The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: October 2015 Page 1 of 2

Merkel, Mugabe, and Me

“Me”
being President Barack Obama.
Gates
of Vienna ran a perceptive piece by an anonymous Norwegian blogger, The Observer, on the ongoing and
deliberate destruction of Europe. In “Zimbabwe on the
Rhine
  he compares the conscious
dismantling of a nation by German Chancellor Angela Merkel with the conscious
and blatantly racist dismantling of Rhodesia-Zimbabwe by Robert Mugabe, its sole
“president,” “head of state,” and dictator since 1987.
He
contends that what Mugabe did to Zimbabwe was treason, and what Merkel is doing
to Germany is likewise treason. He offers a definition of treason, writing:
Because we have to be honest and call
things by their proper names, and what is going on in Europe at the moment can
only be referred to as cold hard treason.
There is no other way to describe it and still expect to be taken seriously by
any rational individual. If you do a quick Google search of the “The legal
definition of treason” you get this:
“The
betrayal of one’s own country by waging war against it or by consciously or
purposely acting to aid its enemies”.
As the above example shows, the term
“treason” isn’t difficult to explain, nor is it hard to put into words. One
doesn’t have to be a lawyer or well-versed in the legal jargon of the judicial
system to understand its significance. It is very straightforward, and it can
be condensed down into a sentence of merely twenty-one words, which of course
means that no individual can justify their treason by maintaining that they
didn’t fully comprehend the legal definition of their crime.
Any
action that is carried out purposely and which will cause damage to or severely
weaken a nation’s ability to maintain its national security must be considered
treasonous, that is if it is carried out and condoned by one of its own
citizens.
He
comments on Robert Mugabe
and his “achievements.”
It’s hard not to draw parallels between the
current situation in Europe and what has happened to Zimbabwe under the
leadership of African dictator Robert Mugabe. When Mr. Mugabe assumed office in
the late 1970s the African nation was one of the wealthiest country on the
continent. Now, more than thirty-five years later, it is one of the poorest.
Zimbabwe has been on a steady decline towards rock bottom, due to political
incompetence, sheer stupidity and an insatiable hatred of traditional Western
values. One can of course describe Zimbabwe’s transformation by slightly
tweaking Norwegian anthropologist Thomas Hylland Erikson’s infamous quote about
white majority nations in Europe:
“Zimbabwe has successfully deconstructed
its white majority business sector, and done it so properly that it can never
be called a majority again.”
No one can accuse Mugabe of not having
deconstructed Zimbabwe and not having done so in a spectacular fashion. The
only problem is that it plunged the country into hyperinflation and severe
poverty in the process. The changes took place according to the book, and
probably according to Mugabe’s own wishes, but the policies were a complete
failure which is often the case with radical political visions proposed by
politicians who have big egos but very little common sense.
I
have discussed the treasonous depredations of Merkel in the last three columns.
Her problem is not that she has a “big ego” and “very little common sense.” Tyrannical
megalomaniacs like her too often have tiny egos that can nevertheless be
inflated to stupendous size by a coterie of less ambitious “little people” who
need something to adore and follow. They are usually little people who want to
control everything and everyone as protection against a reality they would
rather not deal with, or which contradicts their notions of what reality should
be. They fear the deflation of those egos, and reality is their worst enemy. Recall
FrontPage’s motto: “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get
out.”
Common
sense? Their metaphysics and epistemology bar the application of “common sense”
to their politics; in fact, bars it to everything but the most banal, everyday
actions, such as fixing a meal or opening a door. Politicians like Merkel come
a dime a dozen, and some are more adept at climbing the ladder of power than
others, or just rise to the top of a pool of stagnant, scummy water from pure
interia. Their minds reside in a “higher reality” which they wish to see “work”
and which strive to impose that “reality” on everything and everyone.
On
the other hand, morons such as British Prime Minister David Cameron sense that
their “higher reality” won’t quite work and so they expend mental effort and
words to reach some kind of reconciliation between the real and their fantasy
worlds. But reality won’t budge and rapprochement between it and fantasies is
impossible.
Daniel
Greenfield, in his FrontPage article, “The
Muslim Madness of Merkel
” of October 9th, noted about Merkel, a former East
German Communist:
Merkel isn’t really an open
borders fanatic. She’s a political hack who made a tragic mistake and is
desperately trying to dump it on the rest of Europe. After originally taking
the correct line, Merkel folded and rather than admit that she made a mistake
whose implications will destroy her country, she is desperately manufacturing
one ridiculous excuse after another to defend her actions.
Her calls for sharing the
burden amount to dumping the consequences of her unilateral policy on the rest
of Europe. It’s exactly the type of behavior she condemned from Greece, only to
hypocritically practice a version of it that is far more disastrous, both from
the standpoint of security and economics.
That
echoes Obama’s snarky, talk-down-to-the-rube retort to Joe the Plumber that
higher taxes will help to “share
the wealth
.” We must share the misery and increased crime rates and costs
of the welfare state. It’s only “fair.”
Instead
of acknowledging her error, which would have meant acknowledging reality, she
would rather sacrifice her country and see it swamped with “refugees” who are
intrinsically hostile to any kind of Western society. Merkel regards the influx
of mostly Muslim males of fighting age as a boon to the economy. They will,
once they find employment, help bolster the welfare state. She has ignored numerous
statements from the invaders themselves that they travel to Germany for the
“benefits,” not for job opportunities. Greenfield writes:
Merkel claims that the
migrants “present more opportunities than risks.” What opportunities are
these exactly? Half the
Muslim “youth
” in Germany are already unemployed.  Barely a
third of Muslim
immigrants earn a living through professional employment. What
opportunities will adding millions of Muslims to the welfare rolls accomplish
except to create more jobs for the government bureaucrats who sign their
welfare checks?
Still,
no matter how wrong she is in her assessments, cogitations, or motivations, she
is still guilty of treason. Should advocates of “open borders” and a
“multicultural” Europe also be served with treason paper, such as Peter
Sutherland, head of the Global Forum on Migration and Development? He is all
for Europe becoming inundated with brown, black, and olive people who will reduce
indigenous populations of whites to a minority. The BBC reported in June of
2012 that Sutherland opined, in the House of Lords, that
The EU should “do its
best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, the
UN’s special representative for migration has said. Peter Sutherland told peers
the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming
multicultural.
Mr. Sutherland, who is
non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of
oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on
Migration and Development
, which brings together representatives of 160
nations to share policy ideas.
He told the House of Lords
committee migration was a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” in
some EU nations “however difficult it may be to explain this to the
citizens of those states”.
All
cultures are equal, you see, and the best way to combat the envy and hatred of
Western culture by primitives tenaciously committed to their primitivism is to
bring in tens of thousands of them from failed or stagnant cultures to even
things out and to stir the ethnic pot. Then there won’t be any more envy or
hatred. Fantasy World will have been achieved. Anyone who defends “homogeneity”
is a racist, or an Islamophobe, or a skin-head Nazi.
Robert
Mugabe, on the other hand, is just a plain power-luster and killer. Read
for yourself this creature’s bloody career.  
Can
we charge Barack Obama with treason? Let us count the ways he has, with malice
aforethought, inflicted damage, pain, and suffering on America. He has at least
invited actionable impeachment.  The
Washington Monthly
in 2012 tallied up Obama’s “achievements.” Some of them
are arguably dubious in nature, others are outright fabrications. Among them
are, aside from the suicidal nuclear
deal with Iran
, which definitely poses a threat to the U.S.:

 1.
Passed Health Care Reform:
After five presidents over a century
failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act
(2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and
mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the
number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems.
2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787
billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth
amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went
into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private
sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do
so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new
private-sector jobs….
4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military
forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011.
5. Began Drawdown of War in
Afghanistan:

From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000,
with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary
of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year.
No,
not really. We’re still in Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan. And Obama has sent U.S.
troops to Cameroon
to fight Boko Haram.
6. Eliminated Osama bin
laden:
In
2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan,
in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was
discovered.
No,
not really. It was a Navy SEAL Team that took out bin Laden, after countless
delays and the later betrayal of the Pakistani who provided the information
about where the “mastermind” of 9/11 was holed up.
7. Turned Around U.S. Auto
Industry:
In
2009, injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans
from the Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity
stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009,
the auto industry has added more than 100,000 jobs. In 2011, the Big Three
automakers all gained market share for the first time in two decades. The
government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of
the GM stock it still owns increases….
Shades
of the Boeing
bailout
and other heavy duty companies. The list of companies bailed out by
Uncle Sam is about three miles long. You can view it here on the ProPublica site. Many of
the banks on the list, such as BB&T, which has a long record of rock solid
solvlency, were forced by the government to accept TARP money or face unknown
but ominous consequences.
10. Toppled Moammar Gaddafi: In March 2011, joined a
coalition of European and Arab governments in military action, including air
power and naval blockade, against Gaddafi regime to defend Libyan civilians and
support rebel troops. Gaddafi’s forty-two-year rule ended when the dictator was
overthrown and killed by rebels on October 20, 2011. No American lives were
lost.
11. Told Mubarak to Go: On February 1, 2011,
publicly called on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to accept reform or step
down, thus weakening the dictator’s position and putting America on the right
side of the Arab Spring. Mubarak ended thirty-year rule when overthrown on
February 11….
Engineering
the removal of Mubarak paved the way for the Muslim Brotherhood to take over
Egypt. Dictator Morsi and his henchmen didn’t last. Obama’s executive
declaration of war on Libya and the removal of Gaddafi paved the way for the
current Muslim invasion of Europe. Should we mention Benghazi and then Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton? I think we’ve heard enough about and from her about
that ignominious episode of Scrabble Statecraft.
13. Improved America’s Image Abroad:
With new policies, diplomacy, and rhetoric, reversed a sharp decline in world
opinion toward the U.S. (and the corresponding loss of “soft power”) during the
Bush years. From 2008 to 2011, favorable opinion toward the United States rose
in ten of fifteen countries surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, with
an average increase of 26 percent.
A laughable conclusion. Obama’s notion of improving
our image abroad is to bow to anyone who wears foreign apparel or speaks a
foreign tongue. If he presented himself before the chief dog-catcher of Buenos
Aires and the fellow wore shoulder braids and a plate of lettuce on his tunic,
he would bow with the same supine skill he displayed before the king of Saudi
Arabia and Red Chinese Party officials.
Speaking of bowing to a Major Muslim, Obama also
wishes to bring in more Muslims, many from Somalia and many “Syrian” “refugees”
and distribute them willy-nilly throughout the U.S. with the hope that they
breed like rabbits, outnumber indiginous Americans wherever they “resettle,”
and bolster the Democratic voting base. Read the report of the Refugee
Resettlement Watch here
and shiver.  Writes Ann Corcoran of RRW:
The
Obama Administration says they will resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the US
in FY 2016 which began October 1.
The
Committee for Justice
narrows down the Obama crime list to twenty-five
instances, including threatening newspaper reporters, siccing the IRS on
conservative and pro-Israel groups, kid-gloving illegal aliens from Mexico, and
virtually tearing down the fence that once controlled the invasion of the U.S.
by illegals hoping to avail themselves of our own welfare state benefits.
Obama Administration uses IRS
to target conservative, Christian and pro-Israel organizations, donors, and
citizens.
Obama
Administration uses IRS to target conservative, Christian and pro-Israel organizations,
donors, and citizens.
In an unprecedented attack on
the First Amendment, the Obama Justice Department ordered criminal
investigations of FOX News reporters for doing their jobs during the 2012
election year.
President
Obama, throughout his Presidency, has refused to enforce long-established U.S.
immigration laws. For example:
More
than 300,000 captured illegal aliens had been processed and were awaiting
deportation. But, incredibly, Obama stopped these deportations and ordered the
U.S. border patrol to release many of these illegal aliens in violation of law
and without explanation.
Congress
rejected Obama’s so called DREAM ACT – which would have granted permanent
residency to many illegal aliens. So Obama enacted his own version of the DREAM
ACT by Executive Order, thus directly defying Congress. According to Obama’s
Executive Order, illegal aliens can stay in America if they are under the age
of 30, have been in America for at least five years, are enrolled in school or
have graduated from high school, and have committed no felonies.
Obama
has refused to build a double-barrier security fence along the U.S.-Mexican
border in direct violation of the 2006 Secure Fence Act. This law requires that
“at least two layers of reinforced fencing” be built along America’s
650-mile border with Mexico. So far, just 40 miles of this fence have been
built – most of it during the Bush Administration.
President
Obama issued, in one day, 21 separate Executive Orders that attack and
undermine your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Especially
egregious is President Obama’s Executive Orders amending the ObamaCare
law to allow doctors and hospitals to investigate which patients own a gun.
This outrageous Executive Order could allow the federal government to track and
monitor law-abiding gun owners simply because they sought medical care.
But the worst thing Obama has ever done is agree to
let Iran get a nuclear bomb. This is tantamount to aiding an enemy nation that
has proclaimed again and again that it will use the bomb to defeat the U.S. and
annihilate Israel. Former presidential candidate MItt Romney, in a July 22nd Wall
Street Journal Opinion piece, “The
Calamity of Obama’s Iran Deal
,” cuts to the chase about this “bargain” deal
of Obama’s.
First, Iran is led by
suicidal, apocalypse-seeking, America-hating, Israel-denying theocratic
fanatics. If these ayatollahs have nuclear weapons, they will use them,
someday, somewhere. Iran is a major, longtime state sponsor of terrorism; its
leaders are entirely bereft of restraint, decency and respect for human life.

Second, the Obama deal
prescribes a pathway for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. The agreement’s
defenders contend that it will delay Iran’s nuclear program by 10 to 15 years
(about one half of a generation). Perhaps. But no one can say that the deal
will prevent Iran from getting the bomb….
Future generations of Americans will look
back on the Obama years with considerably less enthusiasm than do his
apologists today—the Iran nuclear deal will be added to a long list of
“iniquities” the consequences of which were visited upon them.
These Americans will still be paying interest
on the trillions of dollars of Obama debt; carrying the burdens of the millions
of illegal immigrants he welcomed; agonizing over the scourge and human tragedy
of generational poverty that this president refused to address; and lamenting
the millions of children who grew into adulthood without a competitive
education because he bowed to the teachers unions. But among all these
iniquities, the Iran deal will stand out. Iran will be a nuclear monster.
And
it will be a monster of Obama’s making. He knowingly granted the ayatollahs everything
they could ever possibly wish for, including a schedule of inspections that won’t
be really inspections, but chances for Iran to reinvent the Three Card Monte
game.

Yes,
Obama has, in just that one action out of a catalogue of high-level felonies,
imperiled the security of America, and did it with his eyes wide open.
He should be impeached and brought up on charges of treason, for he has “betrayed his own country by  waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.”

The Mental State of the Political Elites: Part II

Again,
this column is also about the epistemological epilepsy of our political elite.
And the political elite’s unreal metaphysics.
As
noted in an illustration tag in Part One, the sustainability of a European
Islamic State, which is all the Continent’s current immigration policies can
lead to and end with, will depend in large part on the ignorance of its
itinerate and hapless citizens – Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Once it reaches
that stage, and Shariah law becomes the legal byword, non-Muslims will be
obliged to assimilate into a largely Islamic culture.
Rank-and-file
Muslims will be naturally ignorant and will have no problem adjusting to the new
society of diversity. Non-Muslims, however, will have great difficulty keeping
their mouths and minds shut as they are relegated to second-class citizen
status.
To
ensure that Germans, Swedes, French, and so on participate peaceably in this
unprecedented reverse assimilation with
the least possible problems, non-Muslims must, first, remain ignorant of the
true peril to their lives and futures by becoming dhimmis, and, second, be prohibited from voicing their objections
under the penalty of Shariah law. For Shariah law will replace whatever legal
codes exist now in those countries. Current legal codes, amended to conform and
mirror those of Shariah, will be but paper tigers. The judicial status of
non-Shariah law will be but a sham.

The
European Union Commissioner who advocates across-the-board censorship of any
opposition to the conversion from Western legal codes to Islamic codes and the
subjugation of Europeans to Islam, is Vera Jourova, a Czech who is the EU’s
Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, in the Juncker
Commission. Her remarks, voiced and recorded at the Colloquium on Fundamental
Rights — Tolerance and Respect: Living better together in Brussels on October
2, 2015, are the most blatantly evil of the trio of bureaucrats I have
discussed here. As Fjordman noted in his Gates of Vienna article, “The
EU Elites’ Positive View of Islam
” from October 14th, “Commissioner Jourova
indicated that the EU will clamp down even harder on so-called ‘hate speech’
directed against immigrants.” Here are her venomous recommendations
at the Colloquium:
“If freedom of expression is
one of the building blocks of a democratic society, hate speech on the other
hand, is a blatant violation of that freedom. It must be severely punished. As
some of you noted, over the past few weeks, we have witnessed a lot of
solidarity towards refugees. But we have seen a surge of xenophobic hate speech.
Some of you advocated enrolling the help of online intermediaries such as
Google or Facebook to take down hate speech from the web. Other participants
rather underlined promoting the use of counter-narratives. You also highlighted
the need for clearer procedures to prosecute those who spread hate speech
online. I was pleased to hear media and Internet providers’ experiences and to
hear their commitment to work with us. I fully agree with you on these lines of
action.
German Chancellor Angela
Merkel pulled an Obama-style “hot mike” gaffe of her own when she was  heard imploring Mark Zukerberg of Facebook to
do something to curb or eliminate “hate speech” from Facebook. The Washington
Times
reported on September 30th that:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard on a hot mike
confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over anti-immigrant posts, amid
complaints from her government that the social network isn’t doing enough to
curtail racist comments.
The two were overheard exchanging words on a live transmission
broadcast on the United Nations website, as participants took their seats at a
U.N. development summit in New York on Saturday, Bloomberg reported.
Well,
that would be a spectacle: a high-tea summit on “hate speech” between two
portly frumps who would want to plot the best way to wash your mouth and mind
out with soap, or perhaps with battery acid. To continue with Jourova’s own
brand of hate “speech”:
“As was said this morning,
Internet knows no borders. I intend to bring together IT companies, business,
national authorities and civil society around the table in Brussels to tackle
together online hate speech. I will discuss this with EU Justice Ministers next
week. Let me now address the burning issue of hate crimes and data collection.
We clearly need better and serious recording of hate crimes to ensure
appropriate investigation, prosecution and sentencing. It is indeed high time
that Member States fully implemented EU law to combat racism and xenophobia.”
She
makes no distinction between “hate speech” and “hate crimes,” as defined by
Western legal codes (in Shariah law, they are mere instances of blasphemy). The
very concept of “hate crimes,” however, is illegitimate in the first instance,
because a crime committed and motivated from “hate” should be treated as a mere
felony. Speech (other than libel and slander) and motivations should not be
treated as “crimes.” Allow that to happen, and you’re on the road to censorship.
However,
Jourova’s notion of “hate speech” as “hate crime” echoes Winston Smith’s
observation that “thoughtcrime” does
not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death. It’s guaranteed. Think bad
thoughts, and you’re doomed. It’s best not to think.

“Racism
and xenophobia”? Aside from the expected Weimar period Communist-Nazi style enmities
and street battles between Sunnis and Shi’ites, Turks and Somalis and what have
you that are occurring in Sweden and Germany, Muslims to a maquette hate infidel
whites and Jews
(who are nominally “white” though I hate having to make the distinction) and
will rape, murder, or assault them at the first opportunity. And, given the
record of Muslim “foreigners” in terms of their behavior in Western countries
once their ongoing hordes have invaded the Continent – by leaving behind mountains
and fields and train stations and town squares of trash, feces, food, water containers,
donated tents, baby carriages, and furniture and other things behind in their
wake – can anyone blame especially the Germans for fearing them? Or the Austrians?
Or the Hungarians?
She
makes no mention, of course, of the “hate
speech
” of Muslims in print and on the Internet and in the airwaves, nor of
the “hate speech” spoken in countless mosques in Europe, the U.K., and the U.S.,
speech calculated to incite hatred for infidels, for the Western countries
these imams and their congregations have settled in, and for Western
civilization in general. After all, Jourova and Merkel say, Muslims have been
victims of “racism” (even though Islam isn’t a race, it comes in a variety of
colors and hues) and “xenophobia,” never mind the “no-go” areas of every major
European capital into which infidels and especially infidel women venture at
their own peril.  Who can blame them for
being so angry at non-Muslims and their Allah-condemned legal and social
institutions? They’re all “victims.”
It’s
of no concern to Merkel and Jourova that while Muslims maintain their own
Shariah-bound satrapies in these cities, which not even European police and
fire fighters and many Western journalists want to enter (not that they’re much
welcome anyway) because they get stones
and other objects thrown at them, the male residents don’t mind making forays
into Dar al-Harb for a bit of rape,
robbery, gang assaults, and murder.
Jourova
and Merkel might admit that these crimes are deplorable, but they won’t acknowledge
that these regularly recurring crimes are not considered crimes at all by Islam
and Islam’s chief scholars and spokesmen, that they are part and parcel of Islamic
ideology. They don’t want to know it, and if you persist in telling them or
anyone else that, they will want to have you arrested and punished for “defaming”
a “great religion.”
The
Koran and the Hadith they’ve read must been translated by Walt Disney.
And
not wanting to know about it, not wanting to hear about it, not wanting to see
the abundant evidence of it, points to a very serious –and, as it turns out, a
very dangerous – state of mind that would best be contained in the same kind of
insane asylum in which Antonio Salieri
expired.
The
European Union – shortly to be unofficially known as the European Caliphate –
is being run by men and women who have displayed marked symptoms of dementia, a condition that is quite in
sync with Islam’s own brand.

The Mental State of the Political Elites: Part I

This
column is about the epistemological epilepsy of our political elite. And the
elite’s unreal metaphysics.
Or
do they also suffer from schizophrenia? A collective neurosis? Group paranoia?
Multiple personalities? Anxiety disorders? Bipolar mania? A potpourri of
psychoses? Asperser’s syndrome?
A
reader, whom I shall call Bridget, offered this comment on my Pax
Germania vs. Pax Islamia
column:
I don’t understand why the
elites just don’t pay attention or understand that Muslim values are different
from ours, as is their Shariah law. Crazy, because it’s so simple….People are so ignorant.
It
isn’t so simple to the elites. The elites regard simplicity as a mark of insanity,
of brutishness, of arrested epistemological development, or of retardation.
They don’t think they need to pay attention or understand Islam except to claim
that it’s a “beautiful religion” and that Westerners should not be judgmental
of it. The elitists need nuances, and
complexities, and shades of gray. Without them, they’d be just like everyone
else, and no one would be willing to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars
or Euros to sit at fancy desks and lord it over everyone else, as though they
were the guardians of Plato’s cave of the ignorant.

What
follows is an elaboration of my original answer to the reader.
You
see, Bridget, reality for you, me, and for other thinking people, is a pretty
straightforward affair, not ever to be questioned or subjected to a mental
tennis match. European and American political elites, however, and for the most
part, refuse to grant reality any reality, because they’ve been taught that
mind creates reality. They reject the primacy of existence. They reject an
Aristotelian approach to reality. Reality must conform to their imaginings of
what it should be, but isn’t, and can’t be, ever. They have never questioned their
received wisdom, received, by the way, from a long line of philosophers like
Kant and Schopenhauer and Hume, among others, a wisdom which claims that
metaphysics is malleable, that it can be whatever one wants it to be, if one
wants it badly enough, or if it displeases one.
I
think the European elites understand Islam and Shariah and the perils they pose
to Western civilization, but their minds are in the grip of political
correctness. It’s a tight, vise-like hold, tenacious, and ultimately suicidal. It’s
not an arm-lock. It’s a mind-lock. They believe that Western culture isn’t
superior to any other, that it’s unfair to compare Islam with Western culture, which
they regard as too “materialistic” and not “spiritual”
enough, as they think Islam is.
Islam,
they’ll say, may not have given the world much of value in terms of material
advantages, as Western culture has. Its value lies in the imperative that
everyone must submit to it, body and soul, which, according to their lights, is
more important than higher standards of living, or technological advances to
improve and extend man’s life and enjoyment, because it’s “spiritual” and will
make you a better person. Islam has offered man none of those things – only submission
and physical death or slavery, or spiritual death if one submits to it. Spiritual
death is raising one’s derriere in the air five times a day and reciting some
mystical chant and pleading to a ghost to please be nice to you because you’ve
been a loyal and unswerving maquette.
And
so I think once you understand that, you’ll understand the conflict and why the
political elite is vested in “multiculturalism” and
“diversity” and surrendering to (or accommodating) Islam, and expects
everyone else to surrender to it, too.
Or
at least defer to Islam from a decent multicultural, diversity-minded,
submissive state of dhimmitude.
In
one sense, the elites, in dealing with Islam, are like Snoopy pretending to be
a World War One Ace flying a Sopwith Camel, sitting atop his doghouse. But
sooner or later the rabid pit bull next door is going to charge over and have
him for lunch.

Why
would the elite be ashamed of Western culture? Why would they say it isn’t
superior to Islamic culture, whatever that stagnant, 7th century culture might
be? Is it the Christian “sin” of pride that moves them to refuse to acknowledge
that Western culture is superior? Are they afraid to defend and uphold values? What
values do they hold? Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, wrote a
seminal essay on just that very subject, “The
Death of Europe
.” They hold “European” values that Muslims disdain, and
even condemn.
It
is politically incorrect to point out that Western culture and values make possible,
for example, open-heart surgery, while Islamic culture does not, and has not
ever done so, and in fact glories in wholesale butchery. This is an
inconvenient truth to liberals and all Islamophiles. They avert not only their
eyes, but their minds.
For
example, the anthropological global warming bloc wants everyone to believe that
global warming (it was once global cooling, now it’s just “climate change”) can
be reduced or controlled, and rejects the idea that earth’s climate is
continually changing and has been for billions of years, that the behavior of
sun has no effect on climate, that there are dynamics governing climate change
that are barely understood. This is an example of pretending that something is that actually isn’t, even though the
evidence is available in Internet abundance. This bloc, politically motivated,
upholds “science” and nature, but in fact, rejects both science and nature.
Reality is rejected by them in favor of their own“reality”
in defense of their numerology-based new alchemy which they call “settled science.”
Some in the “climate change” bloc are calling for the imprisonment of or even
the death penalty for scientists who dare contest the whole business as
legitimate science and call it Marxist agitprop.
Germany,
Sweden and other European countries – with state or state-controlled news media
in a conspiracy with their governments – suppress news of the rise of rapes by
Muslim “immigrants” for fear that such news will prejudice native
Germans
and Swedes against the invaders. The British authorities have
adopted the same deceptive, “nothing to
see here
” policy in regards to the Muslim sex grooming gangs. They seek to
establish a citizenry that will tolerate without complaint the Muslim invasion
and the crimes committed against on the citizenry. They seek to assure the
citizenry that nothing extraordinary is happening, even though Muslims prey on
the citizenry. An ignorant citizenry, they contend, is a “strong” citizenry.  It will integrate well with the moral and
political actions of their predators, and won’t cause the untoward business of
jailing people for speaking their minds or resisting their own rapes, murders,
and robberies.
Let’s
take a look at the epistemology of three members of the European elite, whom I
quoted in my column, “Censorship:
Over Here and Over There
.” And who are the European elite? In 2012 Oxford
University Press published  The
Europe of Elites: A Study into the Europeanness of Europe’s Political and
Economic Elites
, by Heinrich Best, György Lengyel, and
Luca
Verzichelli. These three professorial gentlemen define those elites as the top
and most influential tiers of individual European governments and layers of
wealth whose “Eurelitist” status may overlap into the upper bureaucratic and
unelected echelons of the European Union.
It starts with the assumption
that there is a formal and factual asymmetry between elites and non-elites, in
that the former are formally entitled (by laws and constitutions) or factually
empowered (by property rights) to make and influence decisions on behalf of the
latter. The focus of our conceptual and empirical work is, therefore, the
visions, attitudes, and opinions of elites concerning European integration. We
address national elites specifically, because we maintain that the
multilevel construction of the European edifice still attributes a pivotal role
to national political and social institutions, and to the elites who are
running them…..
The strong ‘Eurelitist’ bias
in this approach has been systematized in the theory of permissive consensus,
which maintains that the process of European unification is mainly driven by
the self-interest of elites who enjoy a fairly wide margin of autonomy, as
opposed to the general population, in pursuing policies of European
integration. According to this approach, European integration is seen by elites
as ‘a means to advance political goals which they would not be able to enforce
alone’ ….
We
can examine the statements of Federica
Mogherini
, who is the current High Representative of the European Union for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, basically the EU’s Minister for Foreign
Affairs. Mogherini made the following remarks at the Call to Europe V: Islam in
Europe FEPS conference on June 24, 2015. (Quotations from the following
European Union elitists are taken from the article, “The
EU Elites’ Positive View of Islam
,” October 14th, by Fjordman, at Gates of
Vienna, which I also cite in “Censorship: Over Here and Over There.”)
“The very idea of a clash of civilizations
is at odds with the most basic values of our European Union — let alone with
reality. Throughout our European history, many have tried to unify our
continent by imposing their own power, their own ideology, their own identity
against the identity of someone else. With the European project, after World
War II, not only we accepted diversity: we expressed a desire for diversity to
be a core feature of our Union. We defined our civilization through openness
and plurality: a mind-set based on blocs does not belong to us. Some people are
now trying to convince us that a Muslim cannot be a good European citizen, that
more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe. These people are not just
mistaken about Muslims: these people are mistaken about Europe — that is my
core message — they have no clue what Europe and the European identity are.
This is our common fight: to make this concept accepted both in Europe and
beyond Europe. For Europe and Islam face some common challenges in today’s
world. The so-called Islamic State is putting forward an unprecedented attempt
to pervert Islam for justifying a wicked political and strategic project.”
It
isn’t a “clash of civilizations.” Islam isn’t a civilization. A totalitarian
ideology subscribed to by countless lobotomized living zombies over fourteen
centuries is not a civilization. The West is a civilization that arose from the
ashes of the Dark Ages because men rejected slavery and the unreal and
rediscovered the glory of man. Islam is a cult that relishes the prospect of
returning men to grovel in the ashes and ruins of a new Dark Age in
supplication to Allah.  
Note
the insufferable, elitist arrogance in her words. It’s “our European Union,”
reflecting an inbred presumptuousness that she speaks for all the non-elitist
Europeans who are currently chomping at the bit to leave the Union or at least to
tar and feather the “higher-ups” who have bent to German Chancellor Angela
Merkel’s will and arranged for the inundation of Europe by Muslim hordes.
Mogherini
believes that her European civilization “expressed a desire for diversity to be
a core feature of our Union. We defined our civilization through openness and plurality:
a mind-set based on blocs does not belong to us.” Whether or not blocs belong
to it, the blocs will come about; they are doing so even as I write this. Her
“mind-set” of plurality and diversity is directly at odds with those of the disdained hoi polloi.
She
whines that “Some people are now trying to convince us that a Muslim cannot be
a good European citizen, that more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe.”
It does not occur to Mogherini that by definition, a Muslim cannot be European,
cannot be anything but a Muslim. He will always be a Muslim, first and
foremost. European? Not so much. His first allegiance is to Islam. Mogherini
must help to make this concept – that of a tamed, non-violent, European Muslim,
loyal to the state, who doesn’t feel so special that he expects everyone else
to defer to his “needs” – accepted in Europe and beyond. If she must knock some
heads together, she won’t mind. In the meantime, Europe is dying from the
cancer of Islam.
Note
that she criticizes those who, “Throughout our European history… many have
tried to unify our continent by imposing their own power, their own ideology,
their own identity against the identity of someone else.”  By that, I gather she was making a
circumspect reference to Hitler and to Mussolini (Mogherini is Italian). But
she would have no qualms about imposing her
own ideology
and identity on everyone else.

She
claims that the depredations of ISIS “pervert” Islam, echoing President George
W. Bush and numerous other political ignoramuses. Islam cannot be perverted,
even though every atrocity committed by ISIS is chapter-and-verse, by-the-book
sanctioned and encouraged in the Koran
and Hadith. Islam is intrinsically a
perversion of the concept of morality. Islam is a death-worshipping cult, which
is why we witness so much death within and without its realm.
There
is a blog site, FrontPage, whose motto is: “Inside every liberal is a
totalitarian screaming to get out.” Mogherini is a liberal and one can detect
the totalitarian in her screaming to get out. One can see how she would like to
“manifest” her wishes onto the rest of the European continent. There is
something wrong with a self-made billionaire who turns into a narcissistic,
ostentatious megalomaniac.
What
is worse and far more offensive is a well-heeled bureaucrat like Mogherini who
is a megalomaniac with other people’s money and lives. 
Up
next for the couch is former Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans. He is the First Vice-President of the European
Commission. He made these remarks at the First Annual Colloquium on Fundamental
Rights in Brussels on October 1st, 2015.
“We have seen the homes of
asylum seekers set on fire. And we have heard political leaders declare that
their countries would not accept refugees if they were Muslim. Anti-Muslims
[sic] incidents are multiplying across Europe. We’re seeing a huge spike of
attacks. Verbal insinuations, closed-mindedness, prejudice, discrimination. The
rise of Islamophobia is the one of the biggest challenges in Europe. It is a
challenge to our vital values, to the core of who we are. Never has our
societies’ capacity for openness, for tolerance, for inclusion been more tested
than it is today. Diversity is now in some parts of Europe seen as a threat.
Diversity comes with challenges. But diversity is humanity’s destiny.”
How
dare Europeans resent, oppose, and
fear the influx of hundreds of thousands of Muslim “refugees” into their
countries? How dare they try to take
action against the invasion of their countries by barbarians who have been
quite frank about their reason for invading those countries: that they’re there
for the welfare state benefits? The enemies of diversity must all be Islamophobes!
And racists, too! And xenophobes! It’s not the Muslims’ fault that they are of
different races and nationalities and have quaint cultural practices! It’s not
the Muslims’ fault that they’re not…well…white.
And
then one weighs all the crimes committed by Muslims against native Europeans
and one sees a strong element of racism in the actions of Muslims. These crimes
are not racially motivated? The motto of Bare Naked Islam is: “It’s not Islamophobia if they really ARE
trying to kill you
.” Or rape you. Or rob you. Or stab you. Since the
beginning of the “asylum seeker” invasion, crime rates in Sweden and Germany
and in other European countries have soared, with most of the crimes being
committed by…Muslims.
Welfare
states attract the worst elements of society. They are inherently evil. Welfare
states depend on a fettered productive sector of any society or nation to
subsidize their “benefits.” They encourage and sustain parasitical mind-sets
and attitudes. Europeans can blame themselves for tolerating their various
welfare systems. They have been an attraction for the worst kind of immigrants:
the ones who don’t intend to sustain the system by working or ever pay into it.
This is as true in America as it is in Europe.
That
being said, Frans Timmermans’ epistemology is very, very selective. His words
reveal not only a vindictive megalomania, but also a psychosis. He and Mogherini
suffer from both maladies. Well, not “suffer,” as the term is usually meant.
They clearly enjoy and revel in their
mental “disorders.”
I
will discuss the mental whirligigs of the third EU bureaucrat, Vera Jourova, in
Part Two.
But
here’s an example of “diversity” to ponder: Locking a man in a cage with an
orangutan, a gorilla, and a troop of baboons. What do you think would happen?

Pax Germania vs. Pax Islamia

In
the 1994 TV movie, Fatherland, Germany is
depicted as having won World War II, at least on the European continent, which
now has been consolidated into a single political entity, Germania, or the
Greater German Reich, stretching  from
the Mediterranean to Finland (see a summary of the story here).
In
April 1964, Germania is preparing to celebrate Hitler’s 75th birthday. By 1964
standards, Berlin looks prosperous and completely rebuilt after the failed
Allied bombing. A former German U-Boat commander, played by
Rutger
Hauer
, now is a top detective in the criminal division of an SS that resembles a
uniformed FBI. He investigates a murder which ultimately leads to his discovery
of a cover-up of the Nazi “final solution”: that all the Jews were exterminated,
though the government maintains the fiction that they were all “resettled” in
Russian territory conquered from the U.S.S.R.
At the same time, Hitler has persuaded President
Joseph P. Kennedy to pay a “reconciliation” call in Germania and meet with him.
The discovery of the “resettlement” fiction and of a series of murders of the
Nazis responsible for the Holocaust would squelch any amicable relations
between the U.S. and Germania. The still operative Gestapo goes to work to silence
anyone who would be able to jeopardize that “peace process,” beginning with the
murders of all the Nazi higher-ups who took part in the Wannsee
Conference
. All these men had to die because they otherwise could
have spilled the beans to the Americans about what really happened to the Jews
– or at least blackmailed the Nazi government.
I
have watched the TV movie and read Robert Harris’s 1992 novel  on which the  TV movie is loosely based. They both err in several
key ways in the “alternative history” genre, and the storylines of the novel
and the movie also diverge at critical points. But two aspects of both the
novel and the movie, however, I found incredible even as projected “alternative
histories.” They are, first, that the U.S.S.R. would have survived long enough
to fight Hitler in a guerilla war in Eastern Russia clear up to 1964; in fact, it
survived thanks to the aid FDR sent it, often at the expense of equipping our own
forces during WWII; and, second, that Joseph P. Kennedy would
have been very rattled and outraged by the discovery that the Nazis had
actually sent all the European Jews “up in smoke.”
After
all, it was his belief that if the Nazis could not be appeased enough and if
war broke out, the Jews
were to be blamed
, consequently scuttling plans to develop pacific
relations and commercial ties with Nazi Germany. Kennedy also hated the
British, but that’s another story.
Those
caveats were in the way of wading into the subject, not of Pax Germania, but of Pax
Islamia
.
Apparently
Germany – and also Europe – is to be dominated and policed, not by clean-cut,
close-shaven, neatly-outfitted by Hugo
Boss
, Führer-saluting Nazi brutes, but instead by not so clean, slovenly
garbed, bearded, fist-shaking, Shahada-reciting Allah-worshipping brutes. Or by
Muslims, whose immigrating cousins and nephews are already being called by
native Germans and others “Nazis” because of their behavior and airs of
superiority over native non-Muslims. The symbiosis
between Nazi and Islamic i
deologies has been well-documented, so
this startling reversal of events should not come as a surprise to anyone.
Angela
Merkel’s plan to “unify” Europe vis-à-vis the resettling throughout Europe, by
force or by extortion or by naked property expropriation, the uncounted
hundreds of thousands of “refugees,” “asylum-seekers,” and other migrants from
the Mideast, Africa, and other pestholes, bears strong similarities to Hitler’s
plans for Europe. Had Hitler won the war, or at least have emerged from it via
a cease-fire or truce, he would have been able to follow his plan of Lebensraum, or to create (or
seize) more “living space” for Germans.
Now, because of that
symbiosis between Nazism and Islamism or Islamic supremacist doctrine, I don’t think
it’s too ironic that Merkel wishes to turn the tables and be the enabler of the
Muslim
Brotherhood’s general plan
for conquering
Europe
(and
the U.S
.) by finding more “living space” for Muslims, and mandating it
through the European Union.
It’s not for nothing that
Geert
Wilders
compared Hitler’s Mein Kampf with the Koran.
The
British Guardian, a left-leaning newspaper, carried in spite of itself a
detailed, accurate description of how Merkel want to provide Lebensraum (in Arabic,
مساحة المعيشة)
to the
Muslims,
in
Ian Traynor’s October 23rd article, Germany
to push for compulsory EU quotas to tackle refugee crisis
.”
Germany is to push for more ambitious and
extensive common European Union
policies on the refugee crisis, according to policymakers in Berlin, with
compulsory and permanent quotas for sharing the distribution of probably
hundreds of thousands of people who will arrive directly from the Middle East.
Also on Berlin’s agenda are new European
powers replacing some national authority over border control, and the possible
raising of a special EU-wide levy to fund the policies.
“Push”
was the right verb to use. Chancellor Merkel, as head of Europe’s largest and
most prosperous nation, can be pushy. But, if Germany is willing to make itself
miserable by welcoming hundreds of thousands of welfare-seekers, the misery
must be spread around. It’s only fair that others suffer, as well.
Angela Merkel appears
determined to prevail, as she grapples with a crisis that will likely define
her political legacy. The German chancellor is said to be angry with the
governments of eastern and central Europe which are strongly opposed to being
forced to take in refugees. She is said to resent that these EU member states
are pleading for “solidarity” against the threats posed by EU government
leaders agreed last month to share responsibility for 160,000 asylum seekers
already in the EU, redistributing them from Greece and Italy over two years.
But the decision had to be pushed to a
majority vote, overruling the dissenters, mainly in eastern Europe, and with the
Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orban, accusing Merkel of “moral imperialism.”
It is highly unusual in the EU for sensitive issues with such deep national
political impact to be settled by majority voting. But Berlin appears prepared
to do this if no consensus can be reached.
The
dissenters had to be overruled, especially those who don’t wish to see their
countries despoiled by hordes of barbarians prone to riot, rape and robbery. Imperialism?
Eastern Europeans have already had a taste of German and Soviet imperialism, so
they can’t be blamed for not wanting another round of it.
The opponents of quotas insist last month’s
decision was a one-off. But according to policymakers in Berlin, Merkel now
wants to go further, shifting the emphasis of burden-sharing from
redistribution of refugees inside the EU to those collecting en masse in other
countries, notably Turkey,
where more than 2 million Syrians are being hosted.
Under
one proposal being circulated in Berlin, the EU would strike pacts with third
countries, such as Turkey, agreeing to take large but unspecified numbers of
refugees from them directly into Europe. In return, the third country would
need to agree on a ceiling or a cap for the numbers it can send to Europe and
commit to keeping all other migrants and refugees, and accommodate them
humanely. This effectively means Europe would be financing large refugee camps
in those third countries, which will also be obliged to take back any refugees
who are not granted asylum in Europe.
Turkey? The same Turkey run by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,
an Islamic supremacist who dreams of a new Ottoman Empire, who proclaimed that
Mosques are our barracks,
minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers?
Yes, that authoritarian tyrant.
Birds of a feather, indeed.
Merkel returned from talks on the issue
with the Turkish leadership on Sunday seemingly convinced that Ankara was the
key to her winning some relief on the toxic immigration issue. She is being criticized
for ignoring human rights problems in her dealings with Turkey’s authoritarian
leader, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. But according to people familiar with
her thinking, she has concluded that, in terms of Turkey, the main third
country source of migrants heading for Europe, interests trump values.
Principles? Values?
They can be dispensed with. Turkey has always wanted to become part of the
European Union and what better way to join it than striking a deal with the
Crazy Kraut Kaffir? Shades of the Molotov–Ribbentrop
“non-aggression pact” of 1939! An inconvenient historical fact that
Merkel doubtless doesn’t choose to remember.
The plans being developed in Berlin and
Brussels also include moves to “Europeanize” control of the EU’s external
borders. This would entail national governments surrendering some of their
powers on those frontiers and granting at least some authority over refugee
admissions, detentions and deportation to EU bodies such as Frontex, the
fledgling borders agency.
Some senior diplomats and officials in
Brussels say this is an intrusion into national sovereignty which will be
difficult for some governments to accept. Policymakers in Berlin are aware of
the sensitivities, but appear of a mind to proceed by stealth in small steps.
There
is always lots of play in a noose before it’s tightened around one’s neck. The trick
is to tighten it slowly, so as not to alarm the victim and cause him to gag
beforehand. And the noose’s knot must
be a silken, Europeanized knot, the kind with which the British used to hang
their aristocrats. Delusions among European leaders are the panacea of the day.
Merkel can’t really mean it! Oh, but she does.
Forced to bow to the sharing of 160,000 refugees
last month, several EU leaders took the view that this was a limited and
temporary move that would not be repeated. But for Berlin, it is but a
beginning in the formulation of pan-European asylum and immigration policies.
On Wednesday Juncker called a Brussels
summit for Sunday for some EU and Balkan leaders to tackle the crisis in
Croatia, Slovenia, and Austria since Hungary closed its borders to those
arriving in the EU from Turkey and Greece via the Balkans.
The German push for taking people directly
from places such as Turkey has the merit of cutting out of many of the
smuggling rackets prospering from the mass movements and reducing the numbers
of those risking the hazardous journeys from the Middle East to the borders of
Europe. But it is far from clear that the plan to persuade third-country
governments to agree to enforce a ceiling on the numbers allowed to go to the
EU can work.
And,
here comes the tax to pay for the noose and the executioner.
According to the thinking in
Berlin, if the new package of policies must involve a European solution rather
than a mish-mash of national strategies, it will also have to be financed at
the European level, possibly through a special levy, since the billions
involved would blow a gaping hole in the existing EU budget and national
governments would balk at footing the bills.
Daniel
Greenfield, in Sultan Knish, writes that Germany and other members of the EU
want to retain their welfare states and eat the Muslims, too.  In his brutally frank assessment of the future
of Europe, “The
Death of Europe
” of October 23rd, he remarks:
European
leaders talk about two things these days; preserving European values by taking
in Muslim migrants and integrating Muslim migrants into Europe by getting them
to adopt European values.

It does not occur to them that their plan to save European values depends on
killing European values.
That’s
because Islamic values are diametrically opposite of European ones. Even the
bad European ones, such as the Uncle Otto pays-for-everything welfare state
including everyone’s retirement plans, which include those of Muslims who never
paid anything into the system and never intended to.
Europe invested in the values
of its welfare state. The Muslim world invested in large families. Europe
expects the Muslim world to bail out its shrinking birth rate by working and
paying into the system so that its aging population can retire. The Muslim
migrants however expect Europe to subsidize their large families with its
welfare state while they deal some drugs and chop off some heads on the side….
The European values that
require Europe to commit suicide are about ideology, not language, culture or
nationhood. But the incoming migrants don’t share that ideology. They have
their own Islamic values.

Why should 23-year-old Mohammed work for four decades so that Hans or Fritz
across the way can retire at 61 and lie on a beach in Mallorca? The idea that
Mohammed would ever want to do such a thing out of love for Europe was a silly
fantasy that European governments fed their worried citizens.
And
now those same citizens are witnessing the fantasy colliding with reality. Greenfield’s
essay on why Europe has doomed itself ought to win some kind of journalistic
award. But it won’t. Greenfield concludes:
Islamic
values are not compatible with European values. Not only free speech and
religious freedom, but even the European welfare state is un-Islamic. Muslims
have a high birth rate because their approach to the future is fundamentally
different from the European one….

Europe is drinking rat poison to cure a cold. Instead of changing its values,
it’s trying to maintain them by killing itself. The Mohammed retirement plan
won’t save European Socialism.
It
will bury it.
And
Europe, as well. All that will be left will be ashes, ruins, and corpses underfoot
of millions of Muslims looking for a new place to “migrate.”
The
United States.

A Perfectly Clear Discourse on Evil

Clearly, it seems to me that Hillary Clinton is: a) a liar and an
amoral scoundrel who ought to be serving jail time; or b) an upstanding woman
of the highest character and virtue and a paragon of honesty.”
I’ve
seen that one-step-forward-two-steps-back syntax too many times in written and
verbal statements. If something seems to
be
to a person, then it isn’t clear at all to him, regardless of the
subject matter He is confessing that he isn’t quite sure what it is he is pronouncing
judgment on. We can thank a long line of philosophers – for example, Rene
Descartes
– for making that contradiction of certainty-cum-doubt ubiquitous
as a bad thinking habit, and as a repeated element in common language. We can
also cite David Hume and John Dewey, among others.
It’s
a far more grievous error than speakers and writers, in making comparisons,
saying different than and not different from. Different than means absolutely nothing. As a conjunction, than is not synonymous with the preposition from.
It seems to me is also symptomatic of a
lack of courage and resolve to be forthright in one’s statements. It’s a woozy
approximation that is supposed to stand in for rock-solid certainty. It’s
cowardly. It’s a half-full/half-empty glass of nothing. It’s like Michael Moore
substituting for Cary Grant, or Rosie O’Donnell for Audrey Hepburn.

So,
you’d never catch me saying, “Clearly, it seems to me that Barack Obama is
evil.” I say that he is evil, and
knows it. All the evidence – all his actions and statements over the last eight
years – is incontrovertible proof of his evil, and of his evil intentions.
What
is evil? Wikipedia begins a
description of it with “Evil,
in a general context, is taken as the absence or complete opposite of that
which is ascribed as being good. Often, evil is used to denote profound immorality.”
Wikipedia offers only economy-sized definitions of good and evil.
The
Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1971),
however, makes some critical distinctions:
A. The antithesis of GOOD in
all its principle senses.
                1. Morally depraved, bad, wicked, vicious.
                2. Doing or tending to do harm; hurtful, mischievous,
prejudicial.
The
Oxford entry on good is one and a half pages long. So I’m going to settle for the Wikipedia
treatment of the subject. It has this entry on the subject of good and evil.
These basic ideas of a dichotomy [between
good and evil] has [sic] developed so
that today:
  • Evil is typically associated
    with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm
    others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological
    needs and dignity, destructiveness, and acts of unnecessary and/or
    indiscriminate violence.
It’s
not a perfect definition of evil, but it’s acceptable for the time being. I’ll write
the OED a note about it.
There
are two species of committing evil.
There
is what I call the “passive” commission of evil. This is evil committed from
ignorance of its consequences, from a failure to identify them, from a habitual
disinclination to face facts, or from a refusal to think. It’s people voting
for Obama a second time after they’ve seen the disasters of his first term in
the White House. People who commit passive evil do not originate the evil. They
simply cash in on it, oblivious or indifferent to its maleficent consequences. They
do not originate evil, but enable it.
The
evil can also be mistaken for being a good, again, because of an absence of any
critical thinking or the absence of all but standard values that could serve as
a measure of what one stands to gain or lose if the evil is enabled. The
perceived “good” could be a second term of Barack Obama, again, in the face of
overwhelming evidence that his first term has caused incalculable damage to the
nation, to the economy, to people’s lives, including the lives of those who
voted for him twice. It is choosing him with the knowledge that he is also a
liar and a fraud.
These
are the kinds of people who will vote Democratic no matter what, even when a
liberal (just “a totalitarian screaming to get out”) campaigns for office wielding
a whip garlanded with daisies and bluebells.
The
second species of evil is that originated by those who consciously wish to do
harm, the achievement of such harm being integral and even intrinsic to an evil
person’s reason for living and acting. This person is a nihilist, a destroyer
who acts to destroy the good for being the good, who lives to instigate
destruction in any realm. This is the kind of person who will paint a moustache
on da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, or add
tennis shoes to Michelangelo’s statue of David.
This
is the kind of person who, like Barack Obama, will act to destroy a nation and
turn it into a continent-sized correctional facility in which few or no
individual rights exist, in which the economy is driven by “capitalist
cronies,” financial fraudulence, and is a parasites’ paradise in which the
unearned is created and paid for by a shrinking productive sector. Obama wishes
to fundamentally “transform” America from one once anchored to the principles
of limited government and the rule of law into one which is lawless and
governed by unlimited government power.
I
think it is fruitless to try and choose who have been the most evil political
leaders in recent history. One would need to begin with Barack Obama. He is the
one Americans are most familiar with. His Canadian clone, Justin
Trudeau
, recently elected in part with
Obama’s help
, as the new prime minister, wishes to be a kind of white Obama,
friendly
to Islam
and “climate change,” and is also out to “transform” Canada, just
as Obama wants to “remake” America.

Then
we could toss a coin or two for the ones we don’t know as intimately: Josef
Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and even Angela Merkel. There is small fry like
Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and big
fry like Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, the “supreme
leader” of Iran, and his equally malevolent predecessor, Ruhollah Moosavi
Khomeini, are in a special class of evil all by themselves.
Choosing
to initiate evil can begin in a person as early as pre-school, sometimes in
adolescence, and definitely in adulthood. Wanting to destroy the good for being
the good can begin with envy or jealousy or hating the sight or knowledge of
happiness in others. I think the best literary description of how an evil
person develops is Ayn Rand’s account of archvillain Ellsworth Toohey’s growth
from childhood up to adulthood in The
Fountainhead
.
Ellsworth Monkton Toohey was
seven years old when he turned the hose upon Johnny Stokes, as Johnny was
passing by the Toohey lawn, dressed in his best Sunday suit. Johnny had waited
for that suit a year and a half, his mother being very poor. Ellsworth did not
sneak or hide, but committed his act openly, with systematic deliberation: he
walked to the tap, turned it on, stood in the middle of the lawn and directed
the hose at Johnny, his aim faultless – with Johnny’s mother just a few steps
behind him down the street, with his mother and father and the visiting
minister in full view on the Toohey porch. Johnny stokes was a bright kid with
dimples and golden curls; people always turned to look at Johnny Stokes. Nobody
had ever turned to look at Ellsworth Toohey.
Little
Ellsworth faces his parents and the minister, states that Johnny Stokes is a
bully at school, and awaits his punishment.
The question of punishment
became an ethical problem….it seemed wrong to chastise a boy who had sacrificed
himself to avenge injustice, and it was done bravely, in the open, ignoring his
own physical weakness; somehow, he looked like a martyr. Ellsworth did not say
so; he said nothing further; but his mother said it. The minister was inclined
to agree with her. Ellsworth was sent to his room without supper. He did not
complain. He remained there meekly – refused the food his mother sneaked up to
him, late at night, disobeying her husband. Mr. Toohey insisted on paying Mrs.
Stokes for Johnny’s suit. Mrs. Toohey let him do it, sullenly; she did not like
Mrs. Stokes.*
In
Ellsworth’s mother we see how a passive sanction of evil promotes and enables
an active instance of it. From there on Ellsworth Toohey developed into a
full-scale villain. To Ellsworth’s mother, the bold, undisguised destruction of
a value – not even her own, but Johnny Stokes’s suit – is a sign of virtue, of
goodness, of almost sainthood. Ellsworth’s willingness to be punished for it is
also, to her, a sign of self-sacrifice, what her minister doubtless preached in
church was a moral ideal. To her uncritical, unthinking mind, her son is moral
person who deserved praise, not condemnation or punishment.
Assiduously
created and maintained multiple layers of fragile onion skin can hide the core
evil of such men from themselves and from others: special attention to social
decorum, public appearances, dinner table etiquette, kissing babies, political
speeches, perhaps a smartness in dress – these and other ostensive marks of a
civilized, nominally cultured person go into the task of disguising a core soul
and ultimate ends. Peel away the layers and one will finally come to the
poisonous glop that is the driving force in all that such men do or say. It
takes a lifetime to refine these layers to erect and sustain an elaborate façade
and pretence of a “good” person who seems to be the epitome of benevolence. But,
beneath the polish is festering putrescence.
The
maquette that presents itself to the
world and preaches sacrifice and the sly but “harmless” corruption of values –
or even the wholesale, wide scale sacrifice of them, such as Merkel’s
willingness to sacrifice Germany and the rest of Europe to the Muslim hordes,
who are themselves venomous malignancies – hides a very real monster, a
nihilist, a destroyer. He is small in his own and in others’ eyes, he assumes a
deceptively modest mien, but his ambition is not modest and retiring.
His
evil is clear and writ large in today’s culture, here and abroad.
*The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand. 1943. New
York: The Centennial Edition, Plume/Penguin, 2005. P. 301

“Martian,” Go Home!

Ridley
Scott is a superb director. Most of his films are visually mesmerizing even if
one doesn’t like their themes, epistemology, or metaphysics, or share their
senses of life. You watch them because of his artistry.  He is a kind of cinematic Rembrandt: You may
not care for the subject, but the subject is so well executed you can’t help
but look at it. As with David Lean’s later work (e.g., Lawrence of Arabia), most of Scott’s directed films are consistently,
visually stunning, from the oppressively dark (and rainy) Blade Runner to the edge-of-your-seat claustrophobia of Alien to the brutal combat arenas of Gladiator. I have not seen all of his directed films; some I have
avoided seeing because the subjects do not interest or appeal to me (e.g., American Gangster).
It’s
too bad he’s a lefty, or is in thrall to Hollywood’s lefty money moguls and
studios.
Scott’s
film oeuvre is inconsistent in subject and theme, as much as is, say, Otto Preminger’s.
Preminger had a bad habit of making suspenseful films and then not resolving
the stories, leaving the stories and viewers hanging. Anatomy of a Murder
and Advise and Consent are
notable examples. I’ve always maintained that some of the best Hollywood directors
are, ideologically, the most influential in spreading or sustaining bad ideas. Preminger
was one of them. For me, the most memorable film of Preminger’s (in a positive
sense) is Laura
(1944). Preminger’s output was so eclectic that it is difficult to say whether
or not  he was a lefty.
But,
remember: It was Ridley Scott
who directed and created the iconic introduction of the Apple Macintosh computer
in 1984. He helped to kick off the personal computer age we live in now.
The Martian is another story. It is a
product of Barack Obama’s concept of what NASA should be about. Which is “saving
people” from what he perceives as dire circumstances. It is basically a
propaganda film that boosts NASA’s image. Its attraction to the public is that
it portrays an individual solving life-saving problems – such as how to stay
alive on a planet that is not naturally conducive to human or virtually any
other kind of life and offers few resources that would aid him in that goal.

What
follows are my strong reservations about The
Martian
. The story is set in some indeterminable near-future, to judge by
some of the futuristic Earth-bound sets.
The
opening scenes
portray a crisis: a massive dust storm abruptly engulfs the base of the Ares
III Mars mission. It suddenly appears over a mountain range and descends on the
base. The winds are fierce, depicted stronger than Hurricane Katrina’s, causing
total darkness and lots of howling and heavy metal objects flying around. Fearing
that their escape vehicle will tip over from the force of the wind, the mission
commander (a comely female who too resembled Dr. Beverly Crusher from Star Trek: The Next Generation), orders
a lift-off with the crew. Botany scientist Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is seen blown
away by the wind. Thinking he was dead, the crew takes off without him.
However,
I have been monitoring the Mars program for years, and knew that a Martian dust
storm, no matter what its size (and such a storm can encircle the whole planet
for a week or longer), packs no more punch than a slight summer zephyr at the
beach here on Earth. The winds on Mars can barely cause a ripple on a nylon
flag. See the article here, “
‘The
Martian’ Dust Storm Would Actually Be a Breeze
“ for the low-down on that
subject.
My
next reservation concerns the ubiquity of the solar panels. Solar panels
apparently were meant to supply power for everything, from the soil sampling
tasks to operating the hot-and-cold showers in “the Hab” (habitat) the crew
repairs to after a day’s work. What? No nuclear energy? The Curiosity Mars rover
and the New Horizons Pluto probe are nuclear powered. No mention is made in the
film of the mission’s ground level power source, which would have to be nuclear,
because the power requirements of sustaining human life would far surpass what
any size array of solar panel could provide.
Yes,
the probe and rover employ solar panels, but only as nominal back-up power. Now,
if solar panels here on Earth have such a poor record of generating power even
on the sunniest of days, what kind of energy could they provide on a planet whose
distance from the Earth can vary between 34 million and 250 million miles,
depending on each planet’s relative position to each other in their revolutions
around the Sun. The distance of Mars from the Sun is approximately 141 million
miles, also depending
on the planet’s point of orbit. See http://www.space.com/16875-how-far-away-is-mars.html
for a more detailed explanation.
That
the Ares III mission base was not
powered by nuclear is conceded here on the Martian Trivia page:
Watney digs up a radioactive
power source in “The Martian.” It’s called a radioisotope
thermoelectric generator (RTG), and NASA relies on them for long-distance space
missions.

RTGs are essentially batteries powered by radioactive plutonium-238. As the
plutonium naturally decays, it generates heat, and the battery casing turns the
escaping warmth into electricity.

Plutonium-238 is pretty much impossible to turn into a nuclear weapon,
according to the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s also not the kind of
dangerous, skin-piercing radiation that humans have to worry about (unless it
gets inside our lungs).

Still, a nuclear battery is dangerous to have around because it’s very hot.
Watley
aka Matt Damon
locates an expired nuclear-powered lander from the past that is completely
buried in sand. He digs it up and takes it back to his base. He keeps warm with
it and it’s the solution to all his problems. He laughs off the danger.
I
can’t help but suspect that all the solar panels seen in the film were not
props, but actual solar panels bought or rented from that failed “green energy”
company of Obama’s, Solyndra,
hauled out from the company’s rented storage unit somewhere.
Water:
There was a storm in a teacup about the timing of the release of The Martian to coincide with NASA’s
announcement that there is indeed water on Mars. Ridley Scott said that he knew
about that months ago. But I can claim that I knew it a few years ago, having
frequently logged into the Mars Reconnaissance
Orbiter
site and seen the water flows. But, that’s the new NASA for you:
cheesy, deceptive, and underhanded.
Gravity:
Although it probably couldn’t be helped, just as it couldn’t be helped for
cinematic depictions in the Star Trek
series or any other space-bound story – in which “artificial gravity” is a must,
characters must be able to  behave
standing up, and not floating around – all the Mars-bound characters in The Martian move around as though Martian gravity wasn’t 38% of Earth’s.
And
in the mother ship, the Hermes, there are scenes of the crew going hither and
yon in a weightless state, and then suddenly their feet are magically gravity
bound again. For example, when Watley guts his escape vehicle, Ares IV, and
tosses out everything that was too heavy, it all falls to the ground as quickly
as a ball dropped from the Tower of Pisa. And when Kate Mara, who was last seen
being thrown under a DC Metro train by Kevin Spacey in House of Cards, floats skillfully from one end of the ship to the
other, she winds up walking and talking like the repulsive wind-up doll she is.
Another
oversight is the effect of cosmic rays or ultraviolet light on a person living
on an ozone-free planet. Mars has no ozone layer to protect life, at least not one
that covers the entire planet. One forms seasonally over its South Pole, but that
is not where the Ares III base was located. Exposed without letup to UV rays, Mark
Watley would have perished after about two years of living in such an
environment, as would his potato patch. Burnt to a crisp, and probably blinded
long before his demise. See this article about Mars’ chancy ozone layer, “
A
seasonal ozone layer over the Martian south pole
from 2013.
Some
of these technical gaffes and inaccuracies are acknowledged by the film’s
movers and shakers on the Martian
Trivia
page.
Another
reservation of mine is that it was obvious that The Martian was cast with ethnic diversity imperatives in mind. Or,
perhaps they were mandatory. Several of the “scientific” characters were “persons
of color,” and incredibly so, because their appearance and behavior were such
that one would normally expect to see them sleeping over New York City grates
in the dead of winter, and not plotting courses between the Earth and Mars or
scheduling drops of supplies to the surface of Mars. There is one exceedingly
homely American-Chinese character who must have also been cast to represent the
“weight challenged.” Unless I missed him, or he was in mufti, there was not a
single Muslim character in the film. Obama, who wanted NASA to “reach out” to Muslims
to bolster their alleged “self-esteem,” must have spit blood at the omission.
It
was written into the script that an American rocket carrying a “care package”
of supplies for Watley would blow up minutes into its launch, also leaving the
Hermes in the lurch as it heads back to Mars to rescue Watley. The mishap wasn’t
absolutely necessary to the story. But, Americans must fail somehow, somewhere.
It is a strictly enforced Hollywood rule. This paved the way for the Chinese to
enter the picture with their secret and “superior” launch rocket to resupply
the Hermes before it returns to the Red Planet. They offer their rocket from the
goodness of their hearts, or possibly as a ploy for prestige and publicity. “See!
Those stupid Americans can’t even send a firecracker into space without it
blowing up. We’ll show them how it’s done!” It is our duty, you see, to give a
Communist/Fascist dictatorship a fair shake at the box office.
Daniel
Greenfield, aka Sultan Knish, who
seems to know more about Hollywood than he lets on in his columns, remarked to
me about the Chinese rocket sequence:
It was done to pander
to Chinese authorities who these days determine foreign box office.”
Viewed
as a propaganda film, The Martian is the perfect vehicle for Matt
Damon
, a social
activist
and lefty who has contributed heavily to the Democratic
Party
.  Open Secrets notes:
And the money-in-politics Oscar goes to … Matt Damon!
Over the past two decades, Matt Damon and his wife made $106,000
in federal political contributions. The “Invictus” star and his
wife donated $9,200 to Obama’s presidential campaign and supported the
candidacies of three other Democrats. However, almost 80 percent of Damon’s
political cash — a cool $83,000 — has gone to the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee. This was not a competitive category; the only other
contender was Stanley Tucci, who donated $250 this year to John
Hall
, a representative from New York’s 19th congressional district.
Seeing enough “Red”? You don’t need to go to Mars,
either.

Altruist Economics: An Oxymoron

As the term economy
is understood to be a system of trade – a barter system, or laissez-faire, or a mixed economy in
which the freedom to trade and produce hampered, saddled and skewed by government
controls and regulations, the notion of an economy founded on altruism is, like an “Islamic
economy
,” an oxymoron.
The Gatestone Institute carried a revealing article
about the state of Sweden on October 17th, Ingrid Carlqvust’s “Sweden Close to
Collapse
.” She began the article with:
Sweden
is fast approaching a complete collapse. More and more municipalities are
raising the alarm that if the migrants keep coming at this pace, the government
can no longer guarantee normal service to its citizens. In addition, ominous
statements from government officials have left Swedes in fear of what tomorrow
may bring. If the migrant wave keeps coming, in 10-15 years, Swedes
will be a minority
in their own country.
At
a press
conference
October 9, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven said that Sweden is in a
state of crisis. However, when asked to clarify what he meant by this, Löfven
was unable to produce a single coherent sentence.
Three
ministers appeared by the Prime Minister’s side at the hastily summoned press
conference, which came on the heels of an extraordinary government meeting. The
purpose of the press conference seems to have been to convey two messages:
  1. To explain to the world and the Swedish people that
    Sweden is facing “one of the largest humanitarian efforts in Swedish
    history.”
  2. That there is no more housing available, and migrants
    should be prepared to live in tents.
During
the question period after the ministers’ speeches, journalist Tomas Ramberg of Ekot
Public Radio asked: “You say that Sweden is preparing for a crisis
situation, what do you mean by those dramatic words?”
Stefan
Löfven’s reply was incomprehensible:
And Prime Minister Löfven’s reply was indeed incoherent.
“Yes,
well first of all we, we are in the middle of what I mean seriously when I’m
saying, when I express a, a big thank you to all the people doing such a great
job, because it is a humanitarian effort, it’s just as the Minister for Justice
and Migration just said. What we are actually doing is that we are saving lives
when people who come from bombs, from, from killing, from oppression, their
lives are shattered. We, we help them and that is a, that is a great
humanitarian effort, and of course now that we can see the number of people who
need it, that are seeking protection, then it is one of the greatest
humanitarian efforts. And that we are facing a crisis situation, that is in
part why I, we are outlining today that we are also preparing for a situation
where we may need to house people in tents, because we stand up with the
humanitarian refugee policy, right of asylum, but we can now also see that we
cannot close our eyes to the fact that there are more coming than ever in such
a short time, and we need to provide a roof over their heads. Then it is —
other things may be required.”
This rambling, disjointed delivery is the mark of a
disorganized, non-conceptual mind, of a non- or perhaps even anti-hierarchical
mentality made worse by an urgency and a panic under pressure to say something,
anything. The irrationality of the response is compounded by the very
irrationality of the issue: the Kantian, altruist imperative to “do the right
thing” regardless of the consequences to one’s country or even to one’s life.
It is on a par with the incomprehensible mouthings of Vice President Joe Biden
(whose mind seems to run on fumes) and Secretary of State John Kerry (whose
mind seems powered by LSD). You have to wonder if Löfven can tie his own
shoelaces or shave without cutting his face, or has these tasks performed for
him.
What should be said to Sweden, Germany, Austria,
France, Britain, the Netherlands, and other nations whose governments want to
do
the right thing
” and import hundreds
of thousands
of “refugees”  is:  Be careful about what you ask for. Or, think
twice. But then the Swedes have been “prepped” by their
government-dominated education not to think long-range, or even to believe that
their country is a value. Some Swedes are beginning to wake up, but not enough
of them. Those who speak out against the immigrant invasion are immediately
branded “racist” or “Islamophobes” who have to be beaten
down and shunned and made to conform and accept their own demise.
And the role of the Swedish media is disgraceful,
in that it refuses to report all the rapes, robberies, and other crimes committed
by the Muslims in their midst. That makes the Swedish media ideologically complicit
with the government in a mutual suicide pact that hides the truth about what
they’re condemning the citizenry to, which pact includes the citizenry against
its wishes and knowledge.
One must also wonder what ever happened to Swedish
manhood. Have the politically correct state education systems of Sweden,
Denmark, and Norway reduced their men to photogenic versions of neurosis-ridden
Woody Allen? They are existential nerds. They don’t get upset at anything, just
wring their hands like anxious pansies every time their women are raped, or
when they’re attacked by Muslim gangs, beaten up, and robbed?
It’s the same in Germany, which has a policy of not reporting crimes and bad news about
the “refugees” and “asylum seekers” and “migrants” because doing so
would create a “negative image” of them and lend “legitimacy” to the
complaints and fears of the citizenry that it is about to be overwhelmed by
hordes of barbarians who refuse to assimilate and who come with an attitude
that Germans owe them a living, all the comforts of home, and unconditional
deference to their religion and wants and “needs.”

I really feel sorry for a rational person living in
any one of these countries. There was a Bob Hope comedy from decades ago called
I’ll Take Sweden.”
Were he still alive, I don’t think he’d want to, anymore. It would be too
dangerous.
One can isolate two key concepts from Löfven’s that
are keys to why Sweden is facing “one of the largest humanitarian efforts
[disasters?] in Swedish history”: humanitarian
and the right of asylum.
There are two kinds of humanitarianism: the kind
demonstrated when a tornado strikes a Western state and leaves a path of death
and destruction; people are free to send the victims aid and assistance. That is
the benevolent kind. It is debatable whether or not  governments should have the power to practice
this kind of humanitarianism. Other than sending in military forces to preserve
law and order, how is it to be paid for, and who decides which victims should
be helped, and how?
The other form of humanitarianism seeks to “save”
others from their independence, to force them to conform to standards of
morality established by self-appointed social and political elites. Most of the
“refugees” pouring into Europe are not refugees from tyranny, oppression, or
genocide. Most of them are Muslims who wish to impose their own brand of
tyranny, oppression, and even genocide (especially when it concerns Jews,
although I personally don’t adhere to the notion that being Jewish necessarily
implies a racial category, just as I don’t adhere to the notion that being
Catholic means being Irish or Polish). In that respect, Muslims, especially the
aggressive, supremacist ones, can also be called “humanitarians,” in that they
wish to save infidels from their
apostasy; everyone, says Islamic dogma, was once a Muslim; they strayed from
the faith in acts of infidelity. So,
if they can’t be “saved” or brought back into the nihilistic, life-hating fold,
then they must be despised, enslaved, or killed.
The other term, the right of asylum, is directly linked to humanitarianism: people need
to find a place of refuge from whatever they claim bedevils them back home; the
altruist corollary is the moral obligation of those who can offer succor to
place their countries, homes, and economies at their service, even it means
sacrificing their countries, their citizens’ lives, homes, safety, and economic
solvency. It is altruism that makes this kind of selflessness possible. The right of asylum, recognized by virtually
every Western government, is an automatic and unconditional claim by “refugees”
on the benevolence, resources, and money of others.
No “refugee” group has a “right to asylum” in any
country. One’s suffering, real or alleged, is not an automatic claim to enter
and settle in any nation, no more than a homeless person has an automatic claim
to move into one’s home, or to anything one owns. Suffering and destitution are
not measures of life. To recognize suffering as a primary measure of moral social interaction is, ultimately,
suicidal for the humanitarian and kneejerk altruist.  Sweden is among those nations discovering or
acknowledging this fact for the first time.
Altruism is the bedrock morality for this species
of humanitarianism, and it is altruism
which partners with Kant’s categorical imperative to “do the right thing”
regardless of one’s life and other values. Without the morality of sacrifice
and self-sacrifice, the kind of destructive humanitarianism we see at work in
Europe now with the “refugees” would not be possible.
The term altruism
is derived from Auguste
Compte
’s own Positivist imperative, vivre
pour autrui, or
“live for others.” Altruism was his “religion of
humanity.”  Humanitarianism, the totalitarian or statist kind, is intimately
linked to altruism. Most dictionary definitions of the term stress the regard
for the welfare of others, although they do not underscore an indiscriminate or limitless concern or regard. The
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
(1971 edition) however, has nearly a
whole column devoted to the variegated senses and meanings of the term, implicitly
stressing the wholesale or limitless regard
for mankind:
A.2 – One who professes the “Religion
of Humanity” [viz. Comte], holding
that man’s duty is chiefly or wholly comprised in the advancement of the
welfare of the human race; applied to various schools of thought and practice.  [Square brackets mine]
3. – One who advocates or practices
humane action; one who devotes himself to the welfare of mankind at large; a philanthropist.
The Oxford
definition of altruism, after the
necessary reference to Comte,  is short
and straightforward:
Devotion
to the welfare of others, regard for others, as a principle of action; opposed
to egoism or selfishness.
And what happens when everything is given to the
recipients of the unearned, when there is no more left to give? Anarchy. The collapse
of society. Savagery. Carlquist write:
Reinfeldt’s
deal opened the immigration floodgates. In 2014, 81,000 people sought asylum
in Sweden; and 33,500 were granted asylum. However, as many of the immigrants
subsequently brought over their relatives, that figure substantially increased.
Last year, 110,000 people were granted residency status in Sweden. One should
add to this figure an unknown number of illegal aliens.
There
is now talk of 180,000
asylum seekers
coming to Sweden in 2015. That number is more than twice as
many as the year before. If half of them are granted asylum, and they each
bring over three relatives, we are talking about 270,000 new immigrants to
Sweden — within one year. Over 8000
people
arrived just last week, 1,716 of whom were so-called “unaccompanied
refugee children
.”
However, the
fact that the government is now talking about housing migrants in tents, may be
a signal that Sweden, despite everything, may not want to be on the front lines
of the “humanitarian” battle anymore, after all. The prospect of
spending an ice-cold Swedish winter in a tent may make migrants choose
countries other than Sweden. If not, a complete collapse of the Swedish system
is imminent.
In 2014, the
Danish historian and social commentator Lars Hedegaard prophetically remarked
in the book “Farliga
ord
“(Dangerous Words), that the economic breakdown of a
nation always happens quickly and unexpectedly:
“If
there is any lesson to be drawn from history, it is that what you do not think
will happen, does. Time and again. The final consequence of the West and, above
all, Sweden’s immigration policy is that the economy will collapse — because
who is going to pay for it all? And economic breakdowns, once they happen,
always happen very fast.”
What happens when the welfare state can no longer
provide “services,” medical care, and guaranteed incomes to the “refugees”?
There is no more economy. Altruism cannot sustain a
productive economy. Altruism and productivity are as irreconcilable as are
Western civilization and Islam. An altruist economy is also an oxymoron.
It is usually the claimants of the unearned, the
parasites, who take to the streets in demonstrations or in “retaliatory”
violence. We have seen that happen over and over again elsewhere.
What would happen if the “providers” – the doctors,
the engineers, the skilled labor, the taxpayers – go on strike, or simply “migrate”
from their own country because it has become inhospitable? What happens when
they stop supporting their own destroyers, which would include the barbarians
and their government?
What would happen in Sweden if Swedes edged closer
and closer to open revolt, and like many Germans now, cry, “We’re mad as Hell and we’re not going to take
this anymore!”
If you want
to be a humanitarian, a philanthropist, or a career altruist, the lesson is to
do it on your own time and dime.
Ayn Rand wrote a blockbuster novel that dramatizes
the consequences of “managing” a country according to altruist principles: Atlas
Shrugged
.

Censorship Over Here and Over There


A
false alarm of sorts about censorship in the U.S. introduced via a revision of
the U.S. copyright law was raised by Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report. It was reported on The Daily
Caller and Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs site.
In
an October 14th Atlas Shrugs column, “Congressional
Review Of Copyright Law Threatens My Website and Every Independent News Site
,”
Geller wrote:
Congressional
review of copyright law threatens independent websites like mine — and every
other non-mainstream media news site. Congress is considering “updating” digital
copyright law affecting news sites and aggregator sites, like the Drudge Report
and Real Clear Politics.
This is the biggest threat to our freedom. For years I have urged readers, Facebook supporters, members
of our groups AFDI and
SIOA
to email, share, tweet our posts. In order to combat the war the enemedia waged
on the truth and freedom, we had to establish an alternative means of news
dissemination. It was crucial. Our websites, in concert with Facebook, twitter
and instagram, were the David against the philistine Goliath media machine.
She
also quoted Kerry Picket’s Daily Caller column of October 13th, “
Congressional
Review Of Copyright Law May Threaten Drudge Report
”:

Drudge Report site owner Matt Drudge told Alex Jones of InfoWars
last week that copyright laws could very well end his popular site.
“I had a Supreme Court
Justice tell me it’s over for me,” said Drudge. “They’ve got the votes now to
enforce copyright law, you’re out of there. They’re going to make it so you
can’t even use headlines.”
He explained, “To have a
Supreme Court Justice say to me it’s over, they’ve got the votes, which means
time is limited,” he added, noting that a day was coming when simply operating
an independent website could be outlawed. That will end [it] for me – fine –
I’ve had a hell of a run,” said Drudge, adding that web users were being pushed
into the cyber ‘ghettos’ of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.” Drudge added,
“This is ghetto, this is corporate, they’re taking your energy and you’re
getting nothing in return – nothing!”

I think the alarm is false because Drudge doesn’t provide specifics: the name
of the Supreme Court judge, or at least a hint to who that might be; a reason
why a Supreme Court judge would confide in him about what the Court might think
of a copyright law revision that would be a blatant infringement on the freedom
of speech; who “has the votes” – SCOTUS or the Judiciary Committee; why the
Court would have a position on a copyright law revision before it is even an
issue or a case before the law is even revised.
Being
highly suspicious of the hysterical and alarmist tone of all the sites, I took
out my saltshaker and pondered the subject. I reasoned that if the worst kind
of copyright law revision came to pass, then thee would be no newspapers, no
websites like Geller’s or Jihad Watch’s or Steve Emerson’s Bare Naked
Islam’s…the honor roll is long and distinguished. The verb “may” in the
InfoWars and Daily Caller titles was troublesome.
I seem to remember
this same Drudge alarm being raised a few weeks ago, or perhaps a month ago. One
development I can imagine a copyright law revision would invoke would be if it
FORCED or required news sites like the Washington Post or the New York Times
and other MSM outlets to rig their sites so that text from articles could not
be copied for quotation purposes into websites like Geller’s or mine. Such a
revision (and it’s hypothetical) would be a violation of the freedom of speech
of even for those who advocate “limits” on First Amendment freedom of speech
guarantees. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and other anti-freedom
websites would scream bloody murder. They all want their opinions and
observations (whether or not they’re right) to be accurately quoted, or want
the freedom to quote other and rival news sources. Unless they’re irredeemably
corrupted or intellectually challenged, they would fight that and other
restrictions tooth and nail.
Geller replied to
one reader who asked what the implications were. She responded:
“If Congress passes copyright laws
prohibiting websites and aggregators from using news stories (even headlines) –
it’s over for news sites, aggregators and news-focused blogs.”
Yes, the statist
and totalitarian sky is falling, but I don’t think it will be through a
copyright law revision – not yet. The American champions of totalitarian management
and filtration of the news in America have a lot of catching up to do with
their more advanced cousins in Europe (can you imagine a Federal position
dubbed the High Director of Public Information Management?). They will have to
coordinate things on the sly with the MSM, which is already behaving as an
accomplice to censorship.
They will have to
be as brazen as this trio of unelected commissars of information administration
and thought control in the European Union. We have The Gates of Vienna, a first-class
news-focused blog, to thank for giving us a preview of the arrogance of
totalitarian wannabes, and to Fjordman‘s
October 14th, eye-opening article, “The EU Elites’ Positive View of Islam.”
These are the kinds of expunging dominatrix’s that American liberals either want
to be or see running things.
Frans Timmermans is a former Dutch Foreign Minister. He is
currently the First Vice-President of the European Commission. Here are his
thoughts on “Islamophobia.” You see, he is concerned about the resistance
across Europe against the invasion of Third World barbarians:

“We
have seen the homes of asylum seekers set on fire. And we have heard political
leaders declare that their countries would not accept refugees if they were
Muslim. Anti-Muslims [sic] incidents are multiplying across Europe. We’re
seeing a huge spike of attacks. Verbal insinuations, closed-mindedness, prejudice,
discrimination. The rise of Islamophobia is the one of the biggest challenges
in Europe. It is a challenge to our vital values, to the core of who we are.
Never has our societies’ capacity for openness, for tolerance, for inclusion
been more tested than it is today. Diversity is now in some parts of Europe
seen as a threat. Diversity comes with challenges. But diversity is humanity’s
destiny.”
“Book ‘em, Dano!” “On what charge?”
“Verbal insinuation, closed-mindedness, and making faces at a Muslim. Said the
citizen’s beard made him look like an orangutan screaming for a banana during
the Freedom of Speech Go to Hell demonstration. Really offensive and hurtful
words and anti-diversity to the max.”
Fjordman
observed:
If so-called Islamophobia is considered a threat to
the EU’s “vital values, to the core of who we are,” does that mean that Islam
is part of the EU’s core values?….
The EU considers so-called Islamophobia to be a
serious threat that must be actively combated. Yet the EU does not even have a
word for Infidelophobia, the hatred and loathing many Muslims feel for fellow
human beings who are not Muslims. This Infidelophobia is directly encouraged by
the Koran and Islamic religious teachings. Nor does the EU seem particularly
concerned about Europhobia, the hatred and loathing of native Europeans and
their culture. The organization has no plan to combat the violence and abuse
directed against Europeans by certain immigrant groups. Perhaps the EU elites
do not consider this to constitute a problem?
To
the EU elites, criticism of or negative statements about Islam is considered a
form of “hatred” that is unacceptable and should perhaps be legally prosecuted.
Criticism of or even outright hatred directed against Christianity, Europe’s
traditional majority religion, however, is considered acceptable…
Notice
that the European Commission’s Vice-President, the Socialist Frans Timmermans,
claims that “diversity is humanity’s destiny.” The EU is run by people who
believe that they know not only the future of Europe, but the fate of all
mankind. The ancient Greeks would have called this hubris, extreme pride or arrogance. Pride
goes before a fall. Multiculturalists believe they are guiding the continent
towards a new and better society on the other side of the rainbow.
Popular
resistance on the path there is considered a speed bump to be run over.
Objections are illegitimate and should be removed from public debate. This is
dangerously close to Communist ways of thinking. Years of “anti-racist” indoctrination
permeates society with an intensity that almost resembles a form of
brainwashing. To be branded a “racist” under Multiculturalism, especially if
you happen to have a white skin, is comparable to being labeled an “enemy of
the people” under Communism. It signals that you are an evil person, a kind of
weed in the ideological flowerbed that needs to be weeded out by expert
gardeners.
Vera Jourova is our second subject. She is the
EU’s Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality in the Juncker Commission.
She is a little more forthright in her condemnation of “Islamophobia” and other
kinds of “hate speech,” especially if it is about “migrants,” and “immigrants”
legal, illegal, or on the run, and what she would like to do to the criminals.
That is, to the “hate speakers” and “Islamophobes,” not to the Muslim rapists,
robbers, home invaders, gang members, and other Muslim predators.

“If
freedom of expression is one of the building blocks of a democratic society,
hate speech on the other hand, is a blatant violation of that freedom. It must
be severely punished. As some of you noted, over the past few weeks, we have
witnessed a lot of solidarity towards refugees. But we have seen a surge of
xenophobic hate speech. Some of you advocated enrolling the help of online
intermediaries such as Google or Facebook to take down hate speech from the
web. Other participants rather underlined promoting the use of
counter-narratives. You also highlighted the need for clearer procedures to
prosecute those who spread hate speech online….”
(Chancellor Angela Merkel’s little tete-a-tete with Facebook head Mark
Zuckerberg can be read about here.)
“I
was pleased to hear media and Internet providers’ experiences and to hear their
commitment to work with us. I fully agree with you on these lines of action. As
was said this morning, Internet knows no borders. I intend to bring together IT
companies, business, national authorities and civil society around the table in
Brussels to tackle together online hate speech. I will discuss this with EU
Justice Ministers next week. Let me now address the burning issue of hate
crimes and data collection. We clearly need better and serious recording of
hate crimes to ensure appropriate investigation, prosecution and sentencing. It
is indeed high time that Member States fully implemented EU law to combat
racism and xenophobia.”
Fjordman noted:
The
Islamic terrorist threat in Europe has never been greater. The EU elites
respond to this with more Internet censorship, even more Muslim immigration and
an intensified fight against alleged “Islamophobia”. Being friendly towards
Islam and continued Muslim mass immigration has become a part of the
institutional DNA of the EU. It is doubtful whether this can be removed within
dismantling the entire European Union.
Federica Mogherini, our third contestant for the
title of Wholesale Redactor- in-Chief for Europe is the current High
Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security. No
mention is made by
Fjordman
of who the Low Representative might be.

“The
very idea of a clash of civilizations is at odds with the most basic values of
our European Union — let alone with reality. Throughout our European history,
many have tried to unify our continent by imposing their own power, their own
ideology, their own identity against the identity of someone else. With the
European project, after World War II, not only we accepted diversity: we
expressed a desire for diversity to be a core feature of our Union. We defined
our civilization through openness and plurality: a mind-set based on blocs does
not belong to us.
“Some
people are now trying to convince us that a Muslim cannot be a good European
citizen, that more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe. These people
are not just mistaken about Muslims: these people are mistaken about Europe —
that is my core message — they have no clue what Europe and the European
identity are. This is our common fight: to make this concept accepted both in
Europe and beyond Europe. For Europe and Islam face some common challenges in
today’s world. The so-called Islamic State is putting forward an unprecedented
attempt to pervert Islam for justifying a wicked political and strategic
project.”
There’s that “Islam’s been hijacked
by extremist” line again. Never mind that ISIS and other Islamic organizations
quote Koranic chapter and verse every time they behead a dozen or so Christians
or other infidels or put up Yazidi women for sale or blow up pagan temples or
go on car- or knife-jihad in Israel.
News Flash for Miss
Mogherini:
Muslims are not “perverting” Islam. They are practicing it in its purist form,
which is the only form ISIS and other jihadis
recognize and accept. If there are any “hijacking” accusations to be made, they
are made by Sunnis against Shi’ites and by Shi’ites against Sunnis. I think there
is another branch of impure Islam at large, but they don’t much make the news. Maybe
it’s the wild-eyed Salafists arse-whippng the Slovenly and Laggard Muslims.
Fjordman prefaced Mogherini’s cravenly dhimmi remarks with this note:
Mogherini made the following remarks at the Call to
Europe V: Islam in Europe FEPS conference on June 24, 2015. She dismissed any
notion of a clash between Islam and the West, stating that “Islam holds a place
in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s
history, in our culture, in our food and — what matters most — in Europe’s
present and future.” According to her, Europeans should celebrate their
“diversity.” She further stated that “I am not afraid to say that political
Islam should be part of the picture.”
Islam is certainly part of the picture now, Miss
Mogherini, and it’s mixing as well into European culture as Strychnine will add
a piquant zest to a fettuccine sauce.
On the
contrary, it is Miss Mogherini and her ilk who are clueless about Europe’s
identity. Whatever that identity is, is clashing violently with Islam’s
“civilization.”  It’s doubtful that she
or Vera Jourova or Frans Timmermans have even heard of Mohamed Akram’s 1991
Explanatory Memorandum
to the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood about
how to infest and invest the U.S. by demographical jihad – what Europe is undergoing as we write – one of whose points
is:

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

 And
Europe’s house is certainly being sabotaged from within by a clique of moral
and cultural relativists, by what are called over here “limousine liberals.”
The same
thing is happening in the U.S.

Islamic Economics: An Oxymoron

As
the term economy is understood to be
a system of trade – a barter system, or laissez-faire,
or a mixed economy with the freedom to trade and produce hampered, saddled and
skewed by government controls and regulations – on the other hand, the notion
of an Islamic economy or of “Islamic
economics,” is rife with fallacies.
An
Islamic economy is a contradiction in
terms. Why?

Islam
is a looter’s system of wealth seizure and expropriation. It produces nothing,
it does not encourage the production of values to trade, and it is essentially
anti-capitalist and anti-life. Overall, it is a system for the maintenance by
force of a class of parasites. Islamic “economics” prescribes, as its essential
and inherent goals, the sustained activity of wealth, social, and – need we
remind anyone – sexual plunder.
Its Economics
in One Lesson
is the Koran.
Instead of a genuine economist such as Henry Hazlitt, Islam has
as its primary “economist” the delusional, “voice-hearing” cave-dweller Mohammad.
Islam
has been a looters’ system from the very beginning of the Islamic calendar,
when Mohammad left Medina in 630 A.D. with his 10,000 converts/warriors and marched on Mecca, which he
had fled eight years before because his “peaceful” proselytizing for his own
moon-worshipping religion netted him few converts but many enemies. Or so the
legend goes. Robert Spencer casts serious and well documented doubts on whether
or not the Prophet of Plunder even existed in his excellent, eye-opening book, Did
Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins
.
Islam
has practiced its “economics” since the seventh century up to the present
without interruption or surcease. Whether it was pillaging villages and tribes
of their wealth and women, or imposing on conquered non-Muslim peoples the jizya tax, Islamic captors, conquerors,
occupiers, and invaders have consistently followed a policy of theft and
expropriation. Islam practices its extortion even in the way of the oil brought
from the ground of Saudi Arabia, oil the country could never have discovered
and exploited on its own, the oil beneath the sands that were watered with the
blood of 1,400 years of imposing Islam on the Peninsula.
Islamic
“economics” also includes the institution of slavery. Sexual slavery. Physical
slavery. Jizya slavery.
Standard
definitions of economy are various but stress the frugal management of
resources and wealth. The Webster’s New
Collegiate Dictionary
(1956) definition of economy can stand for most other
definitions.
1.  The management or regulation of domestic or
household affairs with special regard for costs; hence, management of the
affairs of a community, estate, or establishment, and especially concerned with
its maintenance or productiveness. 2.  Thrifty administration; often, retrenchment
in expenditure; 3.  An economizing act, move, or means; also, the
disposition to economize….5.  An economic stage in man’s development or
history; also, the economic system characterizing such a stage; as a slave economy; a barter economy.
It
should go without saying that twentieth and twenty-first century Western
governments have not been characterized by thrifty administration or a
disposition to economize; on the contrary, they are notorious for expanding
statist powers, which cost money to enforce, and for profligacy in expenditures
for grand projects and welfare state institutions.
Now,
why are hundreds of thousands – perhaps millions – of Muslims and other Third
World “migrants” and “refugees” invading Europe like The
Walking Dead
s hordes of zombies
attracted by sound? Their aim is not much different from the cinematic ones: to
eat Europeans alive.
Europeans,
they assume, will work and provide the migrants a welfare existence. The
overwhelming majority of them are not going to Europe to develop productive
careers. That is hardly their ulterior motive. They’re not going there to study
and develop new surgical techniques, or to improve the efficiency of Wankel
engines, or to write new symphonies. They are going there – together with their
wives and progeny and relatives, whom they will have the right to bring with
them or later bring them into Germany, Sweden, France, and other European
welfare states that welcome them – to become career parasites,
freeloaders-by-right, perpetual charges on the state, and economic burdens on
the productive non-Muslims, whom they scorn and expect to defer to Islamic ways
and to Muslims.
Pamela
Geller observed in her February 2013 Atlas Shrugs column, “UK
Islamic Preacher Urges Muslims to go on Welfare (Jizya) and Plot Jihad
”:
Qur’an 9:29 – “Fight
those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge
the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they
pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
This
is consistent with the
jizya
— non-Muslims forced to pay for jihad.
Is it any wonder that there is no work ethic in the Muslim world?
Robert Spencer elaborates here, “Islamic law actually instills no work ethic and
teaches Muslims to live off the dhimmis — hence the need for jihad conquest.
When jihad conquests and dhimmi wealth are not in the offing or the dhimmis have been bled
dry, Sharia states stagnate economically. This creates an everlasting conundrum
for Muslims like Sallah. Sayyid Qutb, the great 20th-century jihad theorist,
also taught that adherence to Sharia would bring prosperity — yet the evidence
of his eyes was everywhere disconfirming, so he had to find a scapegoat. Sharia
adherents know their countries are poor, and they think Sharia will bring
wealth. When it doesn’t, they inevitably turn to conspiracy theories: their continuing
lack of prosperity must be the work of the Jews.

So
Imam Choudary’s exhortations to go on welfare
benefits
and plot holy war is consistent with Islamic teachings.  See Claim Jihad Seeker’s Allowance   The
Sun
.
Geller
continues:
SCROUNGING hate preacher Anjem
Choudary has told fanatics to copy him by going on benefits — urging: “Claim your Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.”  He
cruelly ridiculed non-Muslims who held down 9-to-5 jobs all their lives and
said sponging off them made plotting holy war easier.
The Sun secretly filmed him
over three meetings also saying leaders such as David Cameron and Barack Obama
should be KILLED, grinning as he branded the Queen “ugly” and predicting
a “tsunami” of Islamic immigrants would sweep Europe.
Father-of-four
Choudary, who has praised terrorist outrages, pockets more than
£25,000 a year in benefits — £8,000 more than the take-home pay of some soldiers
fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
This is true. Islam’s premises are of such a nature
that Islam cannot instill anything resembling
a moral code for the production of wealth.  It can only instill the pathological “psychology”
of the raider, of the thief, of the parasite who can turn violent when his “needs”
are not satisfied. Does he “need” medical care? Others must provide it, at no
cost to him, and it had better be first class care, else he will scream “racism”
or “Islamophobia.” Does he need a clean apartment to live in? The state is
willing to provide him with one, even going to the trouble of evicting non-Muslim
indigenous residents from their homes, apartments, or summer cottages to make
room for him.  And these accommodations
had better be of the first order; otherwise he will cry “discrimination.”
Does he need sex? There are plenty of good-looking
European women available, some of whom will willingly bend to his vaunted Muslim
charms and superiority, but most of whom will not. In which case, he will just
take it.  Regardless of her age.  In a dhimmi
Western court, he can plead ignorance of the notion that rape is a crime,
or he can even cite his religion which permits it. And walk free. Because rape
is permissible in Islam, and a dhimmi
judge will not risk questioning the morality of the perpetrator’s “religion.”
Does he “need” something but not enough of his
welfare benefits has been granted yet that would allow him to buy it? He can
shoplift in local stores for food and clothing and perhaps even a new cell
phone or a computer, and, more likely than not, if he is caught, he will be let
go because he is just a poor, ignorant immigrant who didn’t know any better and
is only seeking a “better life.”
His criminal actions will become a mere blip in the in
the increase of lawlessness
and crime
that has skyrocketed since the “asylum seekers” came to town,
lost in the already high crime rates of “native-born,” second and third
generation Muslims.
It is quite disturbing to read that these creatures
have, once they are in Europe, rioted because they did not like the food or the
shelters or the living accommodations they were provided by foolish Western governments
or the time it took to “register” them as “asylum seekers” or “refugees.”  Islam is a system built on taking, not trading.  And often, once
they have reached Sweden
or France or Finland, they wish to return to the Western nation that has better
and more generous benefits,
such as Germany or Britain.
The looters’ “economy” cannot sustain itself. If it
achieves any kind of longevity, it is only by default, thanks to the
willingness of producers to submit to and sanction the extortion and thievery. A
looters’ economy – such as Islam’s – contains the seeds of its guaranteed
demise. It drains in exponential degrees the capacity of the productive sector
of a nation to provide anything. This includes welfare state benefits. There comes
a time when the benefits may be generous, but the “providers” of those benefits
– be they cell phones or computers or medical care – have diminished in number
or have even vanished.
But this connection will not occur to the Muslim claimant.
What the West must learn is that what the Muslim “asylum seeker” or “refugee” is
seeking asylum or refuge from is the reality of the poverty of his religion, a
religion that teaches him from day one that the world is his oyster and that he
needn’t do anything to earn it.  He has
been taught that he is intrinsically superior to everything, and that man-made
laws are an anathema to Allah and Islam.
An economy presupposes things to produce and trade. Islam
is not about producing or trading, but rather about taking.
And that is why Islamic “economics” is such an
oxymoron.

DOJ: Better Late Than Never?

Or,
as Rahm Emanuel famously or notoriously said when he was in the Obama
administration: “Never let a crisis go to waste.” (Winston
Churchill
is alleged to have said it first, however, when discussing how
modern governments create their own crises to expand power, and also about how
one can personally face a crisis and be strengthened by the experience – quite
the opposite of what Emanuel meant.)

Now,
I wouldn’t know an Assyrian if I stood next to him in a supermarket checkout
line. If he were speaking a foreign tongue with his companion, I wouldn’t
necessarily know that it was in Farsi or Iraqi or ancient Assyrian or Catalon. Frankly,
I know little or nothing about Ancient Assyria or Assyrian culture. I know that
Obama’s grand plan for populating the U.S. with “refugees” basically hostile to
individual rights and the U.S. Constitution does
not
include admitting swarms of individuals who are true refugees from
tyranny and poverty who seek the security of a civilized country governed by
the rule of law and not of men. He prefers to bring in Muslims who come here as
part of a “Grand Jihad” to conquer the country by settling in it. It’s a
strategy discussed in at least two of my recent Rule of Reason columns, “Just
Do It, Parts One
and Two.
See Europe for the dire and wholly predictable consequences of the Muslim
invasion of a Western country.
The
INS has been given its marching orders: block Middle Eastern Christians from
entering the U.S., but put out the welcome mat for anyone who wants to reclaim
Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico as Mexican provinces, or for anyone who adheres
to Islam and expects the rest of the U.S. to abide by its rules, and who wouldn’t
mind the Constitution being replaced with Sharia law.
Or,
simply make life miserable and expensive for anyone who does not toe the Obama
line on immigration. Punish them. Smear them. Bankrupt them. Silence them.
Before
I write anything else, the reader should know my personal context. I am an
atheist. I champion no religion. I regard any religion as a kind of moral
anchorage to a primitive philosophy for living. To paraphrase the American
revolutionary, Ethan Allen,
and also declaring that I am not a Deist, either, reason is my oracle, not
mysticism.
However,
because most religions do not threaten my life or my country, as Islam does, I
do not fear them or go out of my way to criticize, derogate or mock them. Islam
is the only exception to that rule. Over its fourteen-century history, the
“religion of peace” has a greater record of murder than have either Communism
or Nazism.
So
I have no preference for bias toward any especially Christian religion, whether
its followers come from Syria, Iraq, or Egypt. The Assyrians are not out to
convert me to their brand of Christianity. Nor are Jews hounding me to memorize
the Torah. They just want to be left alone, just as the Amish and Quakers want
to be left alone. Most of them don’t flaunt their religion in public in some
traditional garb, or block streets to say their prayers, as Muslims demand the
right to do – or else they go whining to the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR), their Hamas-linked mommy, to kiss their boo-boos and make the
mental anguish and humiliation go away.
If
an immigration attorney thumbs his nose at the Obama diktat, he gets targeted
by the Department of Justice, also known for the last nine years as the
Department of Injustice, first under Eric Holder, and now under Loretta Lynch.
What an appropriate surname for someone in charge of “hanging high” anyone who
defies said diktat; I also keep associating Attorney General Lynch with a
Country and Western singer.
Cutting
to the chase, this column is about Robert DeKelaita,
a Chicago area immigration attorney of Syrian-Iraqi descent who apparently
specializes in aiding Assyrian Christian refugees in finding asylum in the
U.S., which would put them on the road to permanent residence and ultimately to
U.S. citizenship. He was charged (in 2014) with committing immigration fraud,
but the period in which the alleged fraud took place was 2000-2001.
So,
the first and principal question to ask is: Why the fourteen-year delay? Why is
the DOJ now pursuing a man who purportedly faked documents almost decade and a
half ago?
There
is no statute of limitations on the prosecution of capital crimes, such as
murder. I gather there is no perceived statute of limitations on the
enforcement of federal laws and regulations, either.
The
FBI, which participated in Mr. DeKelaita’s arrest, posted this
notice
on September 23, 2014:
 CHICAGO―A
suburban immigration attorney and a man who provided translation services for
the lawyer and his law firm were arrested today after being indicted on federal
charges for allegedly falsifying requests for asylum for a dozen clients over
approximately a decade. In some instances, the charges allege that the attorney
and interpreter falsely claimed that their clients were seeking asylum because
their clients were subjected to religious persecution by Islamic extremists in Iraq.
The attorney, ROBERT
DEKELAITA, 51, of Glenview, and his contract interpreter, ADAM BENJAMIN, 61, of
Skokie, were each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit immigration
and naturalization fraud. DeKelaita was also charged with three counts each of
immigration fraud and suborning perjury, and Benjamin was also charged with two
counts each of immigration fraud and suborning perjury in a seven-count
indictment that was returned by a federal grand jury on Sept. 4 and unsealed
today following their arrests.
The
FBI notice included this advisory at the very end of the two-page notice:
The public is reminded that
an indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The
defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the
government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
But
the indictment, regardless of the outcome of Mr. DeKelaita’s case, is smear
enough. The original notice of U.S. Attorney General’s office, the Northern
District of Illinois, can be read here,
and the 25-page indictment can be read here.
In
a private email exchange, I solicited Mr. DeKelaita’s thoughts on the matter.
He wrote back:
 “I believe the ‘investigation’ began in 2008.
But you are right that it does smell like an ulterior motive.
I began to hear DHS agents
harassing clients and spreading rumors that I was in prison and that my office
was ‘wired’ etc. In other words, they did their best to destroy my business,
all the while not approaching me. They treated my work on behalf of persecuted
people into a ‘criminal conspiracy.’ These wizards think they can use magic
words to influence facts. They harassed people to get them to say what was not
true. They constructed – against all odds – a case.
You would think that the
DHS/DOJ would be interested in protecting the homeland from real dangers, not
chasing old Assyrian Christian ladies about the exaggerations and ‘lies’ they
told to save themselves from persecution or to reunite with their families. But
this is our government and its priorities and I think it is a major
disappointment.”
A
petition to Senators, Congressmen, and others (to Attorney General Loretta
Lynch, carbon copied to 
President Barack Obama, United States Inspector General Michael Horowitz,
U.S. District Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Zachary T. Fardon,
Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, Illinois
Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Michigan Senator Carl
Levin, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo),
circulated electronically by StandWithRobert, begins:
I
am writing to you regarding the recent indictment of attorney Robert William
DeKelaita. I would like to express my concerns on behalf of the Middle Eastern
Christian community. Mr. DeKelaita has been charged with immigration fraud for
allegedly falsifying asylum requests for Iraqi Christians. At a time where
Iraq’s Christians are facing their greatest plight in nearly a century, the
charges are not only wrongful—they are inappropriate and exceedingly
insensitive.
Iraq’s
Assyrian Christian community has suffered at the hands of Islamic extremists
for decades, particularly after the 2003 United States invasion left them
defenseless. The current takeover by the Islamic State has terrorized the
Assyrian people, as the violence against them has surged. They have been made
victims of unspeakable crimes—including brutal murders, beheadings, torture,
and sexual assault. While prosecutors were preparing their case against Mr.
DeKelaita, Assyrians were fleeing their homes with nothing more than the
clothes on their backs. They are now displaced, living without means to
survive—refugees in their own homeland.
Mr.
DeKelaita has been an advocate for the Assyrian people, among other persecuted
minorities, for years. He is an exemplary citizen. They have dedicated their
lives and careers to others, lending their voices to those who have been
silenced.
There
is a wealth of information about how ISIS and other Muslim states and terrorist
gangs have persecuted Mideast, African, and Far Eastern Christians. Raymond
Ibrahim is among the foremost chroniclers of that persecution. In his October
1st, 2015 column, “
Muslim
History vs Western Fantasy: The ‘Refugee Crisis’ in Context
,” he writes:
One
of the primary reasons Islamic and Western nations are “worlds apart” is
because the way they understand the world is worlds apart.  Whereas
Muslims see the world through the lens of history, the West has jettisoned or
rewritten history to suit its ideologies.
This dichotomy of Muslim and Western thinking
is evident everywhere.  When the Islamic State declared that it will
“conquer Rome” and “break its crosses,” few in the West realized that those are
the verbatim words and goals of Islam’s founder and his companions as recorded
in Muslim sources—words and goals that prompted over a thousand years of jihad
on Europe.
Most recently, the Islamic State released a
map of the areas it plans on expanding into over the next five years.  The
map includes European nations such as Portugal, Spain, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Greece, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Armenia, Georgia,
Crete, Cyprus, and parts of Russia.
The reason these European nations are
included in the Islamic State’s map is simple.  According to Islamic law,
once a country has been conquered (or “opened,” as it’s called in the
euphemistic Arabic), it becomes Islamic in perpetuity.
Now, however, that the “caliphate” has been
reborn and is expanding before a paralytic West, dreams of reconquering
portions of Europe—if not through jihad, then through migration—are becoming
more plausible, perhaps even more so than conquering Israel. Because of their
historical experiences with Islam, some central and east European nations are
aware of Muslim aspirations.  Hungary’s prime minister even cited
his nation’s unpleasant past under Islamic rule
(in the guise of the
Ottoman Empire) as reason to disallow Muslim refugees from entering.
There is,
of course, the genocidal persecution of the Yazidis and the sexual enslavement
of many of that creed’s women – a barbarism so horrific that not even the MSM
could ignore it – the destruction of ancient
archeological sites
in an attempt to erase pre-Islamic history, and the jihad waged by so-called “lone wolf”
killers in the West. Robert Spencer of Jihad
Watch
also carries the most news about the Islamic persecution of
Christians. The atrocities and the stories never end and will not end any time
soon.
The Wall
Street Journal in 2006 published an exposé of the Iraqi kidnapping racket based
in the U.S., “Iraqi
Abductors Find Deep Pockets in U.S.
” The article’s authors, Gina Chon and Joel
Millman, quoted Mr. DeKelaita in that piece:
Robert DeKelaita, an Iraqi-American who works
as an immigration attorney in Skokie, Ill., says he has represented hundreds of
clients in the past two years who have been tapped for ransom payments after
relatives have been kidnapped in Iraq.
“Those insurgents know exactly what they are
doing,” Mr. DeKelaita says. “They know who has relatives in the U.S., and who
can pay, and our people are suffering for it.”
Mr. DeKelaita’s own secretary, Nineveh Isho,
says her 20-year-old cousin was grabbed in April 2004 as he was walking down a
street in Baghdad. Relatives in the U.S. raised the bulk of a $20,000 ransom,
which was sent to a personal bank account of a friend in Iraq. The kidnappers
said during phone conversations they knew of the family’s relatives in Arizona
and the Chicago area, Ms. Isho says her family told her. Ms. Isho was born in
the U.S. and her parents came here in 1976.
Pamela
Geller on her Atlas
Shrugs
site has written:
The only “refugees” the US should be bringing
in are Christians and other religious minorities who are being oppressed,
ethnically cleansed and murdered in Syria, Iraq and other Muslim countries
under Islamic rule.
But Obama has long abandoned religious
minorities under Islamic rule. Instead, Obama continues to import jihad. The consequences of
Muslim immigration
on free societies is ruinous.
The UN decides who is a “refugee” under the
“Refugee Resettlement Program.” UNHCR decides, and the UN is driven by the
largest world body — the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), whose goal
is to impose Islam across the world. And they are doing it — with money, media,
men and ….. Obama.
So, it is
no wonder that Mr. DeKelaita has been “profiled” and called on the Islamic
carpet by the DOJ. Obama has expressed not a word of sympathy about the plight
of Assyrian and other Christians being wiped out by ISIS. They do not concern
him. Islam is a totalitarian ideology, he has a malignant soft spot in his
heart for anything that smacks of Islamic supremacism, and won’t hear a bad word
against it. I doubt there are any Assyrians in his administration, but there is
a battalion
of members of the Muslim
Brotherhood
holding down cushy, well-paying jobs and steering U.S. foreign
policy in the direction of accommodating Islam.
But, the
word has been out for the longest time, especially the word ordered by Barack
Obama: Muslims, yes. Christians, no. This is the corruption that Robert DeKelaita
is facing. And the FBI and the DOJ were corrupted years ago when George
W. Bush
declared, soon after 9/11, that Islam is a “religion of peace.”
We can’t blame
it all on Obama.

(Mr. DeKelaita’s trial date is scheduled for April 18, 2016.)

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén