevolent.”
“Non-excessive” assaults with, say, poisoned-paint-ball
guns he would likely sanction, endorse and encourage, as long as the victims
were only half-murdered. Or not. However, murder is murder and I don’t think
Ahmad grasps that the staff of Charlie Hebdo never committed murder, so it wasn’t
even an issue of an “eye for an eye.” Charlie Hebdo wasn’t engaged in
tribal/clan warfare with Muslims. The publication simply despised their “religion.”
And no one ever frog-marched a Muslim and forced
him to look at a cartoon of Mohammad.
I raise a hypothetical question here: Had Charlie
Hebdo, instead of mocking Mohammad with grotesque caricatures, instead regularly
projected him as a noble-looking moral savant, as he is depicted in the
bas-relief of him in the U.S.
Supreme Court
(complete with his ever-handy scimitar), would Muslims have
minded it so much as to commit murder? The Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) in 1997 mounted a challenge to have the image removed, but the petition
was dismissed by then Chief Justice William Rehnquist (for rather specious
reasons).  
The one statement of his that defies my powers of
interpretation is that Charlie Hebdo was “the Pharonic slave driver whipping the
poor Hebrews of French society.” It leaves me scratching my head, although it
is clearly anti-Semitic. Ahmad is capable of his own “insulting” caricatures.
In conclusion, Iftikhar Ahmad is a modern day Caliban, that beast with whom ship-wrecked
Prospero in Shakespeare’s The Tempest
had a love-hate relationship. There are countless clones of him out there. Ahmad
apparently is a chatterbox who can talk your head off before he is moved to
take it off.
Not once in his rant did he challenge any of Oriana
Fallaci’s statements about the perils of letting in the Huns. Or submitting to
the Borg. Or admitting herds of the Walking Dead.
 It was all about
him and his “victimhood.”

The Establishment’s Anti-Reality Check

On January 7th we saw the political, intellectual, and mainstream
media establishments around the world stare with dropped jaws and frozen saucer
eyes at the massacre
of twelve people
in the offices of Charlie Hebdo. The spectacle
was worthy of a “deer in the headlights” Charlie Hebdo cartoon.
In the wake of the attacks, those establishments went into full
denial mode. They repaired to the Club of Denial for a sleep-over.
They’ve had time to sleep on the event, recover from the trauma,
regain their composure, and in the morning, issue in their grogginess hysterical,
astonishing denials that the three individuals responsible for machine gunning
the staff of the satirical magazine to revenge the “Prophet” had nothing to do
with Islam, or that Islam had nothing to do with the attack. They haven’t got
that straight yet.  One almost expects
them to claim that the three Muslims were renegade Quakers who were really
upset at Charlie Hebdo over its impiety.  They dressed like terrorists and spoke Arabic
just to fool everyone.
Or, they were really Muslims who wanted to besmirch Islam’s “good
name”? Or, perhaps didn’t want to besmirch it? 
Nevertheless, according to the politicians, the intellectuals and PC
pundits, and the MSM, the killers had nothing to do with Islam. They’d heard
that the jihadists even left a note to that effect on the body of one of their
victims, a note which the French authorities have not yet released to the public
lest it compound the offense and cause more car burnings and “lone wolf”
assaults on Frenchmen. Sources close to their contacts say the note read: L’Islam est une religion de paix! 
Obviously, these “terrorists” had mental problems, they were all
escapees from a Bolivian psychiatric hospital and traveling on false Tasmanian passports.
They had a history of mental turmoil ever since they threw their Korans to the
floor from their highchairs in a typical infantile tantrum because they
couldn’t have their halal oatmeal.  So, who knows which screws are loose in the
attackers’ minds? Responsibility can’t rest on any one set of ideas.
Those “violent” Koranic imperatives, after all, could just as
easily be interpreted to read : “Take a Jew to lunch at the Behind the Tree
Coffee Shop,” or “Rape is bad. That isn’t nice. Invite the exposed meat to a Tupperware
party, or  “There’s no money in
beheadings. Open up a Barber Shop and Hair Salon for Men and Women instead.”
The killers had nothing to do with Islam.  They weren’t motivated by Islam, except
perhaps by a paltry handful of Koranic verses that could be interpreted any one
of a dozen ways. They were blameless “Walking Dead” zombies who can’t help but
kill and destroy. That’s the Party line.
You see, psychotic, touchy, super-sensitive criminals obsessed
with an icon, Mohammad, who was also a psychotic, touchy, super-sensitive
criminal, have a right not to be provoked or incited by loose lips that sink
ships and cartoons that swell and inflame their frontal cortexes.
If they go on murderous rampages, it’s our fault for sticking our tongues out
at them or giving them the Italian salute or by putting eye-liner and rouge on
depictions of Mohammad.  Had we not
offended them by mocking their icon, we wouldn’t even know they were there.
Except that we know they’re there and object to their presence –
nay, even to their very existence among us, for they are either passive,
assembly-line manqués, or grenades whose pins ready to be pulled.
One senses that the kneejerk deniers of the true calling of Islam  are quivering with the fear that the public
will expect them to lay the blame on Islam, pure and simple. This, they don’t
want to do. That would mean emerging from their Kantian, moral relativity shells
to look at the truth with saucer eyes and with all the dignity of a newly
hatched ostrich.
One reads the actual denials and they’re not far from being
self-satirical. One asks: What world are these people living in? Are they
actually pod people sprung from alien watermelons? Invaders from a parallel universe
who have settled here and taken control of our culture?
Is it a neurosis that strikes just liberals and leftists and
cringing conservatives? Or is it an undiagnosed psychosis for which there exists
no cure and no medication? Whatever its identity, the condition is embedded in
their minds and there is no reconciliation or redemption in it.
The truth is that every one of these vehicles of denial is living in an imaginary universe where
reality is simply a phantasm, but their communal, consensus-driven fantasy
takes precedence over facts and truth because they’ve imbibed the idea from
Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel and their disciples that reality is unreal and
subjective and unknowable. They’ve drunk from that well of philosophical
Kool-Aid called Kantiism. They exude a militant delusion that refuses to accept
the evidence of their senses.  
It does no good to point to the reality
that Islam
is the root cause and nihilistic end of all the violence we have
seen over the last month: From the Sydney chocolate shop murders by Muslims to
the car jihad actions to the murder-executions of Stéphane “Charb” Charbonnier
and his staff in the offices of Charlie Hebdo, followed by the cold-blooded
killing of a French policewoman during a traffic accident and the hostage-
takings at two other French locations, a kosher grocery store and a printing
shop, where hostages were taken (and four murdered). It’s a waste of time to
shove reality in front of their faces. They aren’t going to be persuaded.
They’d rather kiss a Muslim’s butt than stop and ask him: “What’s
wrong with you?”
 Nous sommes tous Charlie. We are all Charlie now. Well, not everyone. Many might mean it. The
politicians, intellectuals, PC Pundits, however, are all crying crocodile
tears. (Except for Barack
Obama
, who uttered the usual formulaic platitudes, but don’t expect him to
retract his U.N. diktat that “the
future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam
.”)
They don’t want to be
Charlie Hebdo. That would contradict their chimerical world view.
The list of broadcasters, columnists, and publications that are in
denial and refuse to even reprint one of Charlie Hebdo’s satirical
covers
is a long and indecent roll-call of cowards and compromisers.  Heading the list here is the White House’s
latest Charley McCarthy ventriloquist dummy, Press
Secretary Josh Earnest.
, who was interviewed on January 7th as the Paris
events were unfolding.
 “This is a terrible act of violence, and
one that we condemn in the strongest possible terms,” White House
spokesman Josh Earnest told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday
morning, shortly after masked gunman killed 12 people at the offices of a
satirical newspaper in Paris that has made fun of the Prophet Mohammed.
French
President Francois Hollande called Tuesday’s massacre a terror attack, but
Earnest did not: He used the phrase “terrible act of violence” three
times, and he also called Islam a “peaceful religion.”
How original. Dear Mr. Earnest: Name me an “act of violence” that
involves slaughtering unarmed people that isn’t “terrible.”  By that definition, the St. Valentine’s Day
Massacre in Chicago in 1929, which saw gangsters gunning down unarmed
gangsters,  was “terrible.”
This violent
extremism is something that the world has been dealing with for more than a
decade now,” Earnest said. “And we obviously are trying to monitor
what we consider to be a really important threat, which is this threat of
foreign fighters. So it is clear that ISIL does harbor the ambition to try and
radicalize people all across the globe, and one core component of our strategy
has been to mobilize the …leaders in the Muslim community, particularly the
moderate voices in the Muslim community, to talk about what the values of Islam
really are. It’s a peaceful religion.
“And it’s
terrible that we’re seeing some radical extremists attempt to use some of the
values and tenets of that religion and distort them greatly and inspire people
to commit terrible acts of violence.”
There’s those “radical extremists” again. Those renegade Quakers.
President of France François Hollande assured
his nation
on January 9th that the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre
and subsequent carnage involving the murders of policemen and hostages had
nothing to do with anything.  Especially
not with Islam.
“Not being divided means we must not paint people with a broad brush, we
must reject facile thinking and eschew exaggeration. Those who committed these
terrorist acts, those terrorists, those fanatics, have nothing to do with the
Muslim religion.”
Au contraire, replies Anjem
Choudary
, the “British” preacher of “fundamentalist” Islam, who provided
the world with a clarification in USA TODAY on January 8th on just how much
Islam is a “religion of peace.”
Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather
means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not
believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions
are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.
Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression,
even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an
increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of
insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them
than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be
an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime
under Sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State.
This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet
kill him.” However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which
all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we
often see.
Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such
as laws against incitement and hatred.
That’s non-fanatical Islam speaking. You
can’t get plainer than that. Mr. Choudary is as “moderate” as Islam can get. Choudary
says there is a “division,” as between master and slave, and those who say what
they please about the “prophet” must be dealt with in fatal fashion, even by
alleged “radicals” who take the law into their own hands. We infidels have a
statutory responsibility to gag ourselves when we are tempted to observe that
the duck fills all the criteria of being a duck.
As Muslims in Britain run “grooming” gangs to subject British girls
to sexual slavery, beginning with sweet talk and long walks on the beach, and
ending with gang rapes in anonymous rooms,
the West is being “groomed,” as well, beginning with sweet
talk  — aka, taqiyya – and ending with across-the-board slavery as rightless
kaffirs and deferential subjects of Allah, is what Islam has in mind for the
West. The petit fascism of political
correcntess can only become a fascism writ large, and Islam means to be that
fascism.
But, what enables Islam? Kant. Moral relativism.  Progressivism. Multiculturalism. Tolerance of
the irrational under the guise of cultural diversity. A refusal to think. All
in all, these doctrines, dogmas, and habits save their adherents the bother of
having any values to fight for, to defend, to preserve, to protect. Values mean
thinking and passing judgment. The adherents don’t want to judge. They don’t
want to think. They want to exist without values, without reason.
Literally.
Mark Steyn, that  irascible,
fisticuffs champion of freedom of speech, in his January 10th column,
appropriately named “Hollande Daze,” ladled
out some biting sauces for the goose and for the gander:
The louder the perpetrators yell “Allahu Akbar” and rejoice
that the Prophet has been avenged, the louder M Hollande and David Cameron and
Barack Obama and John Kerry and the other A-list infidels insist there’s no
Islam to see here. M le Président seems to believe he can champion France’s
commitment to freedom of expression by conscripting the entire nation in his
monstrous lie.
Is he just pandering? There are, supposedly, six million Muslims in
France, and he got 93 per cent of their vote last time round. Or is he afraid
of the forces that might be unleashed if the Official Lie were not
wholeheartedly upheld? Stéphane Charbonnier said he’d rather die standing than
live on his knees; M Hollande thinks he can get by with a furtive crouch.
Here is a short roll-call of the Club of Denial:
The German
Interior Minister Thomas
de Maizière
: “The extremist Islamism, Islamist terrorism, is something
quite different from the Islam. And this differentiation is urgently needed
just on a day like today.”
Fox News,
MSNBC, NBC, CNN:  In its breaking news
coverage of the Paris
killings at Charlie Hebdo magazine
, “Fox & Friends,” the morning show
of Fox News, showed a shot of one of the magazine’s controversial cartoons. Yet
the network, according to a spokeswoman, has “no plans” to show further
examples. Fox News’s decision falls in line with those of other cable news
outlets. As reported earlier here
and here,
CNN has cropped out the provocative drawings from its coverage of the killings.
And in an extensive
rundown of the news media’s approach to the matter
, Rosie Gray and Ellie
Hall of BuzzFeed note this policy at the NBC family: “Our NBC News Group
Standards team has sent guidance to NBC News, MSNBC, and CNBC not to show
headlines or cartoons that could be viewed as insensitive or offensive.”
Financial
Times
of London: “…It is merely to say that some common sense would be
useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten,
which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims.”
Variety:
“The Charlie Hebdo carnage will likely fuel the racism and anti-Islam sentiment
which has been on the rise in France.  It will also certainly boost the
popularity of far-right (Front national) party leader Marine Le Pen, who is
expected to run for President in 2017.”
All of these brave publications and many more answered “Present”
when the Chairman of the Club of Denial called the roll for a vote on whether
or not  to show Charlie Hebdo’s
unadulterated Mohammad cartoons. The Nays have it: “No.”  
There was one dissenting vote against self-censorship, but he was
wrestled to the floor by the sergeant-at-arms and ejected from the chamber as
most members taunted him with charges of “Islamophobe!” “racist!” and “bigot!”
Douglas Murray in a Gatestone Institute column, “We Are
Charlie: Free Speech vs. Self-Censorship
” on January 8th observed: 
Those of us who
have proposed that all Western — and in particular European — news outlets
should multilaterally publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons have been
greeted in return with a terrified and terrifyingly self-conscious silence. The
papers and broadcasters do not want to do it. Last time they refused to
republish the cartoons, from Denmark’s Jyllands Posten, they said it was
because the cartoons were from a “right wing” newspaper.
In conclusion, on January 9th Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish
offered some rational advice on how to combat Islam in his column, “Let’s
Laugh at Islam
”:
The true war
against Islam is not a military war, it is a cultural war. For Islam it is a
religious conflict by an empire intent on transforming every aspect of life
into one defined by Islam. For us it is about preserving our way of life. The
cartoon controversy woke many Europeans to the fact that free speech and many
of the other attributes of democracy that they take for granted are
incompatible with Islam. Under the relentless pressure of multi-culturalism,
they and we are increasingly deciding that our way of life has to bow to
theirs.

This is the ultimate victory of Islam. Not the fall of the Twin Towers or any
single act of terrorism is as great a victory for Islam as when our own
government and press repeat their propaganda and muzzle their critics. This
represents the submission of the West to their rule. It turns Islam into the
only legally sanctioned religion in Western nations that have long since
instituted separations of Church and State.
If there are more such slaughters and mayhem committed by Muslims in
the future – and, to judge by the official, politically correct response to the
Charlie Hebdo massacre – the blame can largely be laid at the doorsteps of our
so-called lovers of freedom of speech – the politicians, the mainstream media,
the academics, and the intellectuals who govern our culture and that of Europe.
Ils ne sont pas Charlie Hebdo.  They are not Charlie Hebdo. Not a bit.
They are all “anti-reality.”  

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén