The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: February 2015

On the Appeal of Terrorism

So, what goes on in the heads of Islamic terrorists? Barack
Obama says their massive, continuing murder sprees have nothing to do with
Islam. The Prime Minister of Denmark, which has experienced multiple Islamic
terrorist attacks over the last week, agreed with Obama that they had nothing
to do with Islam, but did admit they were terrorist attacks. Ms.
Thorning-Schmidt sought to calm tensions after the attacks, saying, “This
is not a war
between Islam and the West….We feel certain now that it was a
politically motivated attack, and thereby it was a terrorist attack,” she said.
If the violent suppression of freedom of speech is a “politically motivated
attack, and if she is certain of that, why deny it has nothing to do with
Islam?
Speaking
to reporters in Copenhagen on Sunday, according to Danish television station
TV2, Ms. Thorning-Schmidt said: “This is not a war between Islam and the West.
We will do our best to defend our democracy and Denmark.”
In the name of what politics were the attacks on a meeting about freedom
of speech in Copenhagen and on a newspaper in Paris launched? No answer. Blank
out.
The
International Business Times
on February 2nd carried a lengthy reiteration
of Obama’s standard denial that Islam:
U.S. President
Barack Obama refused to consider it a “religious war” to fight against
terrorism. He continued to avoid the phrase “Islamic extremism” as he said that
the majority of Muslims “reject” such an ideology.
Obama said that
he would not give a religious colour to the war against terrorism. He warned
against the danger of “overinflating” the threat of terrorist organisations. He
added that the United States should align itself with the majority of Muslims
who disapproved of terror groups like al Qaeda and Islamic State. He said that
the most of the Muslims reject the radical views of those organisations….
Obama said that
“99.9 percent of Muslims” believed in what everyone believed in: “order, peace,
prosperity.” He added that the “hearts and minds” of young people in the Middle
East and South Asia should be won back as the particular regions had become the
“ground zero.”
Obama insisted
on a “surgical, precise response” to a very specific problem. He said that
terrorist organizations would be defeated as they did not have a vision which
ordinary people found appealing.
And if countless “ordinary people” find that vision appealing? Do we
tell them, “It’s bad for you. You might be shot and it’s not nice”? Do we
eliminate the “visionaries” with “precise” drone strikes or by the elimination
of states that sponsor terrorism, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran? Turn every
square inch of territory that ISIS has conquered into parking lots of melted
glass? Create vast acres of the bodies of napalmed ISIS fighters in Syria and
Iraq and Libya? (Call it the Jordanian pilot treatment.) Send all those “ordinary
people” to de-programming camps so they can get their minds right? How many
millions of Muslims are we talking about here? Americans are getting tired of
our panicky, hand-wringing political leaders and the MSM crying, every time
Islam strikes, “Oh! What to do?? What to do??”
Islam is an ideology and it’s an ideology Obama is friendly to, given
his power grabs in this country, and one which has Europeans shaking in their
boots. The Europeans don’t dare name Islam as the root motive for terrorism lest
they push the hot buttons of their new immigrant Danes, Swedes, Norwegians,
Finns, Germans, French, Spanish, Italians, Austrians, Swiss, Belgians, and
Dutchmen who are likely to go berserk in their quest for “order, peace, and
prosperity.” The only prominent European brave and prescient enough to name the
enemy is Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is regularly persecuted by his own
government
But, what makes a terrorist tick?
Tablet Magazine ran an article by Paul Berman on January 28th, “Why
Is the Islamist Death Cult So Appealing?
” He opens with:
Why do people
who are not clinically crazy throw themselves into campaigns of murder and
suicide? The sociological answer to this question assumes a pettiness in human
nature, such that even the slightest of humiliations and misfortunes may be
regarded as sufficiently devastating, under certain conditions, as to sweep
aside the gravest of moral considerations.
                                                         
I rather think that such people are criminally, not clinically crazy,
their “craziness” being no ameliorating defense or excuse for why they commit
murder, rape, deliberate destruction, and continue to attack Jews and other
“infidels.” At the risk of sounding like a xenophobe (or an “Islamophobe,” if
you like), I would say these people’s “mental” problems would be of no concern
to the West if they’d remained in their own pestholes of origin where they
could murder, rape, honor kill, and slaughter members of competing Islamic
“flocks” to their hearts’ desire. Instead, Western governments have invited
them in to civilized societies by the boat- and plane-full and don’t mind if
they bring their “cultures” with them in the name of their pitiless god,
diversity.
However, Berman writes:
I prefer to
invoke the history of ideas. People throw themselves into campaigns of murder
and suicide because they have come under the influence of malign doctrinal
systems, which appear to address the most profound and pressing of human
problems—and do so by openly rebelling against the gravest of moral
considerations. Doctrines of this sort render their adepts mad, not in a
clinical sense but in an everyday sense. And the power to drive people mad
comes precisely from the profundity, or the seeming profundity—which is what
everyone else fails to see.
Yes, it has something to do with ideas, in this case, the totalitarian
nature of Islam.
Berman concludes:
Why, then, do
people who are not clinically insane throw themselves into this kind of
insanity? Why do they do so even in the world’s wealthiest and most peaceful of
countries? They do so because the apocalyptic dreams and the cult of hatred and
murder and the yearning for death are fundamentals of modern culture. They
enlist because they are unhappy, and the eschatological rebellion against
everyday morality satisfies them. The Islamist idea, in its most extreme
version especially, offers every solace that a mopey young person could desire.
Tablet carried another article, by Nancy Hartevelt Korbin on February
11th, “Sadomasochism
and the Jihadi Death Cult
.” Korbin writes:
Paul Berman’s
recent essay
in Tablet magazine “Why Is the Islamist Death Cult So Appealing?” is a
wonderful piece on the history of Islamist ideas, but Berman does not really
answer the question that he poses in his first line: “Why do people who are not
clinically crazy throw themselves into campaigns of murder and suicide?”
Berman’s conclusion is that “apocalyptic dreams, the cult of hatred and murder
and yearning for death” born of unhappiness is what motivates Islamist
terrorists, and further that “eschatological rebellion against everyday
morality satisfies them.”
Korbin comes closer than Berman to an answer to the question of why so
many people are drawn to the jihadist life.
But is that why
they do it? Is that what motivates men in hoods to publicly decapitate an
individual with a knife, or pose smiling with the severed
head
of a woman, or put bullets into the heads of hundreds of captives and
toss them into the river, or most recently throw
a prisoner into a cage and light him on fire? Berman addresses the ideological
part of the problem, but buried deeper is the psychological pull of
sadomasochism—the thrill of violence, power, and control that comes from
inflicting pain on others. This is the unspoken driver of the appeal of the
Islamic State and similar groups.
In a word: Nihilism. For what is a sadomasochist but a nihilist who
experiences a sense of existential efficacy by inflicting pain on his victims,
either the drawn-out pain of a man in a cage set on fire, or the fleeting pain
of individuals crushed and incinerated in a jet plane as it strikes a
skyscraper, or the pain of a man feeling his head being sawn off?
In the final analysis, jihadists do what they do because it is what they
choose to do. Their militant professions
of love for Allah and acting out a variety of by-the-book Koranic diktats of
Mohammad disguise a profound hatred of existence, especially a hatred for those
who appear to be living happy, successful lives. The Islamic “faith” is
nihilistic. It appeals to those who are unhappy with being alive and unhappy
that others are happy to be alive. Islam does not offer them a reason to live, it
does not offer them an automatic set of goals and rewards to reach by living by a certain ethos.
On the surface, that is sadomasochism. But, existentially, that is
nihilism, whose end is to destroy the good for being the good.
Islam’s chief appeal to Islamic
terrorists is that it offers them a chance to escape life, to escape existence. They rationalize their
brutality by saying or thinking that what they choose to do in the name of Allah is to destroy those who deny
Allah, and in the most hideous ways possible. As the terrorists hate their own
existence, they wish to make their victims regret
their own existence. The ethereal reward of a paradise with seventy-two
virgins, if any Muslim really believes in such a thing, to an Islamic terrorist
ready to “martyr” himself is the mental mirage of eternal, effortless, causeless, purposeless, selfless existence.
One cannot dismiss the element of volition when examining the motives
and actions of Islamic terrorists. They choose
to kill for the sake of killing. And that choice reflects a life-long affinity
with nihilism, from early childhood up thru adulthood.
Yes, Prime Minister Thorning-Schmidt, there is a war between the West
and Islam, and to grasp the reality of it, one must first grasp the anti-life
core of Islam. If you think that life
is the motive and fuel of Islamic terrorists, you are badly and perilously
mistaken.

On Phobias

Let’s talk about phobias. Not about phobias such as
arachnophobia, and ophidiophobia, and acrophobia, or even gynophobia.
A phobia, after all,
is an intense, terrifying, and often debilitating, but legitimate or
unreasoning fear of something or of doing something. An object is perceived,
sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, as something that poses a threat to one’s
life or values. A phobia freezes one’s rational faculties and capacity for
action; however, the suspension of one’s mind or capacity to act itself can prove
to be genuinely perilous.  A phobia is
rooted in a fear or hatred of the thing.
A friend remarked when I let her know the subject of this
column:
The hallmark of phobias
is that they are impervious to rational examination. That’s one reason it’s
used as a pejorative by manipulators, to convey the idea of an irrational hatred
and aversion. For a Muslim to acknowledge that there might be reasons for
such dislike opens the door to questions of what it is about Islam that might cause
it. Even “bigotry” invites debate. But phobia — there’s
nothing to be done but for the blameless victim to be protected from
such inexplicable malice. The “phobe” must be silenced and
immobilized like a raving maniac in a Victorian madhouse. 
To judge by the polls, I’m certain that not a few Americans have
at least a touch of Obamaphobia and if not are in the grip of an obsessive one; if
one hadn’t developed it during Obama’s first term in office, he surely must
have during his second. If not, then there’s something terribly wrong with such
a person. He must be a liberal. One could attach phobia as a suffix to the name of every person in the Obama
administration or ever passed through it.  
I would say that both Obamaphobia
and Islamophobia can be rationally
examined by focusing on the causes of the phobias: In Obama’s case, his
conscious, unchecked reign of destruction of America and of American lives; in
Islam’s case, its fourteen-century record of destruction, murder, rape, mayhem,
and slavery that continues to this day.
Of course, the liberal/left smear phobia term of the moment, in the White House and out of it, is Islamophobia.
The motto of Bare Naked
Islam
, after all, is, “It isn’t Islamophobia if they REALLY are trying to
kill you.” I wonder if the twelve staff members of Charlie Hebdo felt
“Islamophobic” before they were murdered by Muslim “fanatics,” who were
actually just carrying out Mohammad’s diktats. And, of course, there is this
latest incidence of Sharia
enforcement
in Copenhagen that has nothing to do with Islam. There are
Australian cafés and Swedish ones, both jihad-rich.
                                                              
The term has disputed origins. It may have been coined by the
Muslim Brotherhood or by someone closely affiliated with the MB. Robert Spencer
of Jihad
Watch
wrote an excellent article on the term’s beginnings, cluttered as
those are with claimants to its invention. Discover
the Networks
has an authoritative article on the term’s origins:
                                                                                                                                                
The term “Islamophobia” was invented
and promoted in the early 1990s
by the International
Institute for Islamic Thought
(IIIT), a front group of the Muslim
Brotherhood
. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad — who was with that
organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected
IIIT’s ideology — now reveals
the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is
nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of
Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its
very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as
a weapon
to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and
silencing them.
“Muslim think tanks”?
An oxymoron, to be sure. Islam has more to do with unreserved faith, rather
than with thought. However, The
American  Muslim
website has much to
say about the origins of the term, “Islamophobia.” The article is hostile to
anyone who fears Islam and is contemptuous of anyone who dares question Islam
and its sorry record of not observing individual or “human rights,” but does a
credible albeit lop-sided job of tracing the etymologically confusing and
ideological roots of the term, citing Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Claire
Berlinski, Discover the Networks, Pamela Geller, and others. The author
dismisses as paranoid hokum any factual evidence that people have legitimate
reasons to be fearful of Islam:
Islamophobes generalize specific
incidents
to reflect on all Muslims or all of Islam.   
Islamophobes consistently push demonstrably false memes such as:  –
we are in danger from creeping
Sharia
, – the Muslim population
is increasing
at an alarming rate, – 80%
of American Mosques are radicalized
,  –  There have been 270
million victims of “jihad”
  –  There have been 17,000+
“Islamic terrorist” attacks since 9/11
    – Muslims
in government
are accused of being Muslim Brotherhood plants, stealth
jihadists
, and creeping Sharia proponents and should be
MARGINALIZED
or excluded.  Muslim and Arab organizations and
individuals are connected to the infamous Muslim
Brotherhood document
or the unindicted
co-conspirator
label, or accused of not
condemning Hamas
, telling American Muslims not
to talk
to the FBI, of being “Jew
haters”
, etc.
There have been over
20,000
“specific incidents” of fatal Islamic jihad since 9/11. Uncounted
tens of thousands have died from Islamic terrorism since then. Government
demographic studies show that Muslim populations are increasing in Europe and
in the U.S.  Dozens of Muslims occupy
sensitive positions in the government. And so on.
The author, Sheila Musaji, obviously has referred to the
articles and records cited by the “Islamophobes,” but their reality means
nothing to her. To her, reality is malleable, or it’s a lie. The evidence can
be interpreted any way one wishes, except objectively. Reality is a Rubik’s
Cube and reality can be twisted to any combination of colors and be right, as
long as it’s “subjective” or “relative” and the matching color is Islamic Green.
She blanks out the evidence of her senses in favor of what she wants to believe. Possibly she worked in
an Islamic “think tank.” That would explain her voluntary blindness.
Read this long piece at your own risk. It is much like crawling
through the development of Modern English from Medieval English, with many of
Shakespeare’s loan words thrown in for good measure. And, the author of the
piece reveals her true allegiance in her by-line:
Sheila Musaji is the
founding editor of The American Muslim (TAM), published since 1989. 
Sheila received the Council on American-Islamic Relations 2007 Islamic
Community Service Award for Journalism
,  and the Loonwatch Anti-Loons
of 2011: Profiles in Courage Award
for her work in fighting
Islamophobia.  Sheila was selected for inclusion in the 2012 edition of The
Muslim 500: The World’s 500 Most Influential Muslims
published since 2009
by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre in Amman,
Jordan.    Biography 
You can follow her on twitter @sheilamusaji ( https://twitter.com/SheilaMusaji
)
Daniel Pipes discusses the phenomenon of Islamophobia in his
February 13th article, “What
Actually Causes American Fear of Islam and Muslims
?” He reports:
An ambitious 81-page
document, Fear,
Inc. 2.0:
The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America
,
just appeared from the Center for American Progress, a liberal Democratic
organization. Unlike its first
iteration
, in which a group with a $40-million annual budget and deep ties
to big business had the nerve to claim that seven much smaller institutions
were overpowering the country through their financial clout, this one looks at
what the alleged “Islamophobia network” actually does.
The report, written by
Matthew Duss, Yasmine Taeb, Ken Gude, and Ken Sofer, makes for interesting
reading. Its premise is that critics of Islamism (1) are really anti-Islamic
and (2) have single-handedly distorted the fundamental American value, namely a
“basic respect for the rights of minority groups throughout the country.”
According to the CAP study, “the views of anti-Muslim actors stand in
stark contrast to the values of most Americans.”
By dint of hard work,
however, “a well-funded, well-organized fringe movement can push
discriminatory policies against a segment of American society by intentionally
spreading lies while taking advantage of moments of public anxiety and
fear.” This effort “takes many shapes and forms”: a general
climate, cynical political efforts, and institutional policies. Despite some
setbacks, continues the CAP narrative, the network’s efforts “continue to
erode America’s core values of religious pluralism, civil rights, and social
inclusion.”
Pipes reaches the logical explanation of why Americans fear
Islam and Muslims:
                      
Maybe it’s Islamists who
are prompting powerful and spontaneous responses through their threatening
behavior. Maybe we critics are not “intentionally spreading lies” but
honestly interpreting Islamist aggression and supremacism. Maybe CAP and its
ilk should blame the fear of Islam less on us critics and more on the Islamists
themselves.
Fear
Inc. 2.0
begins by discussing a straw man, Anders Breivik, the
rampaging Norwegian “Islamophobe” and his manifesto against Marxism and the
Muslim colonization or settlement of Europe. In the manifesto Breivik cited the
writings of Robert Spencer and other “Islamophobes” as evidence of the
widespread “anti-Islam” meme about Islam. This is the launching pad for the
rest of the  Fear Inc’s  screed against
any and all critics of Islam.
Breivik’s manifesto
contains numerous footnotes and in-text citations to American bloggers and
pundits, quoting them as experts on Islam’s “war against the West.” This small
group of anti-Muslim organizations and individuals in our nation is obscure to
most Americans but wields great influence in shaping the national and
international political debate. Their names are heralded within communities
that are actively organizing against Islam and targeting Muslims in the United
States.
Breivik, for example,
cited Robert Spencer, one of the anti-Muslim misinformation scholars we profile
in this report, and his blog, Jihad Watch, 162 times in his manifesto.
Spencer’s website, which “tracks the attempts of radical Islam to subvert
Western culture,” boasts another member of this Islamophobia network in
America, David Horowitz, on his Freedom Center website. Pamela Geller,
Spencer’s frequent collaborator, and her blog, Atlas Shrugs, was mentioned 12
times.
From there it’s downhill, through dozens of pages of factual
errors, half-truths, and countless ad
hominems
. The report concludes:
Of course, the
Islamophobia network was utterly contemptuous of Cain’s efforts to reach out to
moderate Muslims. At the Western Conservative Conference in Denver this summer,
Frank Gaffney alleged that [Herman] Cain had actually met with members of the
“Muslim Brotherhood apparatus in Washington, D.C.” Gaffney added, “If, in fact,
he’s now changed his position in ways that are being reported, that’s even more
troubling than if he was spending time with Muslim Brothers.”
Such unchecked bullying
by the misinformation experts should not be tolerated. Our nation needs more
responsible conservatives to stand side by side with progressives to safeguard
our national security and uphold America’s core values of religious freedom and
respect for ethnic diversity. A required first step is to expose the influence
of the organizations, individuals, and groups, who make up the Islamophobia
network in America. {pp. 126-127}
Never mind Herman Cain, “once a favorite on the Islamophobia
network for his outspoken views about Sharia law when he first launched his
campaign for the Republican Party nomination for president” and his “walking
back” his positions on Islam and Sharia. There’s President Barack Obama, who’s
rarely “walked back” his pro-Islam positions in any circumstance. Just
recently, he has met with key “low profile” members of the Muslim American leadership.
The
Blaze
reported on February 6th:
The White House quietly
released the names of the Muslim leaders who met privately with President
Barack Obama earlier this week to discuss the Islamic State, anti-Muslim
“discrimination” and even Obamacare.
After initially declining
to reveal who attended the meeting, the administration attached the list of 14
people who attended the Wednesday meeting.
Among the fourteen people were (allow me some levity here): 
Bilqis “Qisi”
Abdul-Qaadir
, Director of Women’s Basketball Operations, Indiana State
University, who gave Obama some dribbling pointers; Arshia Wajid,
Founder, American Muslim Health Professionals, who gave Obama an impromptu
check-up; Dean
Obeidallah
, Comedian, Dean of Comedy, who coached Obama on timing and
suggested changes in Obama’s joke delivery in public speeches (“You gotta lay
off of that ‘folks’ stuff, Bubba, it ain’t buyin’ you friends”; and Farhana Khera,
President, Muslim Advocates, who offered her legal services should he need them
in case Michelle beats him up again for flirting
with a Danish prime minister
or any other blondes (“Forgive me for saying
so, Barack, but I think your wife could crush the Hulk in arm-wrestling and
bend all your
golf clubs
with her bare hands”).
An unlisted guest was Huma
Abedin
, “confidante” of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Huma
performed a fan dance
with transparent feathers to the delectation of the male members of assembled
conferees, and also to that of the Secret Service guards present. Arisha Wajid
joined Huma in a lascivious belly-dance. Farhana Khera wasn’t amused, and
complained to Obama that it was blatant “sexism” calculated to offend Muslim moral
sensitivities.
So much about phobias. My next column will discuss the appeal of
Islamic terrorism.

Lies the Media Told Me

Marshall McLuhan’s claim that ‘the medium is
the message
” is a rule of thumb adopted by today’s news media. Truth is
optional, and the means by which it is delivered to the public has become a
matter of “style” and bias. If truth does not comport with an established
narrative, falsehood is permissible. After all, the public, to whom the news is
directed, doesn’t know the difference.
Truth, in the news media, is becoming more and more as
rare as a halal hamburger in Riyadh,
or a wine list in a Tehran restaurant. If a news event doesn’t fit the New York
Times’s printable meme or mantra, it isn’t going to be reported without
slanting and bias so severe that even a cursory examination of it will capsize
the story to reveal the rust and barnacles on its hull. The same rule of thumb
goes for most news organizations and outlets, including the Washington Post and
other “major” dailies. Almost every one of them delivers messages, not news.
        
Most of them don’t even pretend to be paragons of journalism anymore. What, after all, is a
journal? It is a record of
significant or noteworthy events, entered without prejudice for or against the
things in the events. The news media couldn’t even report Paul Revere shouting
“The British are coming!” without injecting some squib about gay rights,
because some of the British officers were perhaps gay, and any shots fired at
them could be said to be “homophobic.”
                                                                                                                                                                              
“Cow bites milkmaid” won’t be reported by the New York
Times without some subtle, sub-textual message about animal rights or gender
exploitation.  Virtually the only realm
of unbiased news reportage left in any medium is the obituaries, and sometimes even
those are skewed when the deceased was a celebrity or a politician whose true
character is not only suspect but so reeking with scandal (e.g., the passing of
Ted Kennedy) that toxic fumes leak from the person’s casket. That’s another
kind of “odor
of sanctity
.” It can’t be dispersed or disguised by a gallon of eau de cologne spritzers.
                                                   
 The phony war
stories of Brian Williams are but the tip of the media practice and culture of
rearranging reality to suit a fantasy world of political correctness and to
satisfy a hankering for a “perfect” world. Perhaps he thought that if Hillary
Clinton could get away with lying about her “dodging bullets” in Bosnia for so
long before being found out, he could get away with claiming that the helicopter
he was riding in
Iraq came under
RPG fire,
when no such thing happened. Hillary claimed that she
“misremembered” the imaginary
sniper fire
episode in Bosnia in 1996. “Misremembering” things seems to be
as common a thing as zits on a high school sophomore.
In the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina
, Williams was photographed in waders sloshing thru flood
waters. He claimed to have seen bodies floating under his hotel window, and
that gangs had invaded his hotel and he was frightened. None of this happened,
except for the photo-op. The rest was his imagination. He and his ilk can
always claim, when the truth contracts their assertions, that the problem is a
matter of “misremembering,” or symptoms of “post-combat mental trauma.”
As Daniel Greenfield put it in his FrontPage article of
February 9th, “Brian
Williams for President
,” about the major news networks abetting the
“misdemeanor” of lying to the public because the lies help to advance the
Progressive agenda of turning America into a minimum security correctional
facility :
Brian Williams is in trouble for
lying, but he was part of a media culture of deceit where lies were acceptable
for a good progressive cause. Williams isn’t really in trouble because he lied,
but because he got caught. Worse still, the lies were self-serving. They served
Brian Williams; they didn’t serve the left.
Williams had failed to draw the line
between the “good lie” (ObamaCare is making life better) and the “bad lie” (I
swam the flooded French Quarter with puppies on my back during Katrina while Al
Qaeda shot RPGs at me). But the borders between the “good lie” and the “bad
lie” have been vague when it comes to the titans of the left.
If he thought he could get away with another whopper,
Williams probably would have also claimed that he hurt his index finger by sticking
it into all fifty dikes and flood walls during Katrina to help stop the flooding.
For the longest time, for decades, in fact, I grew to
despise news anchors. It began with the hectoring voice of Walter Cronkite in
the 1950’s. But Brian Williams is representative of the smarmy, sneering, cynically
sanctimonious, slickly groomed face also telling me “that’s how it is.” Their
offensive, know-it-all styles of delivery made them personalities, not newsmen,
actors, not conveyers of truth, perhaps a rung and a half up from carnival
barkers.
This false news reportage has become a tradition among
news anchors, continued by the likes of Peter
Jennings
and Dan
Rather
, to whom news reportage/lying to the public is a “crude
art form
,” akin to a Jackson Pollack canvas. These people are so desperate
to adhere to their politically correct agenda, and want to be remembered as the
electronic heralds of a “new world order,” that they are willing to fabricate a
glittering monstrance and substitute their glossy, patent leather faces for a eucharist.
Williams apologized
publically for lying to the public. But apologies are not enough in the way of
justice. He should be fired, perhaps sent back to Elmira, New York, and his Peabody Award—for his Katrina
hurricane reportage – recalled to lighten his luggage.  Investment
Watch
on February 6th noted:
A
host of military veterans and pundits came forward on television and social
media, challenging Mr. Williams’s assertion that he had simply made a mistake
when he spoke, on several occasions, about having been in a United States
military helicopter forced down by enemy fire in Iraq in 2003. Some went so far
as to call for his resignation.
In
his apology, Mr. Williams
said that
he had been on a different helicopter, behind the one that had
sustained fire, and that he had inadvertently “conflated” the two. The
explanation earned him not only widespread criticism on radio and TV talk
shows, but widespread ridicule on Twitter, under the hashtag “#BrianWilliamsMisremembers.
On my edition of the game show, “Truth or
Consequences
,” Williams is asked, “Mr.  Williams: When did American terrorists invade
England to reclaim all of Bill Clinton’s saxophones?”
Williams: “That’s a leading question, Ed, but it was in
1066.”
The eardrum-shattering, “Misremembering” buzzer sounds, the
audience goes “AWH!,” Williams looks pained, a trapdoor beneath his seat opens,
and he drops out of sight.
He pops up on the other side of the stage, strapped to a
chair, and the chairman of NBC, Bob Greenbatt, comes on stage with a bucket,
and proceeds to wash Williams’s mouth out with  bars of soap to the raucous amusement of the
audience. 
Well, no, that’s not going to happen. The worst case
scenario for Williams will be that he will be retired and sent back to Elmira
with his golden parachute. The worst case scenario for the public would be that
Greenbatt declares Williams to be an irreplaceable asset to NBC and is retained
after a brief term of absence from the screen. 
The worst case scenario for the public – or that part of
it which still watches NBC Nightly News or anything else on NBC – will be that
Greenbatt says that Williams is an asset to the network.
The Washington
Post
reported today (February 9th) that Williams’s story about gangs terrorizing
him at the posh hotel where he stayed during Katrina:
There’s a story Brian
Williams likes to tell. He has told it in a TV interview.
He has told it to at
least two
book authors. But
even though it had all the makings of a great yarn — danger, guns,
resolve — Williams never reported it to his viewers.
It’s the one
about the gangs that Williams claimed had “overrun” a posh
Ritz-Carlton where he stayed during Hurricane Katrina.
Williams
is a born showman. With that baritone, that thatch of bronze hair, that
gravitas — when the NBC News anchor gets going on a story, little can stop him.
But that skill, which carried him to the highest echelons of broadcast
journalism, may ultimately prove his undoing. Following his concession that a
military helicopter he rode during the Iraq War didn’t take fire as he claimed,
Williams is now in hibernation mode. He hasn’t answered repeated interview
requests and, following an NBC announcement that his reporting on Iraq and Hurricane
Katrina is under
review
, will now take “several days” off from the network.
So, Williams is standing in the
corner as his punishment, for a while, at least, hoping he’ll have another
chance to claim that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. He may not be the congenital
liars that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are, but he nevertheless a liar.          
The lies the news media have told me
are legion. Someday I’ll compile a long, long list of them.

Not Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals II

At the
end of my last column, “Not
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
,”
in which I distinguish between Saul Alinsky’s manual
for “community organizing” against selected local targets in the economic and
cultural realms, and Takuan’s
“Laws
” for “governing” the national 
“community” once the “radicals” have entrenched themselves in political
power and have become the authoritarian establishment, I noted:
Seiyo’s laws are presented as
abstractions [initially]. I have no argument with them except for their
unfamiliar nomenclature. It has been my philosophy of political and cultural
commentary to prefer the concrete over the abstract. All abstract hypotheses
are founded on concretes, arguing from the particulars to the general. I think
that is the best way to communicate the power of ideas. If there are no
concretes or particulars to instance, then no matter how broad the abstraction,
there is no idea to communicate, and no abstraction to contemplate or reach.
Seiyo provides concretes in Part I as an overture to Part II. 
In Part
I
I of his disquisition, Takuan Seiyo applies his abstractions and offers
numerous instances or concrete examples of Lawrence Auster’s and Takuan’s
“Laws” in action.
                                                                                                                         
In my
original “Not Alinsky’s” column, I discussed the four abstractions Takuan Seiyo
lists under the headingThe
Laws of Postmodern Social Reality
,” which read:
1.
Liberal Society approaches all majority-minority issues with a quadruple
blindfold.
Presentism is the
first blindfold. All past attitudes and deeds relative to any minority are
judged by present standards.
Relativism is the
second blindfold. All judgments relative to past or current attitudes and deeds
toward any minority are applied to White society alone.
Outlyism is the
third blindfold. Any negative statistical fact relative to the mean or majority
characteristics of any designated minority is shouted down by quoting the
far-outlying exceptions to that statistical fact.
Sentimentalism is the
fourth blindfold. All negative hard or statistical facts relative to any
minority group are shouted down in preference to cuddly feelings about that
group or implanted feelings of guilt relative to it.
2. The
main goal of Liberal Society is to implement a radical equality that is
unnatural and in defiance of salient biological facts and unchanging human
reality. This can only be accomplished by coercion of the majority and
squashing of once-common civil liberties. This, in turn, requires an enormous
growth of the Liberal-Oppressive State, with its joined canopy of social
repressions and engineered culture implemented by all societal institutions at
levels as extreme, if not as violent, as they were under the Nazi Gleichschaltung.
3.
Liberal Society inexorably fractures and breaks down due to its promotion of
designated identitarian minorities and cultivation of the radically egalitarian
fictions related thereto.
4. The
ruling elite can keep Liberal Society together only by employing egregious
means bordering on fascism.
The
term identitarian is another of
Seiyo’s neologisms I’m uncomfortable with, but for the nonce, I’ll accept it as
meaning a collectivist term that applies to a group-oriented ideology that
permits an individual to assert something like, “I’m a Muslim first, American
second,” or, “I’m a Muslim first, and British second.” Or, “I’m a
Muslim-American” or “I’m a German Muslim of Turkish  persuasion.” This mindset could easily be dubbed
“Hyphenism,” the hyphen signalling that a person’s first  loyalty is to his group or tribe, not to the
country of his residence and in contrast to his citizenship.
The
mainstream media naturally adopts the mindset, as well, as when one can see headlines
such as, “Somali-American students go on a rampage in
a high school cafeteria
.” Identifying the Somalis as Muslims is verboten.  (This incident in Minnesota involved a fight
between black Americans and Somali-Americans.) Or, “Most Irish-Americans don’t
get drunk on St. Patrick’s Day.” The hyphenization of groups and individuals
has been ongoing for decades. I would be startled to hear an American Jew
confess that he was “Jewish-American.” I have cocked a snook at the trend and refuse
to refer to myself as an “Atheist-American.”
Some
hyphenization is legitimate, as in a hypothetical story headlined, “Poll: 96%
of Mexican-Americans say they won’t vote Democratic in 2016 because of Obama’s
amnesty plans,” or, “Most Cuban-Americans give thumbs down to Obama’s Cuba
overtures.”
That
being said, Seiyo prefaces his four points with:
Prior to analyzing the fallout from the recent “extremist
events” that we discussed in Part 1,  it’s useful to take a look at the Laws of
Social Reality that govern these phenomena.
Witnessing the psychotic fawning that the United States’
establishment lavished on Muslims and Islam after 9/11, the traditionalist
thinker Lawrence Auster formed his Law of
Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society
:
“The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a
liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctness in
covering up for that group. The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white
group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and
drawing rational conclusions about that group’s bad behavior.”
Auster elaborated further: “The First Law and its corollary are
intrinsic to liberalism. Once the equality of all human groups is accepted as a
given, any facts that make a minority or foreign group seem worse than the
majority native group must be either covered up or blamed on the majority.”
Since the 1960s, this law has been immutable in all the lands of
the Euro peoples, and was lavishly on display after the recent “extremist”
unpleasantness in majority-white countries. But it alone cannot convey the
manifold ways in which the West’s liberal rulers’ partly psychotic, partly
conniving obsession with designated minorities, Muslim or not, affects our
world’s present state and future destiny. In homage to the prematurely-departed
Larry Auster, l shall formulate here the laws subsidiary to his and bracketing
this phenomenon.
                                                                  
Throughout
Takuan’s essay he makes repeated references to Caucasians (or “whites”)
laboring under the rule of the Liberal establishment. Lest anyone conclude that
he is arguing from a racist position, it should be noted that it is the Liberal
establishment that instigated the race issue, and long before its fortuitous
alliance with Islam. For example, a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood, the
International Institute for Islamic Thought, coined the term “Islamophobia.”
It is consistently employed by especially the infidel MSM as a derogative term
for critics of Islam – be they serious critics of Islam or someone who
expresses his contempt for Islam by smearing the door of a mosque with pig’s
blood. A fear of Islam, they imply, is the  same as racism. In non-Islamic issues, Liberals
contend or agree with black racists that “whites” owe blacks reparations for
past slavery.
But
not, they neglect to say, Saudi Arabia, or any other surviving feudal Muslim
regime; omitting the fact that Muslims enslaved blacks, millions of them, for
centuries before any country in the West practiced slavery. “White” or
“Western” civilization, they natter on,  is a form of racial imperialism imposed on all
“people of color.”
But
most Muslims happen to be people of one color or another, including a growing
number of whites searching for a religion that will tell them what to do and
why they should live and for an iconic ghost that punishes thought. Their “diversity”
and multicultural education have left them empty of self and brain dead. So,
Islam is not a race. Islam can make no claim to any achievement that parallels
any of the West’s. Islam has never sent probes to other planets, has not
invented disease-eradicating vaccines or open-heart surgery, never figured out
pressure loads for 100-story skyscrapers, never discovered the oil beneath the
sands of the Mideast wastes otherwise watered by the blood shed over the
centuries by all the warring nomadic tribes in thrall to one form of Islam or
another. Any positive achievement of the West’s is rooted in a recognition of
and an adherence to the efficacy of reason and a fealty to reality, reached first
during the Renaissance and then during the Enlightenment after centuries of the
West wallowing in the same brand of anti-reason mysticism to which Islam has
grasped tenaciously for fourteen centuries and will never let go of lest Islam
perish in historic irrelevancy, leaving behind only a steady, unbroken record
of nihilism.
Islam and
reason are in essence antithetical. No “reformation” of Islam is possible without
gutting it of its violent, anti-man nature.
Following
are some of Seiyo’s numerous instances of craven Western timidity regarding Islam
and a bullheaded, fact-denying refusal to name Islam as the cause of the “violent
extremism” of Muslims:
NBC Television analyst Evan
Kohlmann opined that France’s Problem is “The Far-Right,” not the Jihadists,
let alone the 10 million African Muslims.
Great Britain’s Telegraph
featured a headline on the Charlie Hebdo massacre that read “France faces
rising tide of Islamophobia”
BBC News ran a program about
the growing anti-Semitism in France, showing footage of a neo-Nazi march a year
earlier, but nothing of the Muslim purveyors of 99% of the anti-Semitism.
The New York Daily News
pixilated the Muhammad cartoon in its story about the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
Fox News issued an abject
apology for “regrettable errors on air regarding the Muslim population in
Europe,” citing “no credible information to support the assertion” concerning
the existence of “so-called ‘No Go Zones’ areas where non-Muslims allegedly
aren’t allowed in and police supposedly won’t go.” Bloomberg Business Week
published “Debunking the Myth of Muslim-Only Zones in Major European Cities.”
Despite the fact that an official French
government document was published in 1996
, listing 750
such zones
, and reports by prestigious French institutions, among them Fondation
Res Publica
, Institut Montaigne, and University
of Paris
exist, describing these lawless (non-droit) colonies.
What about
ISIS? Al-Qaeda? The Taliban? Hezbollah? Boko Haram? These and other terrorist organizations,
goes the Liberal line, have little or nothing to do with Islam. Their members
are merely “violent extremists” (aka “militants”) who have “misread
the Koran. To wit, President
Barack Obama
on the brutal murder of the Jordanian
pilot
by ISIS. In the video of his remarks, Obama looks and speaks about
the Jordanian pilot as though he just had a bad day at the golf course. He may
as well have been reciting the rules of the course clubhouse.
“Lieutenant al-Kasasbeh’s
dedication, courage, and service to his country and family represent universal
human values that stand in opposition to the cowardice and depravity of ISIL,
which has been so broadly rejected around the globe.  As we grieve
together, we must stand united, respectful of his sacrifice to defeat this
scourge.  Today, the coalition fights for everyone who has suffered from
ISIL’s inhumanity.  It is their memory that invests us and our coalition
partners with the undeterred resolve to
see ISIL and its hateful ideology
banished to the recesses of history.” [Italics mine]
And the
name of that “hateful ideology,” Mr.  President? Islam. But Obama refuses to utter
the word. He doesn’t want to be identified as an “Islamophobe.” If anything, he
is an Islamophile. His administration is riddled with Muslims and Islamophiles,
ideological termites eating away at our country’s national security. With his
blessing.
And, a
few more of Seiyo’s instances of genuine “Islamophobia,” that is, examples of fearing
the consequences of bad-mouthing Islam so instead it’s better to state that Islam
is a paragon of tolerance and good will:
The
Swells Who Ride in Limousines (SWORILs) turned out en masse for a
photo-op in Paris, with millions of Useful Idiots throughout the West declaring
to TV cameras “Je suis Charlie Hebdo,” but not a single one declaring “Je suis
Charlie Martel.” German Useful Idiots went as far as carrying signs that read,
“I am Charlie Hebdo — but not PEGIDA.”
German
Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Joachim Gauck attended in Berlin a
Muslim-organized event “to promote tolerance and religious freedom and “to show
solidarity with the victims.” The victims, alas, could no longer benefit from
the solidarity.
Herr
Gauck said to the crowd; “We are all Germany” and disclosed with astonishing
originality that “Germany has become more diverse through immigration —
religiously, culturally and mentally.” His assertion that this diversity has
made Germany more successful, interesting and likeable was based on far more
flimsy evidence.
Frau
Merkel asserted that Islam was part of Germany and that there was no place for
“hatred, racism and extremism” in the country. Of course not; that’s why an
estimated 550 “Germans” are out of the country, exercising their hatred, racism
and extremism with ISIS, with so many more trying to join that the German
government is replacing their regular ID documents with “jihadi cards,” to
prevent them from leaving the country.
Here’s a
last instance that occurred too late for Seiyo to include:
Sweden to reward returning ISIS Jihadists
. They’re going to be offered
couch time and gainful employment:
Jihadists returning to Örebro Municipality will get
psychological help.
And not only that: Tvärsnytt now reveals that the municipality council are
discussing giving them jobs.

– It gives a very inverted signal, Peter Santesson, opinion Director at
Demoskop, says to the Swedish newspaper Expressen.


ISIS Jihadists returning to Örebro will be offered help by a psychologist, the
municipal leaders have decided. Jihadists are likely to have traumatic
experiences and this is where the municipality wants to help.

– We have discussed how we should work for these guys who have come back, and
to prevent them from returning to the fighting, and that they should be helped
to process the traumatic experiences they have been through, Councilor Rasmus
Persson (C), said to SVT “Tvärsnytt”.

They also want to offer the jihadists jobs in the municipality. The initiative
is to prevent alienation, which the Örebro Politicians believe is the reason to
take part in the fighting in Iraq and Syria. (!)
Oh! We
mustn’t forget the “traumatic experiences” the return jihadists have been
through! The poor dears! However, we should
forget the traumatic experiences of native Swedish women who have been gang
raped by Muslims, or the experiences of the Jews of Malmo at the hands of
invading Muslim settlers whose religion calls for the extermination of Jews, and
other inconvenient but unmentionable experiences of Swedes, mentionable on pain
of being charged with “hate speech” and “racism.”
Paul
Weston
takes British Home Secretary Theresa May to task for her pro-Islam,
pro-Muslim speech delivered at a Party conference last month, in his column, “The
Multicultural Madness of Theresa May.”
When we willfully refuse to
believe basic facts, such as the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islam, we
retreat into fantasy or outright lies in order to deny the bleeding obvious.
Highly educated men and women with PHD’s and Master’s degrees thus find
themselves talking utter nonsense when it comes to Islam, simply because of
their Politically Correct refusal to accept the awful, ghastly reality of Islam’s
rigid belief system.
The pathologically irrational
behaviour of British Home Secretary Theresa May is just such an example of the
insanity that ensues when liberals pontificate upon Islam. She made a speech
recently at the Conservative Party Conference which was so riddled with
platitudes, contradictions, lies and fantasies that had it been submitted it as
an end of term paper, she would have been laughed out of a school for slow
learners let alone Oxford University from where she inexplicably graduated.
After quoting
several delusional but Islam-fawning portions of her speech, Weston asks:
Memo to TM: Are you utterly
insane? You cannot state we celebrate different ways of life and value
diversity whilst at the same time complaining about people because they lead
different lives in line with the “diverse” values of 7th century
Arabia. The whole point of diversity is “difference” sweetie-pie! This is as
foolish as stating you value the diversity entailed in living with peckish
lions and then complaining about their illiberally carnivorous behaviour when
they unsurprisingly eat you. You can celebrate British values or you can celebrate
Islamic values. You cannot, you simply cannot celebrate both! A
five year-old would understand this basic fact. Why cannot you?
I have to ask you, in all
seriousness Ms May, are you A) Suffering from a form of mental illness? B) Both
remarkably stupid and illogical? C) A coward? D) A traitor? E) A typical
careerist politician engaging in lies and deception in order to ensure the
inevitably violent racial/religious break-down occurs only after you have
retired somewhere safe with your gold plated pension?
And a final question, Home
Secretary May: When our politicians refuse to recognize reality, is it likely
that reality will just disappear, or will it remain to devour our children?
Memo to
Theresa May: You wish Islam to be what it isn’t, just as convicted
classified document leaker Bradley
Manning
wishes to be something he isn’t: A doppelganger of you, albeit a
younger version, and in prison for the next thirty-five years.
I have
some helpful advice for Mr. Weston: What permits Theresa May to shamelessly
flaunt her lunacy as official policy is pragmatism, the philosophy that reason,
principles, integrity, and sanity needn’t guide one’s actions or policies, that
they’re optional, and what works is not subscribing to any one of those things,
but ensuring that Muslims don’t demonstrate loudly calling for her head and
that of Prime Minister David Cameron.
In conclusion,
it should go without saying that had the West not abandoned reason, none of
these things would ever have occurred. They would have been the subject of
wildly imaginative satire. But, as nature abhors a vacuum, and if reason is
absent from human relationships, only the irrational will fill the void left
behind by retreating reason. 
We
would not be assaulted daily with so many absurdities, contradictions, and
abbreviations. And Lawrence Auster and Takuan Seiyo would never have had reason
to formulate their Laws and Rules for a Liberal Society.
                 

Not Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

Saul
Alinsky’s Rules
for Radicals
is a handbook for pursuing and achieving political power over
an institution, city or country or a manipulatable group of people. Takuan
Seiyo’s own “Rules
for Radicals
” is all about maintaining that power, once it has been seized
by groups who are no longer “radicals,” but represent the establishment.
Seiyo’s
essays can be found on the always-informative Gates of Vienna site, here
for Part I, and here
for Part II. They are engrossing in the literal sense: Once read, they are
etched into one’s mind, as when one signed or “engrossed” a petition to the
Crown to repeal the Stamp Act and signed by American colonials in 1765.
Together,
the essays are called “Oppression Instead of Admission.” I suspect that “Takuan
Seiyo” is the pseudonym or pen name of a native Californian, now living in
Tokyo, who doesn’t want to be identified and found. I doubt he ever will be
found in a city of 27 million. He would be as impossible to find as a needle in
a haystack the height of Mt. Fuji.
Seiyo extrapolates his formulae of liberal/left dominance in
Western political society from Lawrence Auster’s “First Law of
Majority-Minority Relations
,” found on the View From the Right site, posted
in November 2002, a year and change after 9/11:
Having read Ann Coulter’s column
on the media’s amazing attempts to downplay the fact that John Muhammad is …
um, a Muhammadan, I think it may be time to re-state Auster’s First Law of
Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society:
[Auster’s embedded link
to Coulter’s column is to her bio and Townhall credits, not to the cited
article itself, “Media
Muslim Makeovers
!” I had to search for the article, in which Coulter dwells
on the complicated mental and verbal gymnastics of the mainstream media to
avoid identifying Islam as the motive for the Maryland-Virginia shootings in
2001.]
The worse any designated
minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the
lies of Political Correctness in covering up for that group. Thus, instead of
the revelation over the last 14 months of Islam’s dangerous and savage
character leading (as would happen in a rational world) to a major discrediting
of Muslims, or at least to a more skeptical attitude toward them, it has led to
their being more favored, more coddled and more protected
from criticism than ever before. They now get a whole new level of solicitous,
sycophantic treatment, ranging from PBS “histories” of Islam that are more full
of uncritical celebration of their subject than a tourist travelogue, to the
media’s constant attacks on the rest of us for indulging in an anti-Muslim
backlash which has somehow never occurred.
Except in
the form of the written and spoken word, which the Liberal establishment wishes
to suppress without calling it censorship, for “sensitivity,” “defamation,” or “victimization”
reasons.
That last point leads us
to the first corollary of Auster’s First Law of Majority/Minority Relations in
Liberal Society: The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group
behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and
drawing rational conclusions about that group’s bad behavior.
The First Law and its corollary
are intrinsic to liberalism. Once the equality of all human groups is accepted
as a given, any facts that make a minority or foreign group seem worse than the
majority native group must be either covered up or blamed on the majority.
Islamic spokesmen, in the battlefield of ISIS or from the safe
confines of CAIR’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., are insensitive to the
feelings of members of other faiths, regularly defame those other faiths and
their iconic “prophets,” and play a variety of “victimhood” cards while raping
Yazidi women or beheading foreign journalists or preying on native Jews and
infidels in so many Western countries.
In Part II, Seiyo offers his own “Rules (or Habits) for the
Liberal Elite,” or,
Takuan’s “Laws of
Designated Minorities’ role in Liberal Society,” which are:
1. Liberal Society
approaches all majority-minority issues with a quadruple blindfold.
Presentism is the first blindfold. All past attitudes and deeds relative
to any minority are judged by present standards.
Relativism is the second blindfold. All judgments relative to past or
current attitudes and deeds toward any minority are applied to White society
alone.
Outlyism is the third blindfold. Any negative statistical fact relative
to the mean or majority characteristics of any designated minority is shouted
down by quoting the far-outlying exceptions to that statistical fact.
Sentimentalism is the fourth blindfold. All negative hard or statistical facts relative
to any minority group are shouted down in preference to cuddly feelings about
that group or implanted feelings of guilt relative to it.
Before moving on, let’s
tackle the four blindfolds, that is, translate them into recognizable
instances.
An example of Presentism is not judging the behavior of a group – say, Muslims – by their
actions and those of their predecessors. The actions of past Muslims may have
been bad, even murderous, but that doesn’t mean living Muslims are capable of
murder, rape, destruction – evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
Novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand called the conscious omission or evasion of a
truth “blanking out.” With regard to discussing in public Islam’s horrific
record of conquest and death, this could be called “enforced blanking out.” Muslims
who wage jihad against Westerners, such as in recent incidents of  “car jihad,” 
and “knife or machete jihad,” or random “knockdown” attacks against Jews
and other infidels, are regrettable instances of “violent extremism,’ or were
committed by “mental patients,” or have nothing to do with Islam, even when the
perpetrators say it has everything to
do with Islam.
An example of Relativism is turning a “negative”
accusation or truth about a minority group back against the accuser. If Islam
is said by a critic to be a “patriarchal” ethical or political system that
oppresses women and treats them as chattel, then the same could be said about
Western society with its “glass ceilings” that oppress women (a la The Stepford Wives),
and “White privilege” that allegedly favors a “Caucasian” or European viewpoint
over that of “people of color,” who are invariably portrayed as “victims” of
cultural “imperialism.” That reason, logic, and an adherence to truth are not
the monopoly of “whites” is an argument summarily dismissed.
In an example of Outlyism is when a critic of Islam cites
the history of Islam as one of fourteen centuries of religious persecution and
slavery and cruel punishments for heresy or leaving Islam, the counter-argument
by Western liberal apologists for Islam (with a little assist from
organizations like taqiyya-ready CAIR)
will be that the West practiced slavery and had the Inquisition and burned
heretics at the stake for being witches or sorcerers or for bad-mouthing God,
that is, for blasphemy. 
This diversionary tactic
saves the apologists in politics, in the MSM, in academia (and their taxi squad
of Islamic spokesmen) from having to observe and acknowledge the embarrassing
fact that the West eventually separated church and state in its politics, while
Islam went through no such evolution, and refuses to undergo it. Islam isn’t
even reluctant to take the first steps to “moderation.” It would rather adhere
to the literal meaning of its sacred texts, the violent verses together with
the banal, which sanction jihad, conquest, slavery, compulsory mental stasis
under the threat of death and every other criminal act imaginable than concede
that its creed is psychotic and homicidal and inculcates passivity in its
believers from date of birth to date of death.
An example of the Sentimentalism blindfold is, instead of
stressing Islam’s long “rap sheet” and excoriating Islam as a dangerous,
recidivist totalitarian ideology dressed in primitive religious garb, to “reach
out” to Muslims and embrace them as lovers of peace dedicated to interfaith
amity and tolerance for all. After all, goes the standard spiel that could have
been lifted from the “Officer Krupke” number in West
Side Story
, it is a symptom of racism and bigotry to look askance at Muslims
just because their home-grown and foreign-born 
brethren are “misreading” the Koran and forming rape gangs in Britain
and Europe, attacking magazines with assault weapons, non-Muslims by the score
in Nigeria.  Muslims and Islam are merely
“misunderstood” and there is “good” deep down in them. The number of actual and
publically proclaimed excuses for why “violent extremist” Muslims are so “misbehaved”
is more than the Jets’ mere four conceived of by Stephen Sondheim.  
Sondheim was mocking the
Liberal philosophy that was gaining ground in 1957, when West Side Story debuted on Broadway; Islam, Muslims, and terrorism
were too likely the furthest things in his mind in that era. But his concretes
as dramatized in “Officer Krupke” were easily transferable to the Liberal
establishment’s bag of rationalizations from that time forward to the present.
Seiyo’s laws are
presented as abstractions. I have no argument with them except for their
unfamiliar nomenclature. It has been my philosophy of political and cultural
commentary to prefer the concrete over the abstract. All abstract hypotheses
are founded on concretes, arguing from the particulars to the general. I think
that is the best way to communicate the power of ideas. If there are no
concretes or particulars to instance, then no matter how broad the abstraction,
there is no idea to communicate, and no abstraction to contemplate or reach.
Seiyo provides concretes in Part I as an overture to Part II.  
A watched pot never
boils, especially not when there is no flame beneath it.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén