The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: November 2015 Page 1 of 2

The Selective Amnesia of Neocons

One of the
most significant critical phenomena occurring within the last five years was
the persistent and oftimes viciously personal neoconservative (“neocon”) attack
on Diana West’s compelling and thoroughly documented account of how the U.S.
lost World War II because of Soviet infiltration and manipulation of the
Roosevelt administration. These machinations were fiddled not so much by Josef
Stalin, as by his fifth column and domestic politburo of American Stalinists
and an obliging U.S. president, Franklin D. Roosevelt. The book is American
Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character
. The U.S.
government then was termite-riddled with Soviet agents and sympathizers (“fellow-travelers”),
much as our government now is termite-riddled with Muslims.
I reviewed
Diana West’s path-breaking book in May 2015 in my Rule of Reason column, “Blaming
the Right Culprits
.”  In it I wrote:
Diana West has performed
yeoman’s work in exposing the Soviet-FDR connection in American
Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character
. She has aired
out America’s dirty laundry and hung it out to dry. Neocons and other strange
creatures attacked her for contradicting their over half-century-old meme that
FDR was a blameless dupe of Joseph Stalin and that there were no real Soviet
agents and fellow travelers in FDR’s administration.
Such were the number of
attacks and the personalities making them that she had to write another book to
counter all the lies, misconceptions, academic pufferies, character
assassinations, and misrepresentations about her and American Betrayal in those attacks, in a second book, The
Rebuttal: Defending ‘American Betrayal From the Book Burners
. I
followed this ongoing exchange between West and her detractors from Day One….
What is it that a neoconservative wants to “conserve”? A
neocon is someone who is an ex-leftwing “radical” who finally understood the
error of his ways, recanted, and joined the Non-Fight Club.
We’re neocons!
We’re ex-communists and ex-socialists who have seen the light and acknowledge
the horrors visited upon millions of people by those collectivist ideologies in
practice. What, however, are we for?
We’re for the status quo! Whatever that is or may be at any given point in
time.
The occasion for
this column is the review of a new movie, Trumbo, by Ronald Radosh, who
participated in a veritable witch-hunt to discredit – nay, destroy – both West’s
book and her intellectual, scholarly, and moral bonafides. PJ Media ran his
November 26th review of the film, “Red Star
Falling: The Trumbo Train Wreck
.” This was a follow-up review of his
November 2013 predictive critique of the film before it had been made, “Will
the New Trumbo Movie Rehash Old Myths?
” in the National Review.
Radosh’s
review of the Trumbo movie is fair-to-middling. Not a trace of malice can be
detected in his appraisal of the film or of its subject, Dalton Trumbo, one of
the “Hollywood Ten” who refused to testify before the House Committee on
Un-American Activities in 1947 concerning Communist influences in Hollywood and
the sly boots campaign by many directors, screenwriters, and producers to
indoctrinate Americans from the big screen.

When it was announced two years ago that
Bryan Cranston would play Dalton Trumbo in a new movie about the late
blacklisted Communist screenwriter, I wrote an article
for National Review

that asked a simple question: would the film be honest and portray Trumbo
accurately, or would it perpetuate the myth of innocent and victimized
Hollywood Reds?
Indeed, because of this piece, the
producers and/or the publicity people of Bleecker Street Cinema claimed that I
had “trashed the film” in advance and barred me from the screening, thus preventing
me from writing about it for a national publication. One could say that
Bleecker Street Cinema blacklisted me — but we all know they are against
blacklists….
Now we have the latest incarnation in the
film Trumbo,
starring Cranston as Trumbo, Louis C.K. as one of the Hollywood Ten, Helen
Mirren as Hedda Hopper, Diane Lane as Trumbo’s wife Cleo, and John Goodman as a
schlock film producer for whom Trumbo wrote lousy films under a pseudonym while
blacklisted. The film is good at recreating Hollywood in that era, but does
exactly as I feared.
Which is:
The film presents Trumbo as a
hero and martyr for free speech, a principled rich Communist who nevertheless
stands firm, sells his beautiful ranch for a “modest” new house in Los Angeles,
and survives by writing film scripts — most run of the mill but some major
films (such as the Academy Award-winning Roman Holiday) — using a
“front” who pretended to be the writer. Trumbo brought in other blacklisted
writers to do likewise, his theory being that if enough films were scripted in
this way, when the truth came out, the blacklist would end. Trumbo was right.
After it was revealed that he would write the movies Exodus and Spartacus,
the blacklist was effectively over. At the same time, Trumbo is shown as having
an extraordinary work ethic — working day and night to support his family,
while existing on alcohol, nicotine, and amphetamines.
While Trumbo was an
interesting and colorful character, the film gives us the story of the
Communists and the blacklist in the mold of the Ten’s own propaganda book
published after their HUAC appearances. The book is Hollywood
on Trial
, which portrayed them as advocates of free speech who were
defending the American Constitution, civil liberties, and American freedom
itself.
Fair enough.
In both the National Review and PJ Media articles, Radosh reveals some unsavory
details about Trumbo’s character and actions. Read them for yourself. He was a
Stalinist, and then he wasn’t one when the truth came out about Stalin’s
horrendous policies and body count. Then he apparently threw up his hands and
became…a neocon, in every way but name,
in a manner of speaking. Radosh and his colleagues in calumny did not wish to
acknowledge itinerant conversion. Trumbo became a neocon just as the three
former Left Wing individuals and activists had – Radosh, David Horowitz, and Conrad Black – who later
pilloried Diana West for writing an anti-Communist book about the scope of
espionage and manipulation of U.S. policies and strategies during WWII.
Dalton Trumbo,
Alger HIss, the Rosenbergs
– these were “soft targets” for the neocons. Easy pickings. They can be
condemned or criticized. Radosh even wrote a September 2008 piece for the Los
Angeles Times about how guilty the Rosenbergs were, “
Case closed:
The Rosenbergs were Soviet spies
.” This was a Johnny-Come-Lately
piece (by thirty years) on which is based Radosh’s claim-to-fame.
So, the
question to ask is: If these three were now anti-Communist, as well, why did
they object so much to West’s book? Why did they go to extraordinary lengths to
attempt to refute her thesis that our WWII military strategy was stealthily fine-tuned
to oblige Stalin, with a great assist from a State Department more or less run
by Communists and Communist sympathizers? Why the strenuous denial and
attempted excoriation of West’s thesis, punctuated by adolescent name-calling?
If these
individuals were so confident that West was wrong, and instead had embarked on
a calm and courteous and reasoned refutation of her thesis and the pages of
information she produced to support and validate her conclusions, why then did
they launch a venomous personal campaign to kick her down the stairs? Why was
their response to her book couched more in anger than in sorrow?
Why were they
so determined to extinguish her? Why were they willing to resort to misrepresentations
of her work, to misquoting her, to consecutive, thickly layered,
pseudo-scholarly obfuscations, to smears? Why did they behave as though their
authority was being challenged, jeopardized, and threatened?
If West was so
wrong, why did they feel it absolutely necessary to berate and belittle her now? Bad ideas and hypotheses over time
are outed and refuted by reality and facts. Could they not wait? Or were they
afraid that her thesis was anchored in facts and they didn’t want it to be
communicated to the nation, because that would not reflect well on FDR and how
he conducted the war?
I think that
part of the answer can be found in their adoration and “iconization” of
Roosevelt, a Populist Progressive and champion of the mixed economy – that is,
an economy of some freedom and a lot of government regulation and controls, all
subject to the direction Roosevelt wanted to take it. Rooseveltian policies perhaps
represented to them and may still represent to them the status quo they would
prefer reigned over the country.
It is not the
purpose of this column to revisit all the issues that were the center of the
assault on West; that is impossible, as it would take more than a column. In
fact, another book. Speaking of books, in his entry, “An American Threat,”
Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna in November 2013 made this salient
observation about Horowitz and Radosh on the occasion of Horowitz’s appearance
at the Heritage Foundation. It gives us a peek at the motives behind the attack
on West:
The video below contains
fourteen minutes of footage excerpted from an hour and a half of live stream
from the Heritage Foundation. Listen closely to the questions directed at the
guest speaker, and his answers. To my mind, the most telling statement by Mr.
Horowitz is this one:
“I see it as a threat to
everything that I’ve done, and that Radosh has done, and that Harvey Klehr and
John Earl Haynes and all of the conservatives who have dredged up the information
from the archives about Communist influence.”
This is the crux of the
matter in a nutshell: Diana West’s book was a personal attack from the
point of view of David Horowitz and his associates. It was not something with
which they could simply disagree, and present reasoned arguments against in
rebuttal. The author had to be “taken down” through personal attacks, snarky
insults, misrepresentations of what she said, denigration of her character, and
anything else that would serve to consign her to academic oblivion.
Notice that David Horowitz
brings up historical events, and then declines to “get into the weeds” when
confronted on what he said by a historian who is an expert on the subject
matter involved (which Mr. Horowitz admits he is not).
This is not about academic
matters. This is not about history. This is a personal conflict initiated by
someone who feels his pre-eminent position being threatened by another writer’s
book.
Jeff Lipkes,
in his July 2014 American Thinker column, “
Diana
and Ron: What Was Going On?
“ asks:
Why a “take-down” of West
instead of a review of her book?….
The prosaic truth, however,
is that Radosh has done West a real injustice, but American Betrayal
nonetheless has some significant flaws.  It’s an important book, as well
as a riveting one, and deserves a close and critical reading.
Frankly, I have read West’s
book twice, and also her book-length The
Rebuttal : Defending American Betrayal
From the Book-Burners
.  
I noticed
no flaws in either work, significant or otherwise, but for the occasional typo
or ill-formatting. But Lipkes must have been shaking his head and felt
compelled to make this observation: 
The distinguishing feature of
the controversy was the venom directed at West. 
The titles of some of the
articles from Radosh and his cohort are revealing, starting with “McCarthy
on Steroids
”:  “Diana
West vs. History
,” “Why
I Wrote a Take-Down of Diana West’s Awful Book
,” “Diana
West Attempts to Respond
,” “Diana
West’s Epic Fail
,” “Diana
West Down Crackpot Alley
,” etc.
There was also a back-stage
email campaign.
On September 3, an article
appeared on the Gateway Institute site by Senior Fellow Claire Lopez, which
drew on West’s account of the decision to recognize the Soviet Union in
1933.  The article was pulled later in the day and the next morning Lopez
was informed that her relationship with Gateway had been terminated.  Less
than a month after the Radosh review, Diana West had become radioactive.

What precipitated the ongoing Muslim gang-like beat up of West, in Horowitz’s
own words, was the removal from FrontPage of an article that endorsed American Betrayal, which, in another
salvo launched at West, Horowitz refers to as an “embarrassingly kooky book” (“
Diana
West Invents a New Conspiracy
”). In his editorial of August 7, 2013, “Our
Controversy with Diana West
,” Horowitz wrote:
Rather than responding to
Ronald Radosh’s FrontPage
review
of American Betrayal, as a reasonable author might, Diana
West has launched a series of personal attacks not only on Radosh but on the
editors of FrontPage, calling us “hypocrites,” “totalitarians,”
“ossified totalitarians,” commissars” and liars (“If
FrontPage Will Lie about This, What Won’t They Lie About?
”) and claiming we
“suppressed” — also “purged” – a favorable review of her book because its
opinions were “incorrect,” clearly implying that they were politically
incorrect. She also seems to have inspired a small army to conduct a war on her
behalf in our pages, whose attacks use the same talking points and seek to
defame and discredit us, representing us as renegades who have persecuted her
because of her views. In other words, instead of answering the factual
criticisms that Radosh has made of her book, she prefers to treat his review as
part of a political conspiracy against her work by people who only pretend to
have the views they do. Readers of American Betrayal will find this kind
of paranoid fantasy all too familiar.
I am solely responsible for
the decision to remove the positive review of her book that originally appeared
on FrontPage on which she builds her anti-FrontPage case. Here is what
happened. When the FrontPage review of American Betrayal appeared
I received an email from Ron Radosh whom I have known for more than sixty
years, and whose work as a historian is respected not only by me but by every
conservative academic historian with whom I am familiar….
So, Radosh’s
feelings were hurt. He’s an authority, you see, and I’ve known him for years. Horowitz
to the rescue. But the question here should be: Why remove the “offending”
column that endorsed West’s book? Why not let it stand, and let others read it
and judge for themselves whether or not it speaks to the truth? Horowitz can do
whatever he likes on FrontPage. But the act of removing an editorial with which
he and others might disagree is a telltale sign of what West accused him and
others of: a penchant for censorship (not a strictly appropriate term, since
only governments can censor), or at least for selective “information
management.” It smacks of the New York Times.
The emotional
and deprecatory response to West’s book, and the nearly visceral resentment
against her campaign to defend herself against her attackers, were so
disproportionate to the subject that it can’t be deemed a mere academic
dispute. It was more like a Mafia vendetta, meant to draw blood instead of civilly
addressing a crucial historical issue. It echoes Turkey’s refusal to
acknowledge the Armenian
genocide
. “It never happened! It was all the Armenians’ fault!”
The motto of
Horowitz’s FrontPage is “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to
get out.” The behavior of Diana West’s neocon enemies remains inexplicable. It’s
what you’d expect from The Huffington Post or Salon. It’s abnormal. Perhaps for
these veterans of the Left, old habits die hard. Perhaps something else
screamed to get out, and it did get out to hound West everywhere she turned.
Those old Communist “let’s squelch the opposition” habits can be suppressed for
a time, but flare up in the most unflattering circumstances and at the most
inopportune times.
Perhaps they’ve
all forgotten why they repudiated Communism, ostensively over the suppression
of freedom of speech and the purging of dissenters from the ranks.
If that is the
case, then we are dealing with a form of selective amnesia.

Slandering the Prophet

 “The future must not belong
to those who slander the prophet of Islam.  But to be credible, those who
condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus
Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust
that is denied.”  President Barack
Obama
before the U.N. General Assembly, September 25, 2012.dep
It seems, to
judge by his record before and after his U.N. address, in this instance that
Obama delivered a verbose, sanctimonious dose of his silver-tongued taqiyya that mentioned desecrated
images of Christ and Holocaust denial just so he couldn’t be accused of bigotry
or favoritism. However, he hasn’t had much to say about the desecration and
destruction of Christian and Jewish edifices and objects by ISIS, or by Islamic
enthusiasts in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, and in other culturally
enriched Islamic pestholes.

On the other
hand, it’s fairly well known that Muslims can slander other creeds with legal
and social impunity, and even publicly threaten death and dismemberment of
anyone who slanders Mohammad and Islam or mentions them with a jaundiced eye.
But, how can
you slander an icon, or a cartoon character, a fictional book, movie, or TV
character, or a person who might not
have even existed historically
except in the minds of countless “believers”
whose minds anyway are not too firmly anchored to reality? But perhaps it isn’t
the icon of Mohammad that should be slandered, mocked, and defamed, but those
to whom the icon is a reality.
Those
people actually exist. But you can’t slander or libel someone whose existence
a), has never been demonstrated except in the dubious assertive texts of an
apocryphal “holy scripture” knocked together by two or three dozen “scholars”
and tongue-in-cheek scribes over a thousand years; and b), whose physical
appearance is unknown, nay, forbidden, under penalty of death. Mohammad left no
dental records for forensics specialists to examine, no DNA samples to put
through comparative analyses, no real surviving artifacts or memorabilia of
things he might have owned or handled. Where’s the spear, the turban, the
sword? His sandals? There’s the Kaaba in Mecca, but that’s been rebuilt a dozen
times. Western and even Persian artists over the centuries have produced an
encyclopedia of depictions of Mohammad’s physical appearance.
Is the Muslim
belief in the holiness of Mohammad and the existence of Allah so tenuous, so
shaky, so precarious that any slander
or libel of them can precipitate a desperate, quivering, emotional outburst of
anger? Are Muslims so addled that questions about Mohammad and Allah threaten
the insular, super-sensitized mindset of the faithful?  I have yet to encounter a Christian or a Jew
who blew up at me for the suggestion that God and the Bible or the Torah might
be ripping good fiction but otherwise are age-old figments of the imagination.
Of course, I
could pose the same questions about the Christian and Judaic Jesus, but then
Christians and Jews aren’t threatening to kill me if I don’t convert to their
creeds. I could mock the idea of Moses parting the waters of the Red Sea and
the antecedents of the Shroud of Turin, but I needn’t fear for my life. Jews
and Christians wouldn’t be out to remove me from this mortal coil. They might
not invite me to dinner, or they might curse my name in private, but that would
be the extent of their persecution of me.
It’s only
adherents to the Islamic creed who behave like raving tyrants and homicidal
maniacs every time someone gives Mohammad a raspberry shower or a scholarly
vetting. And Islam cadged not only Jesus to add to its pantheon of “prophets,”
but other Biblical characters, as well. Finally, Allah was a moon god
appropriated
from a pagan creed. Given enough time and a little imagination,
Mohammad and his successors might have chosen Steamboat Willie,
otherwise known as Mickey Mouse, to be their all-merciful and all-powerful
deity. However:

There is absolutely no
question that Allah was worshipped by the pagan Arabs as one of many
polytheistic gods. Allah was worshipped in the Kabah at Mecca before Muhammad
was born. Muhammad merely proclaimed a god the Meccans were already familiar
with. The pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah
than the one they already worshipped.
Many scholars say
“Allah” is derived from a compound Arabic word, AL + ILAH = Allah.
“Ilah” in Arabic is “God” and “Al” in Arabic is a
definite article like our word “the”. So from an English equivalent
“Allah” comes from “The + God”. Others, like Arthur Jeffery
say, “The common theory is that it is formed from ilah, the common word
for a god, and the article al-; thus al-ilah, the god,” becomes Allah, “God.”
This theory, however, is untenable. In fact, the name is one of the words
borrowed into the language in pre-Islamic times from Aramaic.” (Islam:
Muhammad and His Religion
, Arthur Jeffery, 1958, p 85)
The article, “The pagan
origin of the word “Allah
,” goes on to reveal:
It is not related that the
Black Stone was connected with any special god. In the Ka’ba was the statue of
the god Hubal who might be called the god of Mecca and of the Ka’ba. Caetani
gives great prominence to the connection between the Ka’ba and Hubal. Besides
him, however, al-Lat, al-`Uzza, and al-Manat were worshipped and are mentioned
in the Kur’an; Hubal is never mentioned there. What position Allah held beside
these is not exactly known. The Islamic tradition has certainly elevated him at
the expense of other deities. It may be considered certain that the Black Stone
was not the only idol in or at the Ka’ba. The Makam Ibrahim was of course a
sacred stone from very early times. Its name has not been handed down. Beside
it several idols are mentioned, among them the 360 statues. (First
Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill
, 1987, Islam, p. 587-591)
“The verses of the
Qur’an make it clear that the very name Allah existed in the Jahiliyya or
pre-Islamic Arabia. Certain pagan tribes believed in a god whom they called
‘Allah’ and whom they believed to be the creator of heaven and earth and holder
of the highest rank in the hierarchy of the gods. It is well known that the
Quraish as well as other tribes believed in Allah, whom they designated as the
‘Lord of the House’ (i.e., of the Ka’ba)…It is therefore clear that the
Qur’anic conception of Allah is not entirely new.” (A Guide to the
Contents of the Qur’an
, Faruq Sherif, (Reading, 1995), pgs. 21-22., Muslim)
I could also
slander Karl Marx and his “religion” of Communism, and Hitler and Nazism’s
central belief system. Well, okay, the Socialist and Communist might retort,
Socialism and Communism have ruined every nation in which it’s been tried, and
resulted in the impoverishment, starvation, enslavement, and deaths of
millions, but it can work if only we could produce the perfect Socialist or
Communist man in the masses who could make it work. The Nazis had the same
contention.  And this explains why state
control over education is so necessary to Socialists and Communists. Children
and adolescents and grown adults must be mentally “conditioned” to labor with
the most altruist spirit to sustain that ideal polity.
The “reality”
of Mohammad and Allah seems to congeal into a pandemic gestalt whenever a Muslim
prays. I mentioned this state of mind in a previous column.
Islam prohibits almost every
pleasure. If a supernatural belief prevents a person from indulging in
pleasures, then this belief also relieves this person of the guilt. And when
the person is relieved of his guilt and shame because of this belief, his
conviction that this belief is ‘genuine’ is consolidated. This re-enforces the
validity of this belief in the person’s mind on a constant basis. He feels
‘pure’, clean about himself as a result, while those who indulge in pleasure,
appear ‘filthy’, dirty to him.

Compounding this phenomenon are the
Islamic prayer gestures. While a Muslim is engaged in pretentious bodily
movements and gestures of the Islamic prayer, his brain is subjected to a
trance like state, which resonates with his desire to believe in a god, thereby
again re-enforcing the notion that this belief is genuine, and is making him a
better human being with each prayer.

A particular part of the human brain
plays a critical role in this phenomenon. This part gives rise to a thirst for
supernatural connection, which is quenched by Islam, and hence manipulates and
motivates the person psychologically toward believing in Islam. This feel-good
factor acts as the psychological impetus behind him being attached to Islam. He
now clings on to Islam, because Islam makes him feel better about himself.
Hence this person is motivated to keep practicing Islam, continue being
delusional and keep following the imaginary Allah. Even kill in his name.

This is the secret behind the success
of Islam.
And this is as
close as any Muslim will ever come to Allah and his right-hand enforcer,
Mohammad: by literally losing his “self” in a trance, by submitting to some
kind of Islamic “rapture,” by suspending his consciousness and his mind. It
matters not if he erases himself privately or in mass arse-liftings on Madison
Avenue or on Fleet Street or on the Avenue
des Champs-Élysées. When he’s in this state, he’s in that gestalt.


What is a gestalt? Merriam-Webster‘s definition of it is:
1.  Psychology : something that is made of many
parts and yet is somehow more than or different from the combination of its
parts; broadly : the general quality or character of something
2. A
structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological
phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not
derivable by summation of its parts
E Pluribus Umma. From the many, one.  You, Abdul, are nothing. We are all.

Mohammad in disguise as Georgetown University
Professor of Islamic Studies, John Esposito

How does a Muslim
know Allah exists, that Islam is “true,” and that Mohammad is the “Prophet”? Through
his feelings. Sensory perception plays no role in this “knowledge.”

How do you calmly
discuss the delusions of Islam and Marxism with a Muslim and a Marxist without getting
your head chopped off? How do you make any progress in persuading a Muslim and
a Marxist that their ideologies are evil and even self-contradictory?
You don’t, and
you can’t. As a correspondent remarked after watching Stephen Coughlin’s video
version of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America
in the Face of Jihad
:
The Marxists and Islamists
are working in tandem to bring us down. Coughlin goes into detail on that
issue, including how “political correctness” works to undermine the
law of non-contradiction in those who fall prey to it. One section of his video
briefing is titled “Interfaith Dialogue and the War on Reason”. As
the Marxists destroy the philosophical basis of the culture and the culture
continues to disintegrate, the Muslims step in to offer an alternative to
“truth” and “order”, as the Nazis did in Weimar Republic
Germany.
Au contraire, Mr. Obama. The future belongs to me and everyone else who
values freedom of thought and of speech. If Muslims and Islam can’t take
criticism or mockery or slander, perhaps they should get out of the kitchen.

On Islamophobia

First, let’s
define phobia.
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1971):
Phobia:  Fear, horror, or aversion, esp. of a morbid
character….So Phobist nonce-wd. one who has a horror of or
aversion to anything.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1956) states:
Phobia: An irrational, persistent
fear of a particular object or class of objects.
The Oxford definition does not claim that a
phobia is necessarily irrational, but however stresses its cause as being a
person. The Webster’s definition does
not even mention a person, just objects or classes of objects, which, of
course, can include persons. Other dictionary definitions more or less track
the Oxford and Webster’s definitions.
And here is
the origin of the term Islamophobia, from Discover
the Networks
.
The term “Islamophobia” was invented
and promoted in the early 1990s
by the International
Institute for Islamic Thought
(IIIT), a front group of the Muslim
Brotherhood
. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad — who was with that
organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected
IIIT’s ideology — now reveals
the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is
nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of
Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its
very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as
a weapon
to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and
silencing them….
Although the term was coined
in the early 1990s, “Islamophobia” did not become the focus of an active
Brotherhood campaign until after 9/11.
Since that time, Islamist lobby organizations (including the Council
on American-Islamic Relations
, or CAIR) and Muslim civil-rights activists
have regularly accused the American people, American institutions,
law-enforcement authorities, and the U.S. government of harboring a deep and
potentially violent prejudice against Muslims. The accusers charge that as a
result of this “Islamophobia,” Muslims are disproportionately
targeted by perpetrators of hate crimes and acts of discrimination.
“Hate crimes.” “Hate speech.” Discrimination. Bigotry. Racism.
“Islalmophobia.” The lexicon of pro-Islam and pro-“Syrian” immigration is large
and loathsome.

For an extended discussion of the term’s origin, see Robert Spencer’s
August 2012 Jihad Watch column, “Did
the Muslim Brotherhood Invent the term ‘Islamophobia’?
” Spencer’s argument
about the term’s origins is at odds with the account given by Discover the
Networks.
Whatever its true origins, the term Islamophobia is a pejorative term used to describe a state of mind.
That state of mind is not necessarily irrational but the term is intended to
smear anyone who has or has expressed a rational and wholly justified fear of
Islam and even of Muslims in general (the most humble-looking,
innocuous-looking ones often turn out to be the slashers, the shooters, the
killers and wannabe killers; observe the knifing jihad in Israel). Islamophobia may or may not result in action
taken by the “phobist.” The term has become synonymous with “hate speech” and
racism. If you are an Islamophobe, then you are automatically a racist and a
bigot and a vehicle of hate who ought to be gagged and fined and made to
perform community
service
. Michael Sturzenberger is only the latest Austrian to be charged
and found guilty of “hate speech.”
Now, I think it’s safe to say that neither President Barack Obama, nor
Chancellor Angela Merkel, nor Prime Minister David Cameron, nor French
President François Hollande, nor
Hillary Clinton, nor any other pro-immigration politicians here or in Europe,
is an Islamophobe. Unlike so many ordinary citizens of America, Britain, Germany,
and France, they are surrounded daily by security so heavy that no one would
have a chance to spike their drinks or make an indecent gesture in their
company. I imagine that if I threw a shoe or a shower sandal at Obama’s heavily
armored limousine as it passed by – a vehicle and its string of decoys each of
which could repel an RPG – I’d be instantly wrestled to the ground by Secret
Service goons and charged with endangering the president’s life, and perhaps
with “hate speech.”
They don’t need to worry about
being threatened by ISIS or Muslims. They each have a “safe space” to insulate
them from “microaggressions.” They don’t live in the same neighborhoods as
those of us here in the workaday world. They’ve never needed to fear, mistrust,
or abhor Muslims or Islam or immigrant brutes of any stripe, even though ISIS
has threatened to kill them. It’s an empty threat, made just for show, because
Obama, Cameron, Hollande, both Clintons, and Merkel are the best friends ISIS
ever had. Lower-level elitists like Secretary of State John Kerry won’t be
encountering Muslims or “Syrians” or even hostile illegal Mexicans at their
local laundromats, either. The only dangers Obama and Kerry might face is the possibility
of a bicycle malfunction caused by a prankish Islamic jin.
This is an important
ingredient in the positions of our putative guardians of the national security,
that they are insulated from the consequences of their Platonic policies. It
is, from their perspective, incumbent upon the hoi polloi to act out our fantasy worlds. They, the elite, must
remain above and unsullied and undisturbed by those policies.
Did the Nazis ever fear the Vichy government in
France? Not much. If you’re a contemporary collaborationist facilitating the
invasion and occupation of your country by country’s enemies, you needn’t fear for
your personal safety, or fear anything except perhaps reprisals from put-upon
citizens either at the ballot box or at government-supervised rallies whose
media coverage is also carefully supervised and managed.
I don’t think there were any prominent “Naziphobes” at large in the
U.S. during WW2; the basic character of Nazi Germany was understood by most
Americans as something not to sympathize with or welcome into the country.
However, there weren’t very many prominent “Communistphobes,” either, not in
academia nor in the news media of the time, because all the propaganda
reportage and films and so on were geared to prep Americans to blow kisses to
Uncle Joe Stalin. He was an ally. His dictatorship was attacked by another
dictatorship. Poor baby. He was just your ordinary benevolent dictator and
never mind the millions of Russians he’d had put to death, or starved to death,
or shipped to Gulags, Walter
Duranty
to the contrary notwithstanding. He’s on our side. Never fear. What
are you? Some sort of Slavophobe or something? Racist! Critics of the U.S.-Soviet
alliance were squelched or ignored.
I’ll confess here and now and for all time: I’m an Islamophobe, as
well as a Naziphobe and a Communistphobe. I wouldn’t need to be an Islamophobe
if our government did its proper job and declared war on Islam. After all,
Islam declared war on us. On the West. But there’s been no proper retaliation
against the states that sponsor terrorism that is worth noting, although what
has been done has cost thousands of American lives and billions of dollars. This
is because our government has not recognized Islam for what it is. And it isn’t
going to recognize its perfidy for as long as Islam is regarded as a “religion
of peace” that’s been “hijacked” or stands as a model for what our current
President regards as an ideal and enviable polity.
You hate what you fear, especially if you have no control over the
nemesis, and especially if the nemesis, like Islam, is allowed to metastasize
in your neighborhood, city, state, and country. There are rational approaches
to curing or at least curbing one’s fear of snakes, spiders, rodents, heights, and
so on. Even of one’s fear of politicians. That’s when you allow reason to take
control of your responses and emotions. But Islam rebuffs reason and its
Western defenders are proof against reason, as well.
One thing you may despise if not hate is the Muslim prayer ritual.
This is the ritual that may take place in your place of employment and
certainly takes place when ISIS fighters rape
their Yazidi captives
. A Jihad Watch reader describes the state of mind of
the average Muslim when immersed in prayer.
Islam
prohibits almost every pleasure. If a supernatural belief prevents a person
from indulging in pleasures, then this belief also relieves this person of the
guilt. And when the person is relieved of his guilt and shame because of this
belief, his conviction that this belief is ‘genuine’ is consolidated. This
re-enforces the validity of this belief in the person’s mind on a constant
basis. He feels ‘pure’, clean about himself as a result, while those who
indulge in pleasure, appear ‘filthy’, dirty to him.

Compounding this phenomenon are the
Islamic prayer gestures. While a Muslim is engaged in pretentious bodily
movements and gestures of the Islamic prayer, his brain is subjected to a
trance like state, which resonates with his desire to believe in a god, thereby
again re-enforcing the notion that this belief is genuine, and is making him a
better human being with each prayer.

A particular part of the human brain
plays a critical role in this phenomenon. This part gives rise to a thirst for
supernatural connection, which is quenched by Islam, and hence manipulates and
motivates the person psychologically toward believing in Islam. This feel-good
factor acts as the psychological impetus behind him being attached to Islam. He
now clings on to Islam, because Islam makes him feel better about himself.
Hence this person is motivated to keep practicing Islam, continue being
delusional and keep following the imaginary Allah. Even kill in his name.

This is the secret behind the success
of Islam.
 See my column, “The
Collectivist Mentality of Muslims” here,
for an extended discussion of what makes Muslims tick.
So, if you see Muslim women in their sweltering
robes and head bags pushing prams in the supermarket or on a street, there is a
reason for that. Dymphna of Gates of Vienna cited information from the Center for Immigration Studies in a November
23rd column, “Immigration
is Immoral
,” and it contains some revealing and incriminating data. At
first glance, it would seem that the separation of church and state in America
has its limits, especially when the government is paying religious groups to
bring in alien “immigrants” and “refugees” to settle in this country. It’s a
horrible  and hush-hush racket.
The
cascade of governors (over two dozen now) demanding that the State Department
not send them any more Syrian refugees didn’t just happen in a vacuum. Local and
state dissatisfaction with Washington’s dumping of refugees has been building
for years. These communities were dubbed “pockets of resistance” by the federal
Office of Refugee Resettlement a couple of years ago, a moniker they [the
resisters, that is — D] have embraced. The Paris atrocities merely turned the
dial up to 11.
What’s
driven much of this local resentment has not been security concerns so much as
cost ones — concerns that apply to all refugees, not merely those from Syria or
even the Islamic world generally. The paid agents of the State Department — the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
(52 percent taxpayer-funded), Church World Service (57 percent
taxpayer-funded), World Relief (70 percent taxpayer-funded), Lutheran Immigrant
and Refugee Services (92 percent taxpayer-funded), and others — decide on their
own, in secret, where they will send the refugees they’re paid to “sponsor,”
whether the local schools and other institutions can handle them or not.
I use scare quotes because sponsoring
a refugee does not mean what you think it does — it consists of little more
than signing the refugees up for welfare and then moving on to the next
revenue-generating warm body (the agencies are paid by the head).
For
states and localities, refugee resettlement can be is a huge unfunded
mandate. This heavy use of state and local welfare and
other services, combined with the imperious attitude of the State Department
and its minions, has generated resistance across the country
….
Think of the phenomenon in terms of a cattle drive over your lawn, and
down your street. It is incumbent upon you, the citizen taxpayer funding the
drive, to scoop up the cow patties and to repair the damage thousands of
“refugees” will leave in their wake. You will be held responsible by your
community for the physical and sanitary condition of the pavements. But you can
bet that the executives of these and other government-subsidized “bring ‘em by
the bushel” immigration facilitators won’t be living anywhere in the vicinity
of their paid-by-the-head charges. They have their privacy and peace of mind to
consider, you know. Gated communities which also bar you are their reward for
“doing good.” You? There’s nothing in it for you, except perhaps the cultural
enrichment experience, which can assume all kinds of forms, mainly criminal.
You are expected to be selfless about the invasion.
Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish on November 23rd in his
column, “Everything’s
Fine Until the Bombs Go Off
,” noted about bringing in Obama’s 10,000 or
more Syrian “refugees”: 
Any talk of vetting
is nothing more than plausible deniability. Unless a terrorist is already in
our database, vetting him is a lost cause. Our system couldn’t handle the World
Trade Center bombers or the 9/11 hijackers and they came from functioning
countries that weren’t in the middle of a civil war.

We are not going to be able to vet tens of thousands of people who claim they
come from Syria, who have fake passports or who plead that they lost their
passports at sea, whose names can be rendered in enough ways to give even a
linguist a headache and who will get access to the United States long enough
for them to disappear even if we did eventually turn up something on them.

And we’re not supposed to vet them.
No, we’re not supposed to give any “refugee” a religious test, or an
ideology test, or any kind of test that would screen out a Muslim Brotherhood
“settler” who’s here to wage civilizational jihad while collecting welfare jizya and not to open a tobacco shop or
a laundromat or a landscaping service. That would be so unbecoming, and
offensive, and insulting, and maybe even unconstitutional!
Greenfield warns:

ISIS may have carried out the brutal massacres in Paris, but Hollande, Merkel
and the other friends of the refugees helped make it happen. And they want to
help make it happen around the world.

The migrant crisis is an invasion. The bodies in Paris could just as easily
have been stacked up in any country that was foolish and feckless enough to
open the door to ISIS by taking in “refugees”.

If Obama and Kerry succeed in their plan to bring tens of thousands of Syrian
migrants to America, the next brutal massacre might not happen in Paris. It
might happen in one of our cities instead.
So, while considering whether or not “open borders” and unlimited “Syrian
refugee” importations are viable options and that we mustn’t pre-judge especially
Muslims, tuck this news into your calculations. Arms are making their way into
Germany, smuggled in with all the “refugees.” Gages of Vienna has this story to
report, from November 24th, “Suppressed
Truth: Waves of Refugees, Trafficking in Weapons and Children
:
What our
media report every day about the new folk movement is surely a small snippet of
reality. Why are politicians and the leading media silent about traffic in
weapons and children?
In recent
days, I [Udo Ulfkotte,
reporting] was in the border area of Passau/Deggendorf and later also between
Graz and Spielfeld in Austria, near the Slovenian border. At both border
crossings there was open transporting of weapons in the direction of Germany
and of children destined for abuse. No, that is not being said by conspiracy
theorists, but by government security officials on the spot….
Amazed, I
have heard confirmation from credible, contemporary witnesses: weapons and
drugs are being smuggled in the waves of refugees.
And how did all those Bulgarian-made Kalashnikovs wind up
in Paris?  Doubtless, the Islamic tooth fairy left them under massacre
master-mind Abdelhamid Abaaoud’s smiley-face pillow one night.
Of course, that can’t happen
here. Don’t succumb to Islamophobia! It’s all in your head!

Islam’s Psychotic Obsession

 Nothing
propinks like propinquity.
Felix
Leiter
to James Bond in Ian Fleming’s  
Diamonds
are Forever

(1956, Chapter 21).
It is also
fortuitous happenstance that two accomplished students of the subject of Islam,
thousands of miles apart and within days of each other, published columns about
what drives Islam’s penchant for homicide, torture, rape, mutilation, conquest,
and destruction. They are Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, in his
November 11th column, “Why
Islam is a Religion of War
,” and the mysterious Norwegian writer Fjordman,
in his November 17th piece, “Islam: A
Permanent World War
,” on Gates of Vienna.  Their common theme is why Islam makes war on
the West. Their themes intersect at certain points, and then go off in
different directions.

Greenfield led
off with:
Islamic violence is
a religious problem. Islam derives meaning from physical supremacy, so war
becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it will
conquer the entire world. And to be a true Muslim, is to feel called to aid in
that global conquest, whether by providing money to the Jihadists or to become
a Jihadist.
This means
that a jihadist is much like a
schoolyard bully, who must triumph over his opponents and strike fear in and compel
submission by the other kids. It is an absolute necessity. It is important
that others witness this triumph. It is even better if he triumphs
in cooperation
with other bullies, or with their encouragement. It is proof
of his faith. His being the “last man
standing” over his vanquished and bloodied foe is taken as proof for him of the
metaphysical supremacy and superiority of his faith, and of the efficacy of
physical force in the name of Islam. He has faith
in that fallacy. It must be true. It’s
the only thing he’s sure of.
Rob him of
that faith, and he goes berserk. He will lash out at reality for not conforming
to his faith. Reality must be destroyed. Deny him his imaginary metaphysical
anchor, and he is compelled to prove it with more mayhem, come what may, even
if it entails his own death.
To such a
mind, the possibility that Islam isn’t true, that it isn’t superior to
anything, is inconceivable and blasphemous. A mind willingly, volitionally fastened
to that belief is incapable of inquiry into its nature and roots. A Muslim’s faith in Islam is his proof. Period. No
arguments are permitted. Arguments imply the employment of reason. Reason is
not permissible. Circular logic is de
rigor
to “prove” faith.
There is no
reaching a mind obsessed with its faith in an imaginary deity, an imaginary
prophet, and existence after death. It’s a Hannibal Lector
species of mind.
Suicide
bombers obliterate themselves by obliterating anyone who doesn’t share their
faith. It’s “proof” of the universal truth of Islam. In physical destruction,
they believe, is the final and ultimate truth. In negation is victory. It is
reality that suicide bombers and jihadist raiders wish to obliterate in an
ultimate demonstration of the truth of Islam.   
That faith is set in some kind of insoluble epistemological
cement. There’s no reasoning with such a mind, no modicum of persuasion
possible to it, there’s no crack in it one can pry open with either a credit
card or a set of professional burglar’s picklocks or a crowbar. It is closed to
reality and closed to human communication. To such a mind, the belief is synonymous with a metaphysical
given. “We are able to destroy you; ergo, the truth of our faith. We are able
to force you to convert or submit; ergo, the truth of our faith.”
This is the
syllogism of a psychosis and of a desperate obsession for things as they are
not.
What André
Servier
said about Islam in 1922 (or 1923) supports my own
contention that Muslims are self-lobotomized by remaining faithful followers of Mohammad and adherents to Islam. On Gates of
Vienna is a video featuring the “mastermind” of the Paris carnage, the late and
unlamented Abdelhamid Abaaoud, “What
I did at summer camp”
in Syria. At the end of the video were quotations
from Sevier and Winston Churchill. Sevier said:
“Islam was not a torch, but
an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous
people, it was – and it remains – incapable of adapting itself to civilization.
Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and
checked the evolution of society.”
That quotation
was taken from a badly translated article, digested from a book
by Sevier at Islam
in its Own Words
, dated April 2009. I quote further from the article, “
Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman,”
with my own
emendations:
Against current opinion,
Arabs have no imagination at all. They are realists, not able to imagine or
conceive anything that is not directly perceivable. This explains the sterility
of Arabs in painting, sculpture, literature, science and philosophy. 

It would be
better to label Arabs as “compilers”. Even Islam itself is not an original
doctrine, but a compilation of Greek, Latin, Biblical, Jewish, and Christian
traditions. Arabs have a strong observation capability, but this is at the
expense of imagination. And without imagination, no progress is possible. 
On the
contrary, Arabs (or Muslims) are not
realists. They are divorced from reality. The more devout they are to Islam,
the further away they are from reality and from sanity. They are as divorced
from it as are the likes of Hillary
Clinton
, who asserts that “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful
and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” She can
say this with a backdrop of a growing pile of bodies on top of which is a
black-clad Muslim waving the black flag of ISIS and giving the world the finger.
Fjordman
wrote:
Peace is identical with submission
to Islam. The absence of Sharia law is the absence of peace. Islam is therefore
essentially an ideology of eternal global war. It advocates the permanent
incorporation of the non-Islamic Dar al-Harb, the “House of War,” into
the Dar al-Islam, the “House of Islam” or “House of Submission.” The
term “House of War” indicates that all areas under non-Islamic rule are viewed
as a place of war until such areas cease to exist worldwide and submit to
forces which are loyal to Allah and his Prophet. Some Islamic theologians use
intermediate categories where Islam is making progress, yet does not yet reign
supreme. However, the basic divide in Islamic theology is between the House of
War and the House of Islam.
It is the
physical occupation of non-Islamic space that is paramount in Islamic faith. It is that physical occupation,
writes Greenfield, that is all-important for Islam to validate its means and
ends. Fjordman quotes an Islamic scholar:
“It follows,” wrote the
Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri, professor of the Middle East Studies Program at
Johns Hopkins University, “that the existence of a Dar-al-Harb is ultimately
outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the Dar al-Islam is permanently under
jihad obligation until the Dar al-Harb is reduced to non-existence….The
universality of Islam, in all its embracing creed, is imposed on the believers
as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly
military.”
At the
conclusion of such a “struggle” (fitna)
all the world will be at peace. Reality will have been altered making Islam the
global “reality.” Fjordman concludes his article:
Islam contains elements of a
traditional religion, but also elements of a totalitarian belief system
centered around a personality cult of Mohammad. Islam is a creed of war, not a religion of peace. In theory, this war
will end when all human beings on Earth have submitted to Islamic rule and
eventually become Muslims. In practice, experience shows us that Muslim
societies are far from peaceful. Muslims will continue to fight amongst
themselves over who are the best and truest Muslims. Islam can with some
justification be classified as a permanent world war, a war that has so far
been raging for fourteen centuries and claimed countless lives. [Italics mine.]
Islam’s
supreme goal is to take possession of the entire planet. Faith in Islam drives them towards that goal. Greenfield notes:
The gang of throat slitters
who accompanied Mohammed on his massacres across the region were given a
religious incentive that would transcend death.
The cutthroats
of ISIS, Al-Queda, the Taliban, Boko Haram and any other Islamic terrorist gang
at large in our time also have the same religious incentive – and are afflicted
with the same psychotic obsession. “I’ve got Allah and his Prophet! What do I need
brains for? They’re all the truth I need!”
In April 2006
Fjordman penned an ominous “For Whom the Bell Tolls” piece for the Brussels
Journal, “
The Fall of France and the
Multicultural World War.
” He foretold the consequences of the migration of Muslims
into Europe. Remember, this was in 2006, before German Chancellor Angela Merkel
opened the gates of migratory hell.
The population movements we
are witnessing now are the largest and fastest in human history. In Europe,
they can only be compared to the period often referred to as the Migration
Period, following the disintegration of the Roman Empire. However, during the
4th and 5th centuries, the total human population of the world was in the order
of 200 million. Today, it is 30 times larger than that, and still growing fast.
We also have communications that can transport people anywhere on earth within
hours, and media that show ordinary people how much better life is in other
countries. On top of that, the Romans didn’t have human rights lawyers
advocating that millions of barbarians be let into their lands. Is it a
coincidence that the last time we had migrations like this was when large parts
of the European continent suffered a complete civilizational breakdown? Is that
what we are witnessing now? The second
fall of Rome
?
If you are not
too depressed, the Brussels Journal article, though long, is worth the read.
On that note,
one would be justified in forming the hypothesis that President Barack Obama is
an agent of that psychotic obsession, knowing full well that the Syrian “refugees”
he wants to let into the country do not mean so much as “settle” here as
terrorize and occupy it, was well. A Conservative
Byte
article of November 21st reveals his actual state of mind, which is to
help complete the “transformation of the country.”

Citing
insider White House sources, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson dropped
a bombshell during an interview with Steve Malzberg (of
Newsmax). Attkisson said President Obama has come to the point where he will
not even listen to intelligence reports on certain Islamic terror groups –
groups that are listed by the U.S. State Department as involved in
international terror against Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims around the
world.
Attkisson
is a former CBS journalist who left that organization after it stifled many of
her investigative reports. She now heads up the independent Internet news site Full Measure. Here is an excerpt from her
interview Friday with Malzberg:

“I
have talked to people who have worked in the Obama administration who firmly believe
he has made up his mind, I would say closed his mind, they say, to their
intelligence they try to bring him about various groups he does not consider
terrorists even if they’re on the U.S. list of designated terrorists. He has
his own ideas. There are those who’ve known him for a long time that say this
dates back to law school. He’s not necessarily going to listen to the people
with whom he disagrees. He seems to dig in. And I would say that’s because he
thinks he’s right.”
“I
don’t know the reasoning for it,” she continued. “I’ve only been told by those
who have allegedly attempted to present him or been in the circle that has
attempted to present him with certain intelligence that they said he doesn’t
want it, he said he doesn’t want it or he won’t read it in some instances.”
Obama campaigned
for the White House with every intention of doing this country grave harm in
every possible way he could get away with. He has carried Islam’s water for as
long. He wants to see this country hurt, and hurt more than it was on 9/11.
If you doubt Obama’s
commitment to Islam, read Ben Shapiro’s Brietbart January 2015 article, “
10
Times The Obama Administration Said Its Job Was to Promote Islam
.”
It’s time he
was called out. It matters not to me whether he’s a closet Muslim or dedicated
Marxist or a combination of those “faiths.” Barack Obama is obsessed with
destroying this country, and that makes him psychotic. He is evil. He keeps
giving us the Islamic finger of victory.
It’s time we
gave him our own.

After Paris: The Perils of Pacifism

Readers may be
surprised to learn that I watch – but am not a fan of – the apocalyptic series,
The
Walking Dead
(TWD). Of course I dismiss the notion of zombies as pure
nonsense, just as I dismiss much past and current science fiction as nonsense. However,
the series fascinates me because it presents, in spite of its ludicrous
premise, moral dilemmas and issues related to emergency ethics. I can’t stand
the graphic
comic books
on which the series is based. And in this culture, with its too
visible protective and insular cloak of moral relativism and multiculturalism,
there isn’t much else to watch on TV.

So I’m left
with a series in which zombie craniums are disabled with a squelch of a knife
or by a bullet or by decapitation, and in which still-living human predators
are gunned down without mercy. It says a lot about our culture that virtually
the only place one might find interesting and challenging moral conflicts and
compelling characterizations is in a TV horror series.
Yes, this
column is connected to the Islamic raid on Paris on November 13th, and it’s
about an element of “mercy” that has been introduced in the series.
In one of the
very first episodes of Season One of TWD we are introduced to Morgan Jones
(played by British actor, Lennie
James
), who saves deputy sheriff Rick Grimes (played by another Brit, Andrew Lincoln; James
and Lincoln’s Georgia accents, characters, and on-screen persona are so convincing you’d hardly believe these actors are British)
after the latter awakens from a coma to find the world gone to hell. He was
shot by a criminal after a car chase through the Georgia countryside before the
apocalypse.
Morgan’s wife
has succumbed to the virus that has either killed most people or killed them
and then turned them into zombies. His wife is now a zombie, and no longer the
person he knew and the mother of his son, Duane. He has a chance to “terminate”
her – she’s just another monster now, and he knows that – but can’t make
himself shoot her. She’s in his rifle’s sights and he can’t miss. But he is
weepy and agonized by the decision, and does not pull the trigger. In a later
episode it’s revealed that his “zombie” wife had cornered his son and bit him.
He is compelled then to shoot her and also put down his son, who would
otherwise have “turned” into a zombie. His inability to terminate his wife when
he had the chance costs him his son.
His emotions
conflicted with his knowledge, and his emotions won. He pays the price.
This is an
overture to the character’s later development, which, in a sense, is a
dramatized deterioration of his moral compass. Under the tutelage of a
vegetarian/pacifist he encounters during his wanderings, he becomes an Aikido warrior. He can
terminate zombies, but refuses to kill living men who are trying to kill him.
He tells one character, and repeats it later: 
All
life is precious.
” He becomes a kind of Zen master with his stick and is
able to incapacitate his attackers, but not injure them in any permanent way,
which is one of the ends of Aikido.  
In an episode
in Season Five, Morgan is accosted in the wilds by two “Wolves,” scavengers who
carve W’s on their own foreheads and on the foreheads of their victims. They
mean to kill him, but he deftly renders them unconscious with his Aikido skills
and leaves them in an abandoned car. Where and when did he learn the art?
Season
Six, Episode Four
, is an hour-and-a-half long dramatization of how Morgan
gets his “all life is precious” mojo.  Searching
for food, he encounters a man named Eastman (a suggestive but not very subtle
name for a man enamored with the mysticism of Eastern philosophy), a former
forensic psychologist who dealt with violent criminals. Eastman imprisons
Morgan, and later they work together. Eastman teaches Morgan Aikido. He is a
kind of “Doctors Without Borders” do-gooder who, after killing the criminal who
slaughtered his family (pre-apocalypse), does penance and swears off killing
anyone. The character, played by John Carroll Lynch, has the pinkish soul and
guts of a bag worm. Where beforehand, Morgan obsessively and methodically burned
the bodies of zombies he terminated, Eastman maintains a cemetery of zombies,
learning the names of the zombies from their pocket IDs, and erecting crosses
over their graves. Eastman is later bitten by a zombie and shoots himself. Morgan
buries him in the cemetery and leaves.
Eastman turns
Morgan into a stick-wielding peacenik. In a later episode, a pack of “Wolves”
attacks the walled-off community in Alexandria where Morgan has reunited with
Rick Grimes. The savages slaughter the defenseless inhabitants – men, women,
and children – with axes, knives, and machetes, taking apparent delight in the
literal bloodshed. Morgan goes into action with his stick. He comes upon a
savage who has been dismembering one of his victims with an axe. He begins to
subdue him, when another character (one of my heroines, Carol) simply shoots
the beast. Morgan is angry. Carol moments later shoots another savage Morgan
has subdued and is tying up. Morgan is angry again. Carol is shown killing every
raider she encounters. Their lives are not precious to her. They deserve to be ended.
They killed. They die. Her justice is implacable, nonnegotiable.

News of the
Paris attacks, and what the killers did to their hostages in the Bataclan
theater – slitting open the throats and stomachs of the victims, dismembering
them, torturing them – instantly recalled the attack on the community by the
Wolves. See Pamela
Geller’s column
on the horrors.
The penultimate
part of the episode is when Morgan runs into a group of savages led by one of
the Wolves who attacked him in Season Five. The Wolf recognizes him, he
recognizes the Wolf. He talks the group into leaving, warning them that they
will be shot if they don’t leave. Morgan’s Aikido skills are such that he could
have taken down the whole group of five. But he convinces them and allows them
to leave.
They later
attack Rick Grimes (stranded outside the community) who kills them. Grimes of
course doesn’t know that Morgan let them go free, and Morgan doesn’t yet know
that they tried to kill Grimes. I wonder if that information will come out
later on.
Morgan is
still later attacked by the first Wolf who tried to kill him in Season Five. Morgan
subdues him, Aikido style, and takes him prisoner, tying him up and leaving him
in a basement. The Wolf promises Morgan he will kill him and every man, woman,
and child left alive in the community. Morgan should kill him. He doesn’t.
At the end of
that episode, after the attack is over and bodies are littering the streets –
the bodies of the Wolves and their victims – Carol and Morgan pass each other
on a street. Carol gives him a wordless cold shoulder. I love that scene.
But “all life
is precious.”
No, it isn’t. Morgan
has to learn that lesson the hard way. Carol, or Rick, or some other character,
will need to point out to him that while he considers the life of a killer
precious – one assumes for the sake of whatever potential “good” the killer may
find in himself or in the lives of others – killers do not hold the same
indiscriminate value in the lives of others. Killers who kill for the sake of
killing – for the sake of destroying the good for being the good – have forfeited
any title to life and even of being human.
Letting a
killer go because his life is inexplicably “precious” frees him to kill again,
and again. Is Morgan retarded? Has Eastman’s Eastern philosophy put sand into
his mental gas tank so it can no longer function? Isn’t it obvious that by
freeing the guilty, the guilty can destroy again?
So, as Brendan
O’Neill writes in a hard-hitting
Spiked
column about Paris, no sooner have all the bodies cooled and been
collected after the November 13th Paris attack by Islamic jihadists acting out
their Islamic, nihilistic, “no life is precious” philosophy, than the
apologists begin harping on how precious and understandable the killers’ lives
and motives are, proffering every rationalistic, evasive, anti-life,
anti-reason excuse under the sun to help justify the sadistic butchery of 120
people.
Less than 24 hours after the
barbarism in Paris, the bodies of more than 120 concertgoers, Friday-night revelers
and children barely cold, and the apologies has already begun. They
couldn’t even wait a whole day, these cultural appeasers, whose kneejerk
response to every act of terrorism is to ask what we the wicked West did to
deserve it, or to argue that we the wicked West will make things worse with our
response to it. The simple fact of our existence makes us ripe for murderous
assault, apparently; and the folly of responding to such assaults with either
police activity at home or military activity abroad makes us riper still for
attack. We’re damned if we stay still, damned if we take action. Our citizens
must die because our nations are nasty.
The apologists
and appeasers of whom O’Neill writes would sooner see the destruction of the
West by Islam than chance to say a single bad thing about Islam and its agents
of death. We’re asking for it – by virtue of our simple existence? We exist;
ergo, we die, and die as painfully as the Islamists wish, at their leisure? They
imperil our lives, but we mustn’t be judgmental?
The direction
TWD may be taking – unless Morgan’s pacifist outlook is corrected – is not
promising. The producers and directors of the series may be infected with the
virus of non-violence against the violent. There’s a new character yet to be
introduced to viewers; his name is “Jesus.”
Who are the
real, living zombies in our culture today? The moral relativists. The multiculturalists.
The apologists. The enablers. The abettors. The moral egalitarians in the MSM
and in politics who would rather flay Western civilization for its alleged “crimes”
against Islam and barbarians than defend it.
Pamela Geller,
in her November 15th Breitbart column, “The
West Has Lost the Will to Live
,” drove home this point:
Obama has aligned with the
jihad force. In Syria, Egypt and Libya, and worst of all, now Iraq. He has
blood on his hands. He has the blood of hundreds of thousands of
Christians, the blood of our soldiers. By abandoning Iraq, he takes on his
hands the death of every soldier who gave life and limb in Iraq to defend this
country….
If you have an ounce of
self-esteem, when someone comes at you with a gun, you answer with force. If he
is out to destroy you, you owe it to yourself to defend yourself. We need to
understand that the left is as dangerous, if not more so, than the suicide
bomber, for obscuring this basic fact—because leftists have the legitimacy of
the mainstream, the imprimatur of respectability, and they wield this spurious legitimacy
like a club to destroy all opposition to their totalitarianism….
We need to go to war against
the left. We have to get that into our heads. We have to accept that terrible
reality. They want to destroy our freedom. They want to destroy our country.
They want to steal our children. That’s war….
Pamela Geller
has not lost the will to live. Neither have I. Neither has Daniel Greenfield or
Robert Spencer or Brendan O’Neill, nor countless others in this country and
abroad. We are the West. Before we’re confronted with an AK-47 killer or suicide
bomber, we must confront those who claim that our lives aren’t precious enough
to defend.

Neither “Misguided” nor “Flawed”

Nothing sits
in my craw worse than someone using woozy words and terms to discuss evil.

I submitted this comment on an IPT article from November 17th on Obama
and ISIS:, “Jihadists
Crippling the West from Within.

This is a revolting
statement: “Let’s state the obvious. The administration has operated under
the misguided belief that jihadists can be contained. If we just treat them
nicely and don’t identify them for what they are, they’ll leave us alone.”
Again, I ask: Why do you think the Obama administration is operating
“under the misguided belief that jihadists can be contained”? Perhaps
the administration doesn’t want the jihadists “contained,” let alone
destroyed. Have you ever entertained that possibility? Why can’t you take that
last important step and concede that Obama would not mind seeing this country
crippled and maimed by another Islamic attack? Don’t all his actions, in his
domestic and foreign policies, over the last eight years point to that
conclusion? You’ve done a superb and heroic job of documenting that evidence.
Why are you so hesitant to call Obama evil?
I previously
commented in a similar vein to IPT’s “Someone
Tell the President We Can’t Fight Radical Islam by Being Politically Correct
,”
also from November 17th, but I won’t discuss that edition (both columns
origianlly appeared on American Thinker). Mr. Emerson has published both of my
comments. This column is not intended to criticize Steve Emerson or The
Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). Emerson has a standing fatwa against
his life, he has almost single-handedly pioneered delving into the roots and consequences
of Islamic jihad against Europe, America and the West, and has tirelessly
increased our knowledge of what Islam means and doesn’t mean. His is more or
less a thankless task, especially when he has testified in Congress about CAIR
and other Muslim Brotherhood-sired “civilizational jihad” organizations in the
U.S., only to see his truths fall on deaf ears and bounce off of closed minds.
But here are a
few more what I’d call “soft ball” estimates of Obama’s motives and ends from IPT’s
second column. Referring to the November 13th Islamic attack on Paris, IPT
wrote:
The highly coordinated attack
on the French was an attack on the Dutch, British, Germans, Swedes, and the
U.S. It was an attack on all Western liberal democracies based upon basic
Judeo-Christian values.
It is the tragic result of a naïve
misreading
of the world by the current administration. The resulting
chaos created by U.S. foreign policy represents a diplomatic and national
security failure of unfathomable and horrific proportions. [Bold
italics
mine.]
I don’t believe
Obama is either naïve about the ends and means of ISIS or of any other
terrorist group, or is misreading anything.
In policies reflecting deeply
flawed thinking
, Obama and his advisers believed from the very
beginning that it should support Islamists represented by the Muslim
Brotherhood, which created nearly all of the existing jihadi groups. The
administration believed that the Arab Spring represented an opportunity to
depose despots and replace them with democratic regimes. [Bold italics mine.]
Given that
Hillary Clinton retained the “services” of Huma Abedin, whose family has close
connections with the Brotherhood, and all of Obama’s friends in the
Brotherhood, I doubt very much his thinking was flawed, deeply or otherwise. The
Brotherhood’s designs on the U.S., outlined in its Explanatory
Memorandum,
which IPT has published as well as the Center for Security
Policy, are too well known to our intelligence agencies and to the Brotherhood’s
friends.
The alternative
conclusion is that Obama is thoroughly clueless about what the Brotherhood is
all about and chooses to remain ignorant. In which case, he should not be
occupying the office of President.
…The administration has operated under the misguided
belief
that jihadists can be contained. If we just treat them nicely
and don’t identify them for what they are, they’ll leave us alone.
[Bold italics mine.]
Finally,
For nearly two full weeks the
administration blamed an innocent U.S. filmmaker as the cause of the murder of
four Americans 7,000 miles away in Benghazi in 2012. They were dead wrong, and they
knew it.
Clinton documented the lie for posterity in her emails.
[Bold
italics
mine.]
And they knew
it

Hillary Clinton, Obama, Susan Rice, and that whole crew knew it. If that doesn’t
indicate a grave, serious, and unforgivable character flaw in Obama, I can’t imagine
what else would.
One may as
well claim that Hannibal Lector’s cannibalism is a naïve, misguided, flawed
notion of social relationships. I am not endorsing the idea of an evil genius. Such
a creature merely possesses a feral, predatory intelligence that simply senses
and takes advantage of an opponent’s weaknesses.
Obama is evil.
That’s the long and short of it. I see no reason to pull any moral punches.

The Jihadi in the White House

I concluded “Raping
the Swedish Corpse
” on November 13th with this observation:
President Barack Obama has
made a statement
of consolation
that sounds more like a sympathetic, almost congratulatory
message to ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamic terror groups. He
sounded almost regretful that the destruction in Paris wasn’t wider and the
casualties higher. That’s worth another column.
And here it
is.

Obama could
just as well have asked for a Garrison Keillor voice-over
to deliver the condolences in Keillor’s trademark Minnesotan funereal voice. His
manner was listless, insipid, almost as though he had just been awakened from a
sound sleep, but still had to rouse himself to make the formulaic sounds of
transparently insouciant grief. He stumbled hesitantly over the pronunciation
of liberté, égalité, and fraternité,
and often seemed to pause as though he had lost his place on the document he
was reading from. But, style aside, let’s take a look at what he said.

Good evening,
everybody.  I just want to make a few brief comments about the attacks
across Paris tonight.  Once again, we’ve seen an outrageous attempt to
terrorize innocent civilians.  This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s
an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of
humanity and the universal values that we share.
Paris was
attacked by whom? And which values are “universal”? Those values can’t be so
“universal” that the attackers also shared them.
We stand prepared and ready
to provide whatever assistance that the government and the people of France
need to respond.  France is our oldest ally.  The French people have
stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States time and again.  And we
want to be very clear that we stand together with them in the fight against
terrorism and extremism.
Whose
“terrorism” and whose “extremism”? Has Obama’s fight against Islamic terrorism
had any effect on ISIS or Al-Qaeda? To put it bluntly, Obama’s foreign policy
overall resembles the plot from Ed Wood’s Plan 9 from Outer
Space
, with Hillary Clinton in the role of the Vampire Girl.
Paris itself represents the
timeless values of human progress.  Those who think that they can
terrorize the people of France or the values that they stand for are
wrong.  The American people draw strength from the French people’s
commitment to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.  We are reminded in
this time of tragedy that the bonds of liberté and égalité and fraternité are
not only values that the French people care so deeply about, but they are
values that we share.  And those values are going to endure far beyond any
act of terrorism or the hateful vision of those who perpetrated the crimes this
evening. We’re going to do whatever it takes to work with the French people and
with nations around the world to bring these terrorists to justice, and to go
after any terrorist networks that go after our people.
How about
bringing all of ISIS to justice? Al-Qaeda? The Muslim Brotherhood? CAIR? Justice
meaning the extermination of all the vermin and a repudiation of every facet of
Islam? But, no, that would mean we would need to declare war on Islam, even
though Islam has declared war on the West and has been warring against the West
for centuries. What happened in Paris was just another episode in that war. But…but…
“The future must not belong to those who
slander the prophet
of Islam.” Even if it takes the form of a scholarly
critique of his character and deeds, or even questions his existence? Apparently
not. Critiques of Islam are as heinous in Obama’s eyes as are “climate change”
deniers. However, if people keep thinking of Islamic terrorism in terms of committed crimes that must be
“punished,” ISIS will win the war and we will lose. Obama isn’t going to try to
break that mental habit.
We don’t yet know all the
details of what has happened.  We have been in contact with French officials
to communicate our deepest condolences to the families of those who have been
killed, to offer our prayers and thoughts to those who have been wounded. 
We have offered our full support to them.  The situation is still
unfolding….
Yes, for a
moment there we thought the Amish might be behind the carnage, but we’re not
sure what’s going on. We’ll have to wait for the situation to unfold. I was
informed by a French TV news reporter that the people in the Bataclan concert
hall heard one of the gunmen yell, “My wife’s borscht and potato dumplings are
the greatest!” but that’s unconfirmed. Obama will believe anything as long as
it fits his Marxist perception of the world.
So, there we
have Obama standing there pretending not to know who was behind the killing,
pretending to not even suspect, offering not a squeak of culpability and
responsibility for what he is saying – and not
saying. He simply refuses to “bad mouth” his “brothers” in ideology. Obama has
a big soft spot for totalitarians and despots. He’ll bow and scrape to every
bed sheet sheik and tin pot tyrant, not because he likes it, but because he
knows that the craven gesture will humiliate and weaken the U.S.
I’m sure that in the days
ahead we’ll learn more about exactly what happened, and my teams will make sure
that we are in communication with the press to provide you accurate information. 
I don’t want to speculate at this point in terms of who was responsible for
this.  It appears that there may still be live activity and dangers that
are taking place as we speak.  And so until we know from French officials
that the situation is under control, and we have for more information about it,
I don’t want to speculate.
Yes, Obama
will learn exactly what happened in Paris, but he’ll shift the blame to the
prevalence of “Islamophobia” or to those who “jump to conclusions” and who wish
to poison Islam’s good name. So, he doesn’t want to speculate on who or what is
responsible.
Barack Obama –
master of crocodile tears. He probably secretly reveled that so many “white
privileged” French kids and Brits and Americans were massacred. Excuse me for being
so callow and judgmental, but what do you expect me to be when discussing a man
who declared war on this country from his first day in office? A man who has
made his racism so evident and tangible?
Robert Spencer
of Jihad
Watch
on FrontPage had some choice and very judgmental words for Obama and
his condolences spiel  in connection with
Paris.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama was
true to form, not mentioning Islam or Muslims in his
statement
on the Paris attacks, and not giving a hint that it was his
precipitous and politically motivated withdrawal from Iraq that created the
vacuum that allowed for the rise of the Islamic State. Indeed, the Islamic
State could end up being the most significant legacy of the Obama
Administration. Obviously American troops couldn’t have stayed in Iraq forever,
and the Iraq project from its beginnings was based on false assumptions about
Islam, ignoring its political, supremacist and violent aspects; but Obama’s
hasty and ill-thought out withdrawal took into account none of the realities on
the ground: the Sunni/Shi’ite divide, the Iranian influence in Baghdad, the Sunnis’
unwillingness to participate in the Baghdad government and the Shi’ites’
refusal to allow them to do so in any significant way, and more. France today
is paying the price for the willful ignorance and short-sightedness of Obama
and his administration.
Obama also
paved the way for Libya to act as the launching base for tens of thousands of “immigrants”
to cross the Mediterranean for Europe, in a literal Islamic Hijra invasion, many  “asylum seekers” to drown in capsized boats,
others to be murdered by Muslims if they were Christians. In 2011 Obama, without Congressional
leave
, declared war on Muammar Gaddafi and Libya, succeeding in helping to
overthrow the tyrant, but clearing the way for Islamic supremacists to take
over the country. This also led to Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi debacle. Libya and
Turkey have since acted as departure points for thousands of
ISIS
agents to infiltrate Europe with mayhem and murder in mind. Obama applauds
the invasion and is indifferent to the consequences. He has supplied ISIS with
weapons with which to conaquer and terrorize Syria and Iraq with shipments to
weapons intended
for opponents
of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, who desert the rebels and join
ISIS.
Aside from waging
war on the rest of the world, Obama has kept his original promise to wage war
on his own country.
He campaigned
for and got Obamacare passed. He dithered for eight years before finally
vetoing the Keystone
Pipeline
, citing bogus “climate change” reasons. He approved of funding “green
energy” companies that variably failed, costing taxpayers millions. He interfered
in Canadian elections to defeat Steven
Harper
, the only anti-Islam leader in the West, hated by the left, and especially
by Obama. Canada is now being run by Islam-friendly Justin Trudeau, an Obama clone.
He helped to arm Mexican drug cartels with Attorney General Eric Holder’s “Fast
and Furious” gun-running program, hoping to discredit the private ownership of
guns by American citizens. He oversaw the harassment of reporters who did not
report the “news” he wanted to hear. He refused to bolster border security, and
campaigned for the Dream Act that would grant illegal aliens, who came here for
the welfare state, legal status. He has reduced the effectiveness of the American
military and jeopardizing American national security by proposing, advocating
and getting cuts in the military budget. 
He is for the “empty
the prisons
” program that will release – or is the correct term unleash? – thousands of career criminals
on American citizens. This program has been a pet project of George Soros. Cliff
Kincaid of AIM reported on November 4th:
We are witnessing a carefully
orchestrated political and media campaign to pass the George Soros-backed
Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (S.2123) on the grounds that it
is “bipartisan.” But critics are calling it a soft-on-crime bill that will
backfire on the Republicans who help pass it…..
But while the Koch brothers
did give $5 million to the Coalition for Public Safety, a group that met with
former Attorney General Eric Holder to push “criminal justice reform,” it is
the left-wing billionaire, George Soros, who has really been behind the
campaign. He gave the ACLU $50
million
in 2014 “to end mass incarceration.”
We noted in a previous
article that one Soros-funded group, Critical Resistance, was founded by
communist Angela Davis and says it seeks “to end the prison industrial complex”
by “challenging the belief that caging and controlling people makes us safe.” We
thought the group had only received $100,000 from Soros. It turns out the
organization got $200,000 from the Soros-funded Open Society Foundations in the
year 2000, $200,000 in 2002, and another $100,000 in 2009.
Sara Horowitz
of the Washington
Post
reported on October 6th:
The Justice Department is set
to release about 6,000 inmates early from prison — the largest one-time release
of federal prisoners — in an effort to reduce overcrowding and provide relief
to drug offenders who received harsh sentences over the past three decades,
according to U.S. officials.
The inmates from federal
prisons nationwide will be set free by the department’s Bureau of Prisons
between Oct. 30 and Nov. 2. About two-thirds of them will go to halfway houses
and home confinement before being put on supervised release. About one-third
are foreign citizens who will be quickly deported, officials said.
Don’t be too
sure that the alien offenders will be “quickly deported.” They’ll have attorneys
and they’ll all find ways to game our broken-down, Ted Kennedy-sire immigration
system.
Finally – and this
certainly doesn’t begin to complete the list of Obama’s depredations committed
against the U.S. – Obama wants to bring in 10,000 or more Syrian “refugees,”
some of whom have already been brought in through New Orleans. He will do this
with full knowledge that among those “refugees” will be ISIS agents whose
mission will be to terrorize U.S. citizens and perhaps pull off a Paris-scale jihad attack. On November 13th, Judicial
Watch
reported:
The Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) has nearly 1,000 active probes involving the terrorist
group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) inside the United States, dozens
of law enforcement officials disclose in a letter to
President Obama.
The big question is what will
the government do with the remaining captives, indisputably the world’s most
dangerous terrorists? Just a few weeks ago Obama’s Defense Secretary said that
around half of the remaining 112 prisoners at Gitmo must be locked up “indefinitely.”
They include 9/11 masterminds Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Ramzi Binalshibh,
Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi as well as Abd al-Rahim
al-Nashiri, the Al-Qaeda terrorist charged with orchestrating the 2000 attack
on the Navy destroyer USS Cole.
Those Syrian “refugees”?
They’re already being brought in. The first batch of mostly males between 18
and 30 years old, are now being processed in New Orleans. Fox
New Orleans
reported on November 14th:
The flood of refugees
migrating from the terror in Syria and Afghanistan has begun to have a trickle
effect in the New Orleans area. “We had served two families, we’re
expecting one more soon, and we do not know how many more, but we expect
more,” said Martin Gutierrez of Catholic Charities, which is part of the
Archdiocese of New Orleans. Catholic Charities has targeted services for
helping refugees. “So it’s a matter of uniting the families, which is
something that the church really promotes, obviously. Some of them don’t have
relatives and we try to help them become integral parts of our
communities,” Gutierrez said.
But most of
the new “refugees” are healthy-looking males between 18 and 30 years old.
Everything Obama
has ever done in the White House – legally, illegally, criminally, in defiance
of Americans and in defiance of his oath of office – with the assistance of
Democrats and Republicans alike, has fit into his agenda to fundamentally “transform”
this country from a semi-free country into authoritarian slave state, and “transform”
it racially, economically, and politically.
What drives
him is an unprecedented malice for this country.

Raping the Swedish Corpse

Gatestone ran
a comprehensive report on the state of Sweden under the press of tens of
thousands of immigrants, most of whom who have neither an affinity for Sweden nor
a fondness for Swedes, except as prey for rape, robbery, and mayhem. The
article, “Sweden
descending into anarchy
,” of November 13th, by Ingrid Carlqvist, recounts
the alarm Swedes are now feeling as the consequence of their government inviting
countless barbarians into the country are becoming manifest. The reality of
multiculturalism is hitting home, and hard.

But while
reading Carlqvist’s article, I couldn’t help but remember that the Somali
immigrant who raped a dying woman in a hotel
garage
, and then proceeded to rape her corpse, won’t be deported after he
has served his sentence. Once he’s released, he is sure rape again, and commit
other crimes. Why won’t he be deported? Janna
Brock
wrote in 2013:
It was
early in the morning of 27 September.
Police received an alarm that the two
men were having intercourse with a woman who was completely unconscious on the
floor of a parking garage under the Sheraton Hotel in Vasagatan in Stockholm.
When police arrived at the scene they found a 34
year old man from Somalia, who was in the midst of an anal intercourse
with
the woman. Police checked the woman’s pulse and found that she was dead.
The police caught
the 34-year-old Somali Islamist in the act of brutally violating a corpse. What
was he arrested for? It doesn’t get more disgusting than this, but in Sweden
one must not assume the man was guilty of murder.
The
man was arrested by police
and detained two days later by the Stockholm
District Court, on suspicion of aggravated rape. The prosecutor had asked for
him to be arrested for murder, but the district court found that the evidence
for the suspicion was not strong enough
.
Janna Brock,
in a Freedom
Outpost
report, wrote:
The woman
had minute traces of alcohol, cocaine, and prescription drugs in her body.
But she was not dead at the time of the rape. The Somali Islamist claims
the act was consensual. So the man in this consensual act continues to rape
the woman after she is dead? This is depraved, but the Swedish judicial system
is blind to the truth. They don’t see this monster for what he is. Prosecutor Daniel
Jonsson
cited the death as an “abuse-related
accident
.” Is this some kind of a sick joke? 

The Swedish judicial system won’t see him as a monster because to see him that
way would be tantamount to politically incorrect thoughtcrime. When Prosecutor Jonsson was asked why he would not
pursue the illegal immigrant’s deportation after completing his prison
sentence, he answered:
When Free
Times asked if he, Jonsson
, in light of the risk that the
34-year-old will commit more rapes in Sweden, still does not feel he has a
responsibility to try and get the man deported, he answered no. “I do not understand
why a Somali woman would be worth less than a Swedish woman in this context
.
He would be as likely to commit crimes there if he was deported.
In short, the
life of a hypothetical Somali woman in a pesthole is more valuable to a Swedish
prosecutor than the life of any Swedish woman, a fellow citizen. Or perhaps of
equal value. The criminal might strike again in Somali. This cowardly
prevarication, in practice, represents the nullification of any value, anywhere. We can’t deport the
savage because he might hurt someone else thousands of miles beyond Sweden’s
jurisdiction and realm of responsibility. But, we have an altruistic
responsibility to protect everyone, everywhere, even if it is far from the aegis
of civilized law.
What makes
such a craven absurdity possible is – and I’ve discussed this point in past
columns – Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative to “just do it,” regardless of
the cost to oneself or to anyone else. I’ve discussed this in both Parts of “The
Mental States of the Political Elite
,” in “Pax
Germania vs. Pax Islamia
,” and “The Know
Nothings
.”
As Ingrid
Carlqvist writes, the Swedes are just now realizing that their government has
betrayed them, lied to them, and is unable or unwilling to protect them from
the countless predators let into the country to avail themselves of the welfare
state Swedes heretofore didn’t think they would need to share with anyone else.
Many Swedes see the mass immigration as a
forced marriage: Sweden is forced to marry a man she did not choose, yet she is
expected to love and honor him, even though he beats her and treats her badly.
Her parents (the government) tell her to be warm and show solidarity with him.
In Sharia law,
that’s the Muslim male’s primitive concept of marriage in practice. A wife is
mere chattel to be used and beaten at will without consequence. Why should that
concept not be extended to a whole population, to a whole country? The Muslim
male expects unswerving devotion and service from his wife. Why should not that
expectation be extended to all Swedes? Or to all Germans? Or to all Frenchmen.
Or to all Americans?
Once upon a time, there was a
safe welfare state called Sweden, where people rarely locked their doors. Now,
this country is a night-watchman state — each man is on his own. When the
Minister of Justice, Morgan Johansson, encourages breaking
the law
, it means opening the gates to anarchy. Mr. and Mrs. Swede
have every reason to be worried, with the influx of 190,000 unskilled and
unemployed migrants expected this year — equivalent to 2% of Sweden’s current
population….
And the Swedes are preparing:
demand for firearms licenses is increasing; more and more Swedes are joining
shooting clubs and starting vigilante groups. After a slight dip in 2014, the
number of new gun permits has gone up significantly again this year. According
to police statistics, there are 1,901,325 licensed guns, owned by 567,733
people, in Sweden. Add to this an unknown number of illegal weapons. To get a gun permit in
Sweden
, you need to be at least 18 years old; law-abiding; well-behaved,
and have a hunting license or be a member of an approved shooting club. In
2014, 11,000 people got a hunting license: 10% more
than the year before. One out of five was a woman.

But, in
Sweden, as in Britain, there’s a catch to arming oneself and defending oneself
against predators. As a salesman for a Swedish security company relates about
the skyrocketing demand for alarm systems:
“It is largely due to
the turbulence we are seeing around the country at the moment.” People
have lost confidence in the State, he added. “The police will not come
anymore. Truck drivers say that when they see a thief emptying the fuel tank of
their trucks, they run out with a baseball bat. It is no use calling the
police, but if you hit the thief, you can at least prevent him from stealing
more diesel. Many homeowners say the same thing: they sleep with a baseball bat
under the bed. But this is risky: the
police can then say you have been prepared to use force, and that might
backfire on you
.” [Italics
mine.]
Being prepared
to answer force with force can be punishable in a Swedish court? A Swede
defending his home or his wife or family risks judicial penalties, but the
initiator of force – the burglar, the thief, the rapist – incurs little or no
penalty? But Sweden doesn’t have a monopoly on stupidity. A British
trucker
was nearly jailed in Britain for carrying a “stun gun” in his cab to
protect himself from marauding migrants in Calais.
But the
Swedish news media and government will also punish those who speak out against
the invasion of countless barbarians. Their policy is to cover up the dire
seriousness of the crisis, so that their subjects can live in the same Fantasy
Land. In Germany, if they can’t cover up the resistance to Angela Merkel’s policies,
they shut it down with
raids
. As in Germany, the Swedish police are complicit in the cover-up of
rapes, robberies, and terror Muslim gangs commit regularly.
Carlqvist goes
on:
Even before the massive influx of migrants
in the fall of 2015, Swedes felt a need to protect themselves — and with good
reason. Since the Parliament decided in 1975 that Sweden should be
multicultural and not Swedish, crime has exploded. Violent crime has
increased
by more than 300%, and rapes have increased by an unbelievable
1,472%.
The politicians, however, ignore the
people’s fear completely. It is never discussed. Instead, the people who
express concern about what kind of country Sweden has become are accused of
xenophobia and racism. Most likely, that is the reason more and more people are
taking matters into their own hands, and protecting themselves and their
families to the best of their ability.
But the
highlight of Carlqvist’s article was this revealing gem uttered by Sweden’s
prime minister.
At
a meeting
with the Nordic Council in Reykjavik, Iceland, on October 27,
Sweden’s Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven, was questioned by his Nordic colleagues
about the situation in Sweden. Löfven had recently said that, “We should
have the option of relocating people applying for asylum in Sweden to other
EU-countries. Our ability, too, has a limit. We are facing a paradigm
shift.” That comment led a representative of Finland’s Finns Party (Sannfinländarna)
to wonder,
with a hint of irony, how mass immigration to Sweden, which for years Swedish
politicians have touted as being so profitable, has now suddenly become a
burden.
Still, in the
face of his country’s social collapse into anarchy brought on by the immigrant
invasion – and specifically by the Muslim investiture of his country as an army
of occupation – the prime minister doubled down on his categorical imperative:

When Löfven was asked how he
is dealing with the real concerns and demands of the citizenry, his answer was
laconic: “Of course I understand there is concern,” Löfven said.
“It is not easy. But at the same time — there are 60 million people on
the run. This is also about them being our fellow men, and I hope that
viewpoint will prevail.”
Given the
rising number of attacks on asylum centers by Swedish “vigilantes,” that
viewpoint is being shredded into confetti.
The daily tabloid Expressen
asked Löfven about the attacks on asylum facilities. He replied, “Our
communities should not be characterized by threats and violence, they should be
warm and show solidarity.”
Löfven and his
ilk throughout Europe – and even in the U.S. – think that by showing “warmth
and solidarity” with the parasites and predators, the latter will magically
become hamsters and gerbils happily exercising in their spinning wheels.
I end this
column here. The massive Jihadist/ISIS attack on Paris last night, November 13th,
is monopolizing my energy and attention. President Barack Obama has made a
statement of consolation that sounds more like a sympathetic, almost congratulatory
message to ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamic terror groups. He
sounded almost regretful that the destruction in Paris wasn’t wider and the
casualties higher. 
That’s worth another column.

The Collectivist Mentality of Muslims

 The
Cretans both by land and sea are irresistible in ambuscades, forays, tricks
played on the enemy, night attacks, and all petty operations which require
fraud, but they are cowardly and down-hearted in the massed face-to-face charge
of an open battle.

Polybius, Histories, Book IV, Volume II of the Loeb Classical
Library (1922), p. 319. Translated by W.R. Paton.
The other
evening, when I came upon that specific description of the military strengths and
weaknesses of the various ancient Greek states in the events leading up to the
Social War of 220-217 BC, I was too strongly reminded of how Muslims act when
operating in gangs. Polybius’s description of the Cretan method of fighting and
not fighting is also a description of guerrilla warfare – often called rape jihad. That is what Muslim gangs wage
wherever they roam – in Britain,
in France,
in Germany,
in Sweden, in
virtually every
country
where they reside in large numbers, including in the United States.

Faced with a
determined opposition and the prospect of a face-to-face imbroglio, Muslim
gangs will only retreat to a safe distance and throw rocks, or simply fade away
to raid another day, and oftimes never even show up, as has been the case with
the massive anti-immigration demonstrations in Germany.
I have never
seen a video – and I’ve seen dozens and dozens of videos on numerous Internet
sites – of Muslims taking on an individual infidel in a fight. It might start
out as a one-on-one fight, but other Muslims invariably join in to overwhelm
the victim, regardless of whether or not “their” guy is winning. Muslim males
roam in packs, looking for victims. I recently saw a video of Muslims harassing
and chasing individual Swedish men in Stockholm, and Muslim brats taunting and
pushing to the ground a German kid on rollerblades. There was another video of
a black North African Muslim sneering at an elderly German in a bus, actually
and literally getting into the man’s face, egged on by other laughing Muslims
in the bus. And there was a Danish video of a black Muslim sidling up to the
newscaster on site and on camera and telling him in so many expletives to shut
up.
Muslim gang
rape videos are rarely publicized. There have been pixilated CCTV videos of
women being accosted, raped, or assaulted by individual Muslims, and those are
unsettling to see. The authorities are reluctant to release such videos because
they and their political overlords claim they contribute to a “negative” image
of Muslims and immigrants. Polybius had a few choice words for the news media
and government policy of sugar-coating the ugly truth:
For it is
obvious that a man who thinks he can cloak by words the clear evidence of facts
must be regarded as a foolish and futile person.
  (p. 339)
But members of
the news media and government officials don’t mind being regarded as foolish
and futile persons; their political agenda demands that they be just that,
panderers to Islamic sociopathology. After all, they’ve got their paychecks and
pensions to take into account.
What ISIS does
to captive Yazidi
women
is also another story, because wherever ISIS operates, that is a war
zone. Read this Independent story here
for an idea of the utter
evil
these women are subjected to repeatedly.
I have often
in the past referred to the Umma, or
the Islamic or Muslim collective worldwide, as the Borg or as The Walking Dead.
The Borg term, of course, is taken from their debut in Star Trek: The Next Generation, when they are first encountered.
The Borg inhabit the Hive, there are no individuals, just programmed slaves
gussied up with high-tech weaponry, and the Hive’s sole collective end is
conquest. The Walking Dead refers to
mindless zombies who travel in herds looking for live people to feed on.
Sometimes, I’ve referred to Muslims as the hideous Orcs, from the movies based
on the Tolkien novels.

 These
characterizations represent for me, at least, a handy and wholly justifiable
mental shorthand that defines the essential attributes of Islam and Muslims. As
Ralph Sidway, quoted in my August column, “The
Myth of Muslim Male Superiority
,” noted about paintings that portray
gruesome truths:  
Sometimes an image – a metaphor – is much more effective at
presenting truth than even the most persuasive argument or laying out of facts.” And,
quoting from the article itself, I note that:
Islam proclaims that the rape
of infidel women is not the fault of Muslim men – who are portrayed as morally
and even racially superior to everyone else – but that of the infidel women who
shamelessly flaunt their beauty, thereby advertising their alleged promiscuity
and immorality, and become “exposed
meat
” that causes Muslims to lose their self-control.  For the infidel women, there is no
forgiveness; for the Muslim male, there is plenty of dispensation to be found
in Islamic texts, because he’s superior and privileged by virtue of being
Muslim, so his raping an infidel woman is no more a crime or a lapse in his morality
than his raping a ewe.
Incredibly,
Denmark has embarked, and Sweden is thinking of following suit, on a program to
instruct its new immigrants on the mores of sex to reduce the incidence of rape
by Muslims. It is a kind of “How to Contain and Control Your Muslim Male Libido”
classroom approach to “deterring” crime. The instruction will focus on “consensual”
sex as opposed to rape. Good luck with that.
Someone might
object: Of course Muslims can act individually! Look at all those stabbings and
car-jihad incidents and suicide bombers and so on! They were all carried out by
individuals. Yes, and those individuals were in it for the martyrdom and were
expecting to be killed. The Muslim gangs infesting Western nations do not wage
guerilla warfare against the native population in hopes of martyrdom or getting
killed. They are simply gangs of thugs acting out their basic Islamic, nihilist
instincts. They expect to live and get away with their crimes, and if not get
away with them, then survive in prison until they’re released to commit their
crimes anew. They’re programmed, ready-made recidivists. Their nihilism is
sanctioned and encouraged by their imams and political leaders and by the Koran and other Islamic texts. The only
thing that will “reform” their character and behavior is death.
Muslim gangs
enforce their own brand of a “safe space,” spaces free of unconquered infidels.
They are roving vigilante posses.  A European
rape victim beaten to a bloody pulp and left for dead, or a European man also
beaten to a bloody pulp and left for dead, is the Muslim notion of a “safe
space.”
Islam has been
waging war against the West for centuries. Muslim gangs are Islam’s guerilla
“fighters.” Most Western leaders are reluctant to grasp that they ought to
declare war against Islam, to deal it a knock-out blow to eliminate the threat
permanently. Polybius had some stern advice for those who would avoid war:
That war is a
terrible thing I agree, but it is not so terrible that we should submit to
anything in order to avoid it….Peace indeed, with justice and honor, is the
fairest and most profitable of possessions, but when joined with baseness and
disgraceful cowardice, nothing is more infamous and hurtful.
(pp. 375-77)
Advice to
Neville Chamberlain and other appeasers over two millennia before our time. I’m
betting Polybius is another one of those “dead white males” university
faculties no longer think worth exposing their students to.
But for all
his bravado, chest-beating, and belligerence towards infidel men and women, the
average Muslim male is an indoctrinated maquette,
a male in physical form only. He has no personal values, was unable to
formulate personal, rational values from the beginning, and seeks to fill the
resultant internal vacuum by emulating his “ethical” icon, Mohammad, whom he
knows was a rapist, a killer, a brigand, and a thief. I note in my “Muslim
Myth
” column:
Muslim men – and especially
Muslim rapists – are not virile in
the usual sense.  A virile man is someone
like Sean Connery’s James Bond, and is seen as such by men and women alike.
Rand’s heroes Francisco d’Anconia and Howard Roark, as well as John Galt, are
virile. In the sex act, they celebrate their lives, their values, their selves
as living, rational beings who love life. The women they “conquer” are their
equals in spirit who also view sex as a celebration.
Muslim men, however (and this
observation applies equally to non-Muslim rapists), are maquettes. They are half-formed creatures trapped inside the
physical bodies of men. They have no values or selves to celebrate. Their
notion of manhood and virility is one of nihilistic conquest, of force, of
proving the efficacy of their capacity to destroy or cause pain.
Their only sense of
“enjoyment” is in the act of killing, in inflicting pain. ISIS has sent us
numerous beheading and gun barrel to the head videos that demonstrate that
aspect of compliance with Koranic
imperatives.
 
Muslim gang
members, whatever their sect – Sunni, Shi’ite, Salafists – get psychological reinforcement
from the others, a communal sense of committing their crimes as a “right” or “privilege”
bestowed on them by Islamic theology, with which they may not even be even
minimally versed in. It has been reported by escaped Yazidi women that their
ISIS rapists made a
ritual of praying
before attacking their victims, and even after the act.
But in all the videos of Western Muslim gangs attacking infidels, I have not
once noted any of the gang members toting prayer rugs.
Moreover, Muslim
gang members consider themselves both morally and racially superior to their
victims, which is an enormous rationalization and evasion of what they are
taught from day one. From “Muslim Myth”:
To qualify the contention
that “these Muslim men consider themselves as unclean and unworthy” is the
much-noised Islamic assertion and contradiction that Muslims are superior to all others of other faiths
and races (even though Islam is not a race). But, superior in which respect? The Muslim male initially regards
himself as foul and decrepit. This is a notion…of Original Sin shared by Islam
and Christianity; Islam  doubtless cadged
it from Christianity [whose formal establishment] predated Islam’s by about 500
years, just as Islam cadged elements of other religions from the 7th century
onward, including, significantly, the pagan moon god, Allah. Being an imperfect
plaything of Islam’s Allah necessitates a Muslim male’s needing to observe a
strict moral code that will keep him on the “straight and narrow” path to
Islamic virtue and “perfection” and “purity” with the expectation of Allah’s
praise.
And, it’s okay to wander from
the “straight and narrow” to rape infidel women, especially blondes. They
deserve the treatment. It’s Allah’s will. Nay, his command.
The typical Muslim
male gang member, therefore, is a cipher, a nonentity screaming for an identity
that seems efficacious and potent. His only means of achieving that end is to
commit crimes and pretend that he is the all-powerful party, and the “moral”
party, at that. His “religion” inculcates in him and his fellows an active
malevolence that is best demonstrated in groups. Sometimes he will act as a “lone
wolf” rapist or bully of other men, but then his “efficacy” is not witnessed by
others of his ilk and it’s just not as satisfactory as committing a crime as
part of a collective. He desperately needs to have group approval when he chomps
down on a living being or befouls beauty with his filthy being.
Without the
Umma, without a collective hive of death to relate to, the Muslim gang member
is nothing.

Arguments from Ignorance

Daniel
Greenfield ran an interesting story on November 9th, “
The
Atlantic: Freedom of Speech Victimizes Muslims
,”
about the Bible Believers
case
, in which an en banc
court reversed the group’s responsibility for basically “disturbing the peace”
of an Arab American festival in 2012.
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals on Wednesday found that Wayne County violated the constitutional rights
of a group of religious proselytizers who were kicked out of an Arab-American
cultural festival in 2012.
In a rare reversal of a
previous decision from three-judge appeals court panel, an en banc review by 15
judges yielded a majority ruling that Wayne County is civilly liable to the
group of evangelical Christians who sued after being ordered to leave the
festival by sheriff’s deputies.
I don’t recall
seeing a video of this particular confrontation in Dearborn during that
festival. There have been other video recordings of Christians attending that
affair with an “in your face” purpose, to rile up the natives and cause a
publicity-rich incident.
Wikipedia has
revealed some unpleasant facts about Bible Believers.
Bible
Believers
is the
website of
the Bible Believers’ Church of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Because the website reprints anti-Semitic
material such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
and Henry
Ford
’s The International Jew and Holocaust
denial
material from authors such as Bradley Smith and Mark Weber,
a complaint was lodged under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act.
But
it has dozens of spin-off branches in the U.S. 
A search for Bible Believers turns up several Internet pages of various
affiliated churches and organizations. This
apparently is its main site. The Bible Believers literally sweat the Bible. To
judge by the group’s behavior at the Arab American cultural festival, and being
an atheist, and being physically averse to evangelicals of any stripe, I would
find the Bible Believers as vile, repulsive, and irrational as, say, Anjem
Choudary
, the Islamic firebrand in Britain. From experience, I find as
pointless and futile any attempt at “dialogue” or engagement with the Muslims
on the subject of religion. I find it almost doubly pointless and futile to
engage rabid Christians on the subject. The mental faculties of Muslims and
evangelicals alike are permanent captives of the bear-trip of unquestioned and
unshakable dogma. One may as well talk to rocks. 

But
one group of mystics engaging another group of mystics can either be
hilariously funny or pregnant with tragedy. Witness the history of religious
persecution and wars in Europe, or the interminable bloody strife between
Sunnis and Shi’ites and other Islamic sects.
On
the assumption that the Arab American festival was being held in a public
place, and had some kind of permit from the Dearborn and Wayne County authorities
to hold it on public property, then the Bible Believers had every right to
appear and begin their preaching.
But,
realistically, no Christian or group of Christians can expect to win any
converts from any group of Muslims, so I can’t help but assume that the Bible
Believers repeatedly attended this Festival over the years in hopes of causing
a scene and trouble and headlines. Their much ballyhooed proselytizing was
driven by a highly suspect ulterior motive.
Greenfield’s
focus was not so much the en banc ruling as the Atlantic article and how
Garrett Epps snuck in sympathizing squibs about how the Muslims are
“victimized” and not really protected by the First Amendment – or rather not protected from the First Amendment. Greenfield wrote, quoting Epps from his “Who
Pays the Price for the First Amendment?
”:
This is a thoroughly
predictable outcome. It used to be the standard liberal position. “Used
to” being the key words. The Atlantic’s Garrett
Epps claims
that the First Amendment victimizes Muslims.
Bible
Believers displays vividly the underlying strength of the American commitment
to free speech—and the troubling shadow that commitment inevitably casts.
The troubling shadow being…freedom.
And
that is the focus of Greenfield’s piece. Epps writes that the court’s finding
was just peachy-keen, however, it doesn’t do much for Muslims, who in fact have
a habit of shouting “Allah Akbar!” at the drop of a hat or the flick of a knife
or the gunning of an engine to run over Jews or infidels. Greenfield goes on,
quoting from the Epps article:
But
we pay a price for this freedom, and not everyone pays the price equally. The
First Amendment imposes on us all the duty to maintain the peace even when our
deepest beliefs are denounced. But that duty is doubly onerous for minorities,
because they must endure such abuse more often and longer.
In
a country that is 70 percent Christian, Muslims account for less than one
percent of the population. Since 9/11, powerful religious and political figures
have been openly campaigning to strip this tiny population of the protections
of the Constitution.
It’s a typical leftist tactic
to flip a freedom around into a burden. Look who suffers under freedom of
speech. Minorities. To protect them, we might maybe sorta have to get rid of
it. Isn’t freedom just privilege? What about voting? It rewards the majority.
Think of the heavy burden of democracy on the minority? Wouldn’t they be better
off under an enlightened dictator?
I
read the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals document. While it reached the right
conclusion, I suspect that was just happenstance. Correct judicial outcomes
today are anymore crapes shoots. The court document is a wonderous depository
of abject ignorance treated as received wisdom. For example, in describing
Dearborn, Michigan, it notes, under “Facts” and the heading “
Dearborn
and the Arab International Festival,” that:
Dearborn is also home to one
of the largest populations of Arab Americans in the country—second only to New
York City. Dearborn’s Arab American population is comprised of both Christian
and Muslim families whose national origins include Lebanon, Armenia, Yemen,
Iraq, and Palestine, among other nations. (p.5)
Palestine
is a nation? That’s news to me, and would be news to Israel. In note no. 5 on
page 5, the court document observes that the Christian groups present at the
fair are segregated from all the Muslim tables, tents and booths, but makes no
comment on its own observation.
In 2012, among these
religious groups were an Islamic educational organization, a couple of Arab churches,
as well as a few non-Arab Christian ministries. These groups were stationed
under one tent, along with other non-religious organizations seeking to share
information.
That’s
interesting. To “protect” sensitive Muslim ears, the Christians are segregated
out of earshot and probably out of sight in a tent. An Arab Christian talking
heresy or blasphemy about God at a table next to a Muslim-manned table just won’t
do. It would be intolerable. Most Christians are noted for their capacity for
toleration, but Islam isn’t noted for its high toleration quotient.
On
page 3 we get a sermon on the importance of “diversity in viewpoints” and its
importance to a working democracy.
Diversity, in viewpoints and
among cultures, is not always easy. An inability or a general unwillingness to
understand new or differing points of view may breed fear, distrust, and even
loathing. But it “is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of
irrational fears.” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376 (1927) (Brandeis,
J., concurring). Robust discourse, including the exchanging of ideas, may lead
to a better understanding (or even an appreciation) of the people whose views
we once feared simply because they appeared foreign to our own exposure. But
even when communication fails to bridge the gap in understanding, or when
understanding fails to heal the divide between us, the First Amendment demands
that we tolerate the viewpoints of others with whom we may disagree. If the
Constitution were to allow for the suppression of minority or disfavored views,
the democratic process would become imperiled through the corrosion of our
individual freedom. Because “[t]he right to speak freely and to promote
diversity of ideas . . . is . . . one of the chief distinctions that sets us
apart from totalitarian regimes,” Terminiello v. City of Chi., 337 U.S. 1, 4
(1949), dissent is an essential ingredient of our political process.
Clearly,
whoever wrote the majority opinion hasn’t the slightest inkling of what Islam is
all about and what unassuming Muslims are capable of, such as Faisal
Mohammad
, who went on a knifing spree at the University of
California-Merced. If that person had a clue, he would have noted that “dissent”
is not an essential ingredient in the
“political process” of Islam. “Democracy” is not a value in Islam. Islamic domination
and supremacy are the end game of violent and stealth jihad. “Toleration” is not the leitmotiv of Islamic “culture.”  It’s all “My Way” or “No Way.”
The
person who wrote the majority opinion m
ay or may not
be surprised to read
that Islam isn’t
in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran,
the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and
Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.
[Omar
Ahmad
, Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)]
That person may or may not be shocked to learn that, under Sharia law,
the Bible Believers would have been found guilty of blasphemy, insulting Islam,
mocking Mohammad, and sentenced to death.
With no chance of appeal.

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén