The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: January 2016

A Preview of Manhattan Blues

Readers may have noticed I have not commented on
current events in a while. I am immersed in writing the 14th Cyrus Skeen detective
novel, Manhattan Blues, set in New York City in March 1929.  I shall return to my commentaries once I have
finished the novel. My novels are my life work, and they always come first.

From the Foreword:
It is March,
1929. Cyrus Skeen is called to New York by his father, Garnett Skeen, to attend
to some trust fund affairs. Skeen’s detective agency is subsidized by a trust
fund his father set up years before, but his mother, Eleanor “Nellie” Skeen,
wishes to set up her own trust fund for her son. A daughter of an Oklahoma oil
magnate, she is “very well situated” in terms of wealth. Skeen’s parents,
however, are driving to Nags Head in the Outer Banks of North Carolina to spend
the rest of the winter. The elder Skeen tells his son that he must prove his existence
to a new bank officer who will be administrating the new trust fund;
therefore, Skeen must travel to New York City.
In New
York, he meets an alluring and tempestuous opera singer, Brianna “Ginger” O’Quill.
During one of her performances at the Metropolitan Opera, he goes backstage and
kisses the diva’s hand. She interprets the gesture as an invitation to pursue
him, which she does even though she knows he is married and in love with his
wife, Dilys. But a rival for her attentions is jealous and attempts to murder
Skeen – or O’Quill…or anyone. 

Chapter 9: Queen of the Night

The conductor, Lawrence Hauck, who was a dead ringer,
Skeen thought, for Leopold Schacht but sans
the spade beard, abruptly appeared over the intricately carved black mahogany partition
that separated the orchestra from the audience and that put both out of sight
of each other. The audience applauded and he took a bow. Then he turned, dipped
out of sight, and disappeared. There must have been steps from the podium Skeen
had not noticed earlier.

The lights dimmed a little more, and then the
orchestra began the Overture.
The opening brass notes were intended to get one’s attention. They got Skeen’s.
Then the strings weighed in, and, working with the winds, with soft,
somnambulant notes, gently prepared one for the lively, joyous, almost dizzying
dance-worthy main section in which the whole orchestra participated.
Skeen found the whole piece delightful. In fact, he
was enchanted by it. He felt himself smiling. This was not the Mozart he had
heard in Maud Skipton’s music parlor on Nob Hill in San Francisco. He wished it
to go on. But in a swift reprise of the opening dancing notes it ended with a
crescendo.
The two massive red velvet curtains parted
majestically behind the impossibly complex gilded proscenium. Their parting
revealed yet another red curtain; this one rose to reveal a stylized forest.
Beyond it were flats depicting faraway mountains and a blue, cloud-dotted sky.
But above it all was a kind of dome of the black night sky, the stars formed in
a whirlpool whose vortex was not yet visible.
A young fellow in a blue period costume – vaguely
medieval – appeared, running full tilt, armed with a swordless scabbard, and a
bow with no arrow in it and no quiver of arrows. Some growling was heard and
what looked like a puce-painted Chinese New Year dragon appeared from behind
the “forest,” and chased the fellow around the stage. He guessed the fellow was
supposed to be Tamino, the story’s love interest, the prince with no political
antecedents. The dragon had about two dozen legs (the legs of cast extras), also
in puce but with fur. The thing more resembled a giant centipede with a
dragon’s head tacked on. The fellow in the head also blew some kind of smoke
from the dragon’s open mouth, which was loaded with scimitar sized teeth.
Skeen told himself: It’s a fairy tale. There’s no
rhyme or reason for anything in it. Don’t shake your head. People might notice.
Then the fellow faints. Sir Galahad, he isn’t,
thought Skeen. He consulted his libretto for the scene.
The story began to pick up speed when The Three Ladies
emerged from the forest. They slayed the dragon with waves of their magical
wands, then ooh-and-awed in dialogue and in song over the prone body of the
prince, almost as though they wanted to molest him. He could see the greed in
their eyes. They wore feathery headpieces and gowns the colors of Germany’s
flag: black, red, and gold. They kept nudging each other aside with unladylike
elbows to ribs as they bent over the unconscious Tamino.
Skeen heard Morton Lawry groan in exasperation.
Abruptly, The Three Ladies rose and departed,
singing. According to the libretto and Britannica,
they couldn’t decide what to do about Tamino.
A fellow in a costume of colorful parrot feathers came
onstage. Skeen consulted his libretto. This was Papageno, the birdwatcher. No,
he corrected himself: the bird catcher. He carried a bird cage and panpipes. He
sings his song and plays his pipes (or someone in the orchestra did). Tamino
awakes, and thinks Papageno slayed the dragon. The bird catcher doesn’t deny
it. The Three Ladies reappear and punish him for lying by putting a lock on his
mouth. Then they crowd around Tamino and manage to show him a picture of
Pamina, his future love interest. He sings his love for her; The Three Ladies collectively
practically smother him with their attentions.
Again, Skeen heard Lawry groan.
And then Brianna O’Quill appeared as Queen of the
Night. Her entrance was heralded by winds in the orchestra. This development
took Skeen by surprise. She simply appeared out of nowhere, probably by an
elevator built into the stage, sitting on a throne. He should have expected
something extraordinary because the forest was suddenly enveloped in a mist.
The lights dimmed a little over the stage. The whirlpool of stars above began
to slowly rotate, the vortex appearing directly over the head of the Queen of
the Night.
O’Quill as Queen of the Night was indeed in a
modified flamenco costume, all blue satin, it seemed to Skeen, judging from the
sheen of the material, with winking sequins. Generous flounces over her wrists
and at the bottom of the gown gave her costume that Spanish look. Ruby earrings
the size and shape of fishing anchors flailed out when she moved her head, but
Skeen doubted they were lead.
She was crowned with a sparkling mantilla from which
flowed a gossamer veil or train, almost invisible but for the twinkling sequins
on it. Her hair was gathered behind in a kind of translucent basket the fabric
of which he could not identify from where he sat. She began to sing her first
aria, “O zittre nicht, mein lieber Sohn.” Skeen consulted the libretto. It was “Oh,
tremble not, my dear son!”
Tamino approached her throne and was kneeling before
it when she rose and descended the steps in mid-aria to address him. Skeen
could not see Tamino’s face, but O’Quill’s was observable. He was transfixed by
the multitude of convincing expressions and emotions O’Quill was able to
convey. It was a lovely, moving, and pleading aria – save my daughter from the
evil designs of the wizard Sarastro, and her hand is yours in marriage – but Skeen
could see by her eyes and her posture and by the tone of her words, even though
they were in German, that she was setting up Tamino for something other than
rescuing her daughter, Pamina, from the evil wizard Sarastro. She descended the
throne, bid Tamino to rise, and held him by the shoulders to complete her aria.
She telegraphed her ulterior motives so strongly
that Skeen half expected Tamino to depart from the script and tell her he knew she
was lying and to reject her heart-rending plea. Skeen sat mesmerized by
O’Quill’s performance, sitting forward with his elbows on his knees, his hands
folded beneath his chin.
But Tamino agrees to rescue Pamina. Then The Queen
of the Night, with an imperious sweep of her trailing veil, disappears with her
throne into the mists. The faraway mountains reappear and the forest is visible
again.
The Three Ladies returned and again surrounded
Tamino. They give him a long, silvery object. This is the magic flute. They so
crowd around Tamino they nearly knock him over. Skeen did not think that was in
the playbook.
He heard Lawry groan again.
In a comic scene they release Papageno from the
mouth-padlock and give him a contraption with bells on it. He will accompany
Tamino on his search for Pamina. The flute will protect Tamino from all sorts
of mishaps, while the bells, if rung, will also perform magic for Papageno.
And that was the end of Scene One of Act One.
Skeen had read the whole Britannica article and so he knew that Sarastro was not the evil
wizard, but some sort of benevolent wizard whose kidnapping of Pamina remained
inexplicable, unexplained.
One question he wanted badly to ask Lawry was who
was Pamina’s father? Was she the result of a union between the Queen of the
Night and Sarastro? Were the Queen of the Night and Sarastro once “married,”
but had a horrific fight and separated? Was Pamina born out of wedlock? Was
there such a condition in the world of The
Magic Flute
?
But Skeen checked himself: this was a fairy tale,
and anything odd and unanswered was to be taken literally. Too many questions would
spoil the fantasy and explode the illusion.
As he watched the goings-on up on the stage, Skeen
recalled that, as a child, he had never taken seriously the tooth fairy, or the
Easter bunny, or even Santa Claus. He distinctly remembered now his assertion
over dinner one Christmas season evening, when he was five, that not only was
it physically impossible for Santa Claus to deliver overnight presents to all
the children in the world so that they would have them by Christmas morning,
but it was physically impossible for him to carry them. Further, he declaimed
that evening over his half-eaten dinner the impracticality of “eight tiny
reindeer” to pull such a load, and of a sleigh that could land on anyone’s roof.
He remembered his mother tsk-tsking and giving him a
sad shake of her head. And he also remembered his father chuckling and
remarking to her: “Well, at least we’re not raising a Socialist, or a
Progressive.” He understood the meaning of that remark years later.
Then the black slave, Monostato, appeared and
figured prominently in the action. Mentally, Skeen kept renaming him “Monsanto”
after the agricultural company. The singer was not only in black face but in
black torso. It was disconcerting to see him and his fellow slaves cavorting
around the stage wearing baggy pantaloons and vests and slippers with curled
toes. A few of them wore turbans and sported organ-grinder moustaches. It was
also jarring to hear them speak and sing in German.
It was while Monostato was singing that Skeen
recognized the face of the hand-wringing roll-poly man he saw outside of
Brianna O’Quill’s apartment the night before.
Skeen sat back and endured with a critical set to
his face the rest of Act One, frequently consulting his libretto to understand
the actions and dialogue on stage.
He did acknowledge that putting on even an
incredible fairy tale required an enormous amount of work. The singers had to
work with the orchestra and its soloists, as well, everything had to be timed
and paced perfectly, everyone from the cast to the stagehands who worked the
scenery had to know what he was doing, when to do it, and where he had to be
every second.
He refrained from sighing with relief when the
curtains closed on Sarastro’s temple and Tamino and Pamina see each other and
embrace for the first time on the stage. The audience broke into applause and
the principal singers came out from behind the two curtains to take their bows.
    Twice, because the continuing applause
called them out again.
Then the lights came back on and the hubbub behind
Skeen rose. The program said there would be a half hour intermission. Skeen
could hear the stage behind the curtain being prepared for Act Two, with
scenery being removed and replaced and many footsteps thumping on the stage. He
rose and faced Morton Lawry. “I’m going out for a smoke.”
Lawry rose. Skeen noticed that he had gray-green
eyes, and they were set in anger. Something about the performance of The Three
Ladies had upset him. “I would join you, Mr. Skeen, as you are probably
brimming with questions I would be only too happy to answer. But I need to go
backstage to knock some heads together. Please, follow me. You can smoke
outside on the loading platform. Smoking is not allowed backstage, only in the
dressing rooms. But you needn’t trek all the way to the lobby.” He nodded to
the stream of patrons snaking up the aisles to the front of the theater.
Without further word, Lawry turned and strode along
the first row of orchestra seats to the far end. Skeen followed him. There they
encountered an usher who let them pass through an emergency door. He said to
the man, nodding to Skeen, “This gentleman is a guest of mine. Please let him
back in when the time comes.”
Inside, Lawry pointed to the door to the loading
dock, then disappeared into a maze of narrow halls and corridors.
Skeen stood on the dock with a few dozen of the
cast. He lit an Old Gold. It was chilly and the skimpy costumes of some of the
actors and singers must not have been much protection against the cold. The
dock faced the blank wall of an adjacent building. Some scenery flats were
propped up against the wall behind him. More cast and stagehands emerged from a
separate door further down the long stretch of cement.
He did not try to get into a conversation with any
of the people standing with him.
All in all, Skeen thought, it was a saccharine
story. Perhaps it was innovative in Mozart’s time. But the story has been
repeated and retold in countless forms countless times since then.
He was also thinking of Brianna O’Quill.
©2016 by Edward Cline

Words and Reality

While reading Stephen Coughlin’s seminal and
all-important Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face
of Jihad
, I frequently encountered quotations the author used to
stress his many points that in terms of defending this country from Islamic incursions,
or, rather, failing to defend it, the language of the defenders has been
corrupted and rendered meaningless. The quotations came from Josef Pieper’s Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power (Mißbrauch der Sprache, Machtmißbrauch),
first published in 1974. The quotations were so intriguing that I ordered the
book, which is actually a 54-page pamphlet featuring two essays by Pieper,
“Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power,” and “Knowledge and Freedom.” Coughlin
remarked that Pieper’s book “underlies much in what I do.”
Josef Pieper (1904-1997) was a German philosopher
and a key figure in the Thomist
revival. In his teens, he was initially drawn to the philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard,
but after being recommended a work by Aquinas, Commentary to the Prologue of St. John’s Gospel, he became a
lifelong devotee to Aquinas. Ignatius Press’s Insight reveals that:   
Pieper
went to the University of Münster in 1923, and later on he went to Berlin. The
plan of his first book – which he ultimately submitted to the university in
order to obtain his doctorate in philosophy – was born during a lecture on
Goethe and Thomas Aquinas, given by Msgr. Romano Guardini at the Jugendburg
Rothenfels on the Main in 1924; the lecture was entitled “About Classical
Spirit.” Pieper’s first book, Die Wirklichkeit und das Gute (Reality
and the Good
; contained in Living the Truth [Ignatius Press,
1989]) based on St. Thomas’ works, tries to show that the good is nothing else
but what is in accordance with the reality of things.
Apparently, in 1939 or 1940, Pieper joined (or was threatened
with conscription into) the German army. Where and in what capacity he served
is not mentioned in any standard biographical information I have
been able to locate. Much of what Pieper wanted to write or speak about – and
could, privately – was not publishable in Nazi Germany. Nazism purported to
have all the “official answers” to “social problems,” and a Catholic author’s
thoughts on the subject were not welcome, except perhaps from the pulpit of a
church that hove to the Nazi Party line. Pieper’s writings were well known in
Germany at the time and already viewed with glowering circumspection by Nazi
authorities.
During
the first year of World War II, he brought out only a little biography of his
hero, St. Thomas Aquinas, titled Guide to Thomas Aquinas.

Pieper joined the army and during the time he was in service a volume of the Summa
Theologica
or the Quaestiones Disputatae always accompanied him, and
in the course of these years he succeeded in putting together two breviary-like
collections of short sentences, chosen from the whole work of the Angelic
Doctor, but they were not published until the end of World War II. One of these
“breviaries,” the more philosophical one, was published both in
England and the United States under the title, The Human Wisdom of St. Thomas.
Given Piper’s overall philosophy, one can only
assume that he was what we would call a “conscientious objector” vis-à-vis the
grip Nazism had on Germany and Hitler’s war plans. But being a dissident in
Nazi Germany usually earned one time in a concentration camp or a death
sentence. Or dissidents on religious grounds would be assigned “mule team” duties
as non-combatants, or put in the medical corps. For a vivid dramatization of
the conundrum see Sophie Scholl: The Final Days. The German
Catholic Church’s record on that subject is nothing less than disgraceful.
One non-standard biographical reference, in the
periodical Theological Studies, contains a brief
account, by Jon Vickery, “Searching for Josef Pieper,” of Pieper’s time and
activities in the German army. How he served is described on page 632; he acted
as a military psychologist screening candidates for the Luftwaffe.
Reading that account, which I can only treat as an
apologia, leads me to conclude that Pieper, who voted against the Nazi Party in
March 1933 (p. 626), was subsequently faced with the same grave moral dilemma
as others were faced with in attempting to survive the iron reign of the
political correctness of Nazism. One might easily conclude he committed the same error that
American Christian and Jewish clerics commit today by participating in dialogue
with Muslim clerics in an attempt to reach some kind of workable rapprochement
between their religious principles and Islam’s. Instead, Pieper appears to have
tried to reconcile Thomist Catholicism with Nazi ideology. I discuss this
important section of Coughlin’s book, “Interfaith Outreach,” in “Interfaith Bridges to Islam” on Rule of Reason. Vickery’s
article is available here;
readers should peruse it and judge for themselves.
However, Coughlin remarked to me on January 9th:
“I
would not put him in the same category as those who do interfaith. That would
be the Catholic thinkers of his time who actively sought inclusion with the
Nazis. From more than one source, he was clearly denied positions in the
universities owing to the positions he took against the Nazis and Nazism. The
interfaith crowd today, shills for the other side. 
He
had to eat, he did not want to be conscripted, he provided intellectualized
responses to direct questions from Nazis to get a low level position in a
roving medical induction unit; a hallmark that he was seen as a dissident.
Sometimes openly, sometimes in the coded language of Thomistic philosophy, as
was the case with his responses to Nazis when directly questioned, his writings
always opposed Nazism.” 
For what it’s worth, I think Pieper’s experiences
in Nazi Germany contributed in no small way to his later, postwar thesis about
the corruption of language as a stepping stone to political power, and the
temptation to construct pseudorealities
to endure the demands of ideological conformance, that is, to live to fight
another day.
Discussing how the proper approach to understanding
Islamic jihad has been rendered off
limits to those charged with winning the “War on Terror,” Coughlin, for
example, underscored his point with a quotation from Pieper:
Today,
analysis that meets professional evidentiary standards is deemed inappropriate
for use inside national security and law enforcement spaces. At the Department
of Defense, its use is dismissed as “inflammatory” and even more alarmingly,
condemned as harming the war effort. As shown in his classic work on
ideological subversion, Abuse of
Language, Abuse of Power
, philosopher Josef Pieper was keenly aware of the
role that the manipulation of language plays in such activities. [p. 350]
The
common element in all of this is the degeneration of language into an
instrument of rape….It does contain
violence, albeit in latent form….This lesson, in a nutshell, says: the abuse of
political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the
word, indeed, finds in it the fertile soil in which to hide and grow and get
ready, so much so that the latent potential of the totalitarian poison can be
ascertained, as it were, by observing the symptom of public abuse of language….
[Catastrophic, 32, Pieper]
Coughlin frequently calls pseudorealities the imaginary scenarios devised by our “defenders”
that evade identifying Islam’s Sharia law as the driving force behind not only
violent jihad but by the dawah element of the concerted subversion
of our efforts to combat terrorism. After all, the official policy is that
we’re not at war with Islam. George W. Bush said so, and so has Barack Obama. The
term comes from Abuse of Language, Abuse
of Power.
Pieper writes:
I
spoke of public discourse becoming “detached from the notions of truth and
reality.” This brief characterization may still be too mild; it does not yet
express the full measure of devastation breeding within the sophistic
corruption of the word. It is entirely possible that the true and authentic
reality is being drowned out by the countless superficial information bits
nosily and breathlessly presented in propaganda fashion. Consequently, one may
be entirely knowledgeable about a thousand details and nevertheless, because of
ignorance regarding the core of the matter, remain without basic insight….
But,
I wanted to say, something far more discouraging is readily conceivable as
well: the place of authentic reality is taken over by a fictitious reality; my
perception is indeed still directed toward an object, but now it is a pseudoreality, deceptively appearing as
being real, so much so that it becomes almost impossible any more to discern
the truth. [pp. 33-34]
Coughlin relates all through Catastrophic Failure how threat analyses can be fabricated to
include “a thousand details” about individual terrorists, specific terrorist
groups, timelines, methods, likely or favorite targets, and so on, yet wind up addicted
to a kind of ghostly hologram that reflects neither the truth or the reality of
a threat. Why? Because the threat analysts are not permitted, or are stridently
discouraged from, attributing violent jihad
to Islam and Sharia. It’s a “religion,” and the U.S. doesn’t wage war against
any religion, even though it’s been demonstrated countless times over decades
that Islam is more a political ideology than it is a religion.
While I like the fact that Pieper is pro-reality
and anti-sophistry and has pointed out the dangers and evils of pseudorealities, I do have some
reservations about his presentation of the value of language. Perhaps the fault
lies in the translation.
First,
words convey reality. We speak in order to name and identify something that is
real, to identity it for someone, of
course – and this points to the second aspect in question, the interpersonal
character of human speech.
These
two aspects of the word and of all language, though distinct, are nevertheless
not separated. The one does not exist without the other. At first, we may well
presume that such and such is simply a factual reality, and that all we want is
to understand this reality, and, of course, describe it. Right: describe it –
but to whom? The other person is already in the picture; what happens here is
already communication. In the very attempt to know reality, there already is
present the aim of communication….
Indeed,
we can talk only about reality, nothing else. Of course, there is always the
possibility of lying, of falsifying it! It is one of my favorite questions in
tests, posed many times and not always answered to my satisfaction. (pp. 15-16)
In short, what is considered “real” is all in our
heads, not “out there” independent of our consciousness. Pieper’s chief concern
is the “interpersonal” communication of reality between men. But before the
communication must come an individual acceptance that what he perceives is the “actual
reality.” Novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand had not a few words on the subject. In
her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, she wrote:
There
is an element of grim irony in the emergence of Linguistic Analysis on the philosophical
scene. The assault on man’s conceptual faculty has been accelerating since
Kant, widening the breach between man’s mind and reality. The cognitive
function of concepts was undercut by a series of grotesque devices—such, for
instance, as the “analytic-synthetic” dichotomy which, by a route of tortuous
circumlocutions and equivocations, leads to the dogma that a “necessarily” true
proposition cannot be factual, and a factual proposition cannot be
“necessarily” true. The crass skepticism and epistemological cynicism of Kant’s
influence have been seeping from the universities to the arts, the sciences,
the industries, the legislatures, saturating our culture, decomposing language
and thought.
If
ever there was a need for a Herculean philosophical effort to clean up the
Kantian stables—particularly, to redeem language by establishing objective
criteria of meaning and definition, which average men could not attempt—the
time was now. As if sensing that need, Linguistic Analysis came on the
scene for the avowed purpose of “clarifying” language—and proceeded to declare
that the meaning of concepts is determined in the minds of average men, and
that the job of philosophers consists of observing and reporting on how people
use words.
Pieper indeed does report on how people use words.
Perhaps he should be called a Linguistic Analyst. Rand, on the subject of language itself, continued:
In
order to be used as a single unit, the enormous sum integrated by a concept has
to be given the form of a single, specific, perceptual concrete, which
will differentiate it from all other concretes and from all other concepts.
This is the function performed by language. Language
is a code of visual-auditory symbols that serves the psycho-epistemological
function of converting concepts into the mental equivalent of concretes.

Language is the exclusive domain and tool of concepts. Every word we use (with
the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e., that
stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind.(Italics mine)
Concepts
and, therefore, language are primarily a tool of cognition—not of
communication, as is usually assumed. Communication
is merely the consequence
, not the cause or the primary purpose of
concept-formation—a crucial consequence, of invaluable importance to men, but
still only a consequence. Cognition precedes communication ; the
necessary pre-condition of communication is that one have something to
communicate. (This is true even of communication among animals, or of
communication by grunts and growls among inarticulate men, let alone of communication
by means of so complex and exacting a tool as language.) The primary purpose of
concepts and of language is to provide man with a system of cognitive
classification and organization, which enables him to acquire knowledge on an
unlimited scale; this means: to keep order in man’s mind and enable him to
think. (Italics mine)

In short, cognition must come first, before what is
recognized can be communicated.
I discuss the destruction of language in “The Ghouls of Grammatical Egalitarianism” from
October 2013, and in “Euphemisms: The Euthanasia of Words” from September
2014.
Under the Heading, “The Aggrandisement of
Mediocrity,” in Usage and Abusage, originally published in
1947,  the late Eric
Partridge
noted:
Since
the war of 1939-1945, and partly because of it, there has arisen a
Do-It-Yourself cult, affecting not only the practicalities of life but also its
embellishments and enhancements and consolations: music and the arts,
literature and the drama, all show an undermining by the levelling process. Those
for whom ‘anything goes’ have yet to learn that ultimately, for them, nothing
goes….
No
wonder mediocrity flourishes in literature and, indeed, at all levels of
writing, for its only vehicle, language, has been slowed down by the
slow-minded and the sluggish-hearted, by the dull and the indifferent. Anyone who
believes in civilization must find it difficult to approve, and impossible to
abet, one of the surest means of destroying it. To degrade language is finally
to degrade civilization.
Language has been degraded by politically correct
speech, grammatical egalitarians, government education departments, schools, and, not surprisingly, by the Modern Language Association (MLA). 
Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power, by
Josef Pieper.  Ignatius Press, (1992),
(trans. Lothar Krauth, Kosel-Verlag, Munich 1974). San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 1992. 54 pp.

The Sexual Savaging of Europe

Just a brief note: In the wake of the mass Cologne
Grope/Rape assaults that were repeated in other European cities, my November 14th
column, “Raping the Swedish Corpse,” has risen in
page views on Rule of Reason and on edwardcline.com. Leading the page views,
appearing not only for the first time in the page view statistics but leading
them ahead of the U.S., Russia, France, and Germany is Norway. Significantly absent is Sweden
itself. Sweden has appeared in the statistics occasionally in the past. 
A
column that is a few months old on Rule of Reason usually fades into the
distant past and from the statistics. But the Swedish Corpse column has
rebounded in the wake of Cologne. Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna has kept up
an almost 24/7 account of what is looking like a planned, ISIS-style assault on
Europe. It boasted months ago that its agents were among the hundreds of
thousands of “refugees” pouring into Europe’s borderless nations, and that they
would strike.
Baron Bodissey on January 8th ran this column which
delves into the simultaneous but not “spontaneous” assaults on European women, “The Larger Motive Behind the Groping Jihad.”
The city authorities covered up what had
happened for as long as they could. They didn’t want to acknowledge that young
women had been molested under the eyes of their police, and they especially
didn’t want to admit that most of the gropers were recently-arrived “refugees”
from North Africa and the Middle East. It wasn’t until last Sunday that the
news of what happened was splashed across the headlines in Germany and the rest
of Europe. And it took several more days to learn that Stuttgart, Frankfurt,
Hamburg, Dusseldorf, and other German cities had experienced the same sort of
incidents on New Year’s Eve. Later we found out that the same thing occurred in
Helsinki, Vienna, Salzburg, Zurich, Oslo, and Stockholm. I’m certain that we’ll
eventually hear of incidents in other major European cities that have a
significant “refugee” population.
In each city the modus operandi seemed to be
the same: a large number of young men, often intoxicated and setting off
fireworks, preying on young women in a coordinated fashion, as if the whole
thing were planned and organized in advance. Which it may well have been — but
in a distributed fashion, not with a central command structure.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did not order his troops
to carry out attacks. But he didn’t have to — this is Islam, and any
good Muslim who has paid attention to what is preached in mosques and
instructed in madrassas knows exactly what to do.
Not to mention what is preached in the Koran. The Baron indirectly adopts my
own label for Islam and its cipher-like zombies: Star Trek’s the Borg.
The
third layer of purpose is more subtle. To understand it, you have to understand
Islam as an organism, as a hive mind that acts through many agents but with a
single program.
This
organism is now expanding into new territory, feeling its way as it goes,
assessing the presence of the enemy and attempting to determine the strength
and nature of his response to the incursion. One way to test the enemy’s mettle
is to target his women.
This army of “refugees” made a statement on New
Year’s Eve in Cologne (and in Vienna, Salzburg, Zurich, Oslo, Stockholm, and
elsewhere: Islam is here, and we’re claiming your women. After all, Verse 16.71 and
other verses assert:
And
Allah hath favored some of you above others in provision. Now those who are
more favored will by no means hand over their provision to those (slaves)
whom their right hands possess
, so that they may be equal with them
in respect thereof. Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny?
And thousands of right hands were making their
claims of possession in Cologne and other European cities that New Year’s Eve.  Probing, Fondling. Raping.
Britain’s The Daily Mail has extensive coverage of
the assaults and the aftermath here.
So, we know all about German and European women. But,
where are all the German and European men? Have they been castrated? Turned into eunuchs
by their education and political upbringing?
One of them might answer: “That’s not fair! We’re not
afraid of Muslims. We know they’re bigots. But we don’t want to be called
Islamophobes, or bigots, or ‘right-wingers.’ We’re very upset. We don’t know
what to do.”
Then, gentlemen, you can kiss your country goodbye,
and your womenfolk, too.

Obama’s Malice Aforethought II

“We are five days away from fundamentally
transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008
“We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change
our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place
as a nation.” — Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008




Quoting from a Canada Free Press column on Obama’s
plans to spy on bloggers, I opened my October 2010 Rule of Reason column, “Obama’s
Malice Aforethought
” with:
The
President Barack Obama’s feelings are hurt.
For
most of his
time in the White House
, Obama has been critical of information about him
and his administration posted on the Internet. He’s frequently denigrated
bloggers and Internet conservative news & commentary web sites for their
efforts to cover stories the so-called mainstream news media refuse to cover,
according to critics of his plans to control the “Information Highway.”
This
is precisely the kind of speech that Obama and his unelected czars and wannabe
censors wish to monitor, judge, squelch, punish, crush, and eradicate.
Permanently. Napoleon shared the same touchiness: “I fear the newspapers
more than a hundred thousand bayonets.” And those newspapers, together
with the bayonet thrusts of bloggers, conservative (and non-conservative) news
and commentary websites, have needled Obama and his staff and advisors beyond
endurance. Any words critical of Obama or the government have been regarded as
the equivalent of blasphemy, slander, libel, and the subverting the “community
harmony” of the nation.

Five years later, anyone writing a column such as
this one can be deemed a “potential terrorist” or a contributor to terrorism if
someone acts on whatever he might read here. That will usually mean an enraged
Muslim offended by anti-Muslim or anti-Islam “rhetoric.” Attorney General
Loretta Lynch
has vowed to commit the Department of Justice to punishing a
writer for inciting “hatred” for Muslims with “anti-Muslim” rhetoric. Well,
Loretta, come and get me. My “backlash” has been ongoing for about ten years.

Lynch
pontificated, “When we talk about the First Amendment we
[must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American.
They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted …
My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot
give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.’”
Yes, Obama’s feelings are hurt that so many
bloggers and freedom of speech-clingers and aficionados are saying nasty things
about him, accusing him of all kinds of nefarious designs on and actions
against America, even though he has been quite vocal and public about
those nefarious designs and actions. He has really left nothing to the
imagination regarding how he plans to “fundamentally
transform
” America. Perhaps he really is a closet Muslim. He has said
diddly about slaughtered and enslaved Yazidis, Christians, and other non-Muslim
groups in the Middle East. He has a soft spot for Islam only.
Muslims’ sensitive feelings are easily hurt, as we
all know by now. When their feelings are hurt, they go on murderous rampages
and, well, hurt people. Or kill them. Rather than blame Muslims for the crimes,
the MSM echoes Obama and blames the victims for being members of a
Muslim-hostile culture. Or of a Western culture. Obama would go so far as to
say of a “white” culture. It’s his notion of “reparations.”
Enraged, and truly upset about the anti-Muslim
“backlash” that doesn’t seem to want to materialize in this country, Obama will
bypass Congress and use his presidential executive powers to stick it to
America, thus overreaching those powers to impose an autocrat’s will on the
country. He has said that America needs to be more brown (or black), meaning
more Muslims and more Mexicans
or South Americans. So not only do we have a closet Muslim and bonafide
Marxist/Alinskyite for a president, but a racist. He will import any color into
America as long as it’s not white. Whites must be in the “shadows” and defer to
Muslims and non-whites. They’ll need to “navigate” their way through a hostile,
multicultural, multi-ethnic politics and social environment. See the Mark Levin
link above and listen to his broadcast of March 2015. It’s all about
“transformation” by stealth.
Yet, Congress has yet to challenge or oppose him.
Congress is not on America’s side, either. Ask House Speaker Paul Ryan, he of
the gross beard and flexible, ambidextrous, or even non-existent principles.
The MSM, which swooned over Obama’s candidacy for
the White House, is on the same ideological page as Obama and his cohorts in
and out of government. That, too, has become so obvious since 2010. And where
is this “Muslim-hostile,” Muslim-free culture? Someone, please tell me where it
is. I’d like to “resettle” there before I’m mugged by a Somali or knifed or
shot up by an AK-47.
2010 seems so long ago, ages, and so much has
happened in the half decade since. Obama’s naked malice for this country has
manifested itself in too many ways to recount here. So, we’ll dwell on his
transformation policies. We’ll start with brainwashing. A.K.A., “education.”
David Solway, writing for PJ Media, in his January
5th column, “Islamic
School Projects
,” begins:
The
Islamization of America is proceeding at speed as the political and educational
elites are desperately playing catch-up with Europe’s looming immigration and
refugee disaster. We have just learned that Paul Ryan’s “House-passed
omnibus [bill]
will bring in nearly 300,000 Muslim migrants in the next 12
months alone, including roughly 170,000 who will be permanently
resettled…” The political nomenklatura on both sides of the aisle are
hastening the ruination of the country.

As
Roger Simon remarks,
“Europe is in a double-bind situation that we are not.  As their domestic
populations decline, they have to admit a substantial amount of Muslims to
support their welfare states.  We do not need this.” However, there
are no doubt electoral and fiscal considerations that would profit, on the one
hand, the political fortunes of the Democrats (as well as “fundamentally
transforming” America according to Obama’s sinister intentions), and on the
other, the financial prospects of those involved in migrant resettlement
programs and of employers seeking a low wage labor force.

For figures and facts on those looting doyens of
the migrant resettlement programs, see Ann Corcoran’s Refugee
Resettlement Watch
site here. As is the case in Muslim-invaded
Europe
, taxpayers in this country are forced to fund their own displacement,
dispossession, and exposure to the crime and disease these “culture enrichers”
bring to the U.S. from their stagnant, primitive, and violent cultural
backwaters.

Perhaps the most important contributing cause to
today’s immigration phenomenon is the
welfare state. It draws human fire ants,
termites, and other pests who hope to partake in a system of confiscatory
taxation. We are talking here about Muslims and Mexicans. This makes them
“economic” migrants, rather than “oppressed” or “persecuted” refugees. As
mentioned above, the Democrats and other statists in this country have a
demographic and electoral interest in importing as many economic migrants as
possible who are attracted to the possibility of being sustained by a whole
catalogue of “freebees,” without having ever been forced to chip into the
confiscatory system in the past. Putting migrants on instant welfare guarantees
the Democrats a loyal voting bloc.

Moreover, it is American children who must be
“conditioned” to appreciate and accommodate the “cultures” of these economic
migrants, Muslim and Hispanic.

The
education establishment is no less complicit. Common
Core
, which has been enthusiastically embraced by both Brahmin and
shudra, effectively
mandates the study of Islam, which often takes precedence over the traditional
focus on American and Western history. As columnist and author Edward Davenport
reports
for Freedom Outpost, “An astounding 32 pages of the World history
textbook are devoted to Muslim cavitation. Students in two Texas schools–Cross
Timbers intermediate and Kenneth Davis–will be required to learn Arabic…thanks
to a 1.3 million grant from the Department of Education’s Foreign Language
Assistantship program.”

Much
of American political and military history has been airbrushed out of the
materials students are expected to master. Qatar has also been lavish in
promoting Islamic propaganda at the expense of objective scholarship; indeed, Qatar
Foundation International
, directed by Islamic apologist Tariq Ramadan,
funded the “One World Education” concept from which Common Core originated.
Edward Davenport connects the Common Core dots in a
Freedom Outpost column of last August, “Obama,
Ayers, and the Muslim Connection to Common Core
.”
Bill
Ayers, the unrepentant, 1960s, bomb-throwing, self-professed “small c
communist” and college professor who founded an education-reform group in
Chicago, which he co-chaired with Barack Obama, has long ties to terrorism and
education. This combination could prove deadly for the future of American
education and possibly for the future of America. These connections run deep….
In
1995, Ayers founded the Chicago-Annenberg Challenge, an education reform group
funded by billionaire philanthropist Walter Annenberg. Barack Obama served as
Board Chairman from 1995 to 1999. Although the CAC’s stated purpose was to
improve education in the city through grants to education groups, reading,
writing, and arithmetic took a backseat to political activism. There is no
evidence that test scores in the city improved.
It
is a deliberate lie that Common Core standards are “voluntary,
state-led” and “created by the National Governors
Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to improve academic
achievement and increase accountability. President Barack Obama and his
administration embraced them.” The NGA and counsel of Chief School
Officers are government-funded trade organizations based in Washington,
D.C. Over $100 million in funding for Common Core
can be traced to the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation prompting even the
notoriously-liberal Huffington Post to point
out the obvious
: “CCSS is not ‘state led.’ It is ‘Gates led.'”

What exactly is Common
Core
? A visit to its site is not enlightening, as it is saturated in opaque
edu-speak about literacy and mathematics. Reading it, one gets the sense that
every sentence is a coded statement that doesn’t mean what it says. Beneath the
benign, often banal bromides is a malignancy for the independent mind and
freedom of thought. That’s the postmodern way. To refute or rebut any one
section or sentence in the site’s claims would require a book-length treatment.
What is the Common Core?
State
education chiefs and governors in 48 states came together to develop the Common
Core, a set of clear college- and career-ready standards for kindergarten
through 12th grade in English language arts/literacy and mathematics. Today, 42
states and the District of Columbia have voluntarily adopted and are working to
implement the standards, which are designed to ensure that students graduating
from high school are prepared to take credit bearing introductory courses in
two- or four-year college programs or enter the workforce…..

Get the government out of education. Problem
solved. But, is adopting Common Core voluntary?
Well, not on any parent’s part, you can be sure.

Adoption
of the standards is voluntary. It is up to each state and territory to decide
if they choose to adopt the Common Core State Standards as their state
educational standards in English language arts and mathematics. States can
tailor the standards to address their needs. Here is a map showing the states that have adopted the
standards.

A lie. If
states depend on Federal largesse to sustain their public school systems, and
if the White House “embraces” Common Core together with myriad Federal, state,
and local education-affiliated organizations, including teachers’ unions, then the
states had better adopt Common Core.

David Solway
gives an indication of how deeply the Muslim interest is in Common Core and the
prepping of American students to live in an Islamic supremacist environment.

Davenport
points out that “Title VI of the Higher Education Act has become a ‘magic
carpet’ for Saudi influence over American schools. Title VI requires Middle
East study centers receiving federal funding to engage in cultural-exchange
programs with U.S. schools. Outreach coordinators, funded by the Saudis, then
create lesson plans for American K-12 teachers.” Publishing giant Pearson Education,
which advertises itself as designing “education products and services to
institutions, governments and direct to individual learners” and certifies
teachers, dominates a significant part of the Common Core industry. According
to the Washington
Times
, Pearson is owned by the Libyan Investment Authority, which
controls 26 million shares in the company. The Times concludes: “The
$632 billion the federal government spends each year on public school
‘education’ is being wasted on violating the First Amendment, by the federal
government instituting a religion through the teaching of Islam in public
schools.” The Federal “Race to the Top” initiative, part and parcel of Common
Core, has ensured the precipitous chute to the bottom.

What
we are observing are the effects of a macropolitical strategy, reinforced not
only by curricular structures and testing practices, but by the ostensibly
innocent maneuvers that feature on the micro-tier of educational procedures.
The nexus between sectarian politics and partisan education is now firmly
entrenched in the American cultural mindscape, and we can see how this plays
out on the level of primary and high school “learning projects.” We have read accounts
of elementary and high school students pledging allegiance in Arabic, observing
Muslim holy days, being drilled in Islamic vocabulary, prayers and culture,
being taught the five pillars of Islam and world history from an Islamic
perspective, reciting the Shahada (“There is no God but Allah and
Mohammed is the messenger of Allah”) and being taken on field trips to mosques
(but not to churches, synagogues or Hindu temples).

One of the aims of Common Core is to drill into the
heads of American students that there is nothing exceptional about America and
that they’re not special, and that their country is merely a piece of the
“global mosaic” with no extraordinary status among nations.
By the time Obama gets through with “transforming” America, there
won’t be anything exceptional about it.  It
will have been pulled down to the status of just another postmodern, balkanized
political entity scheduled for dissolution and degradation by hordes of savages
and ethnic blocs manipulated by their political handlers and benefactors. That
can’t but please him. The Pact of Umar and the Istanbul Process will have
abrogated the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. See Stephen
Coughlin’s Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, for a description of
that process.
“Transforming” America was ever foremost in Barack Obama’s
mind.

Our Gutted and Gutless FBI: Fiction vs. Reality

I’ve written a number of novels in which I give the
Federal
Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) the benefit of the doubt. I cast the agency in
the role of an ally for justice and as a defender of individual rights and the
sanctity of property. FBI agents befriend my heroes, or my heroes befriend
them.  
Were I pen another novel today and involve the FBI
in the plot, the agency would be cast in a villainous role, because it has
become a tool and instrument of authoritarian political correctness and
enforcement. It would have no more moral or Constitutional legitimacy than does
the IRS, the EPA, the DEA, the FDA, or the HHS.
Nominally, as a federal enforcement agency that
reports to the Department of Justice, the FBI exists to:

protect and defend the United States, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws
of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services
to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners
Currently,
the FBI’s top priorities are:
  1. Protect the United States from terrorist attacks
  2. Protect the United States against foreign
    intelligence operations and espionage
  3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks
    and high-technology crimes
  4. Combat public corruption at all levels
  5. Protect civil rights
  6. Combat transnational/national criminal organizations
    and enterprises
  7. Combat major white-collar crime
  8. Combat significant violent
    crime
  9. Support federal, state, local and international
    partners
  10. Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI’s
    mission
The first novel in which I bring in an FBI agent is
Whisper
the Guns
, completed in 1977 but not published until 1992 by the
Atlantean Press, and then republished in 2011 by the Patrick Henry Press. An agent
flies to Hong Kong to “debrief” the hero, Merritt Fury, who has just broken up
a Red Chinese plot to corner the market on tungsten and caused consternation in
Washington and commodities market panic.
The next novel in which I present a sympathetic FBI
is Presence
of Mind
, finished in 1987, but not published until 2010 by Perfect Crime Books. In this
suspense novel, which pits private detective Chess Hanrahan against the State Department
and a Washington desire to uphold a “peace” treaty with the Soviet Union, the FBI
has been ordered to not investigate the murder of one of its agents because doing
so would throw a monkey wrench into Soviet-engineered rapprochement with the U.S.
 A “rogue” FBI agent nearing retirement
works with Hanrahan to identify the murderer. The killer turns out not to be
Soviet assassin, but a most unlikely “suit.”
Cyrus Skeen, private detective in San Francisco, in
The
Daedàlus Conspiracy
: A Detective novel of 1929
, first deals with the FBI,
then known as the Bureau of Investigation, when he tries to determine the
anarchist political affiliations of a man he suspects will attempt the
assassination of a U.S. Senator. The agency is very cooperative.
In The
Chameleon
: A Detective Novel of 1929
, set in San Francisco, in which
private detective Cyrus Skeen meets with FBI agents to learn what the agency might
know about Nazi activity
in the country. The National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazis) had not
yet risen to power in Germany, and information about their activities in America
is scarce. It was not yet a political force to take serious cognizance of.  But the BOI does have a record of some
private publications that tout the Nazi ideology, and this information aids Skeen
in his investigations. The BOI does not solve the mystery; that is Skeen’s
accomplishment.
The next novel in which the BOI figures is The
Circles of Odin
: A Detective
Novel of 1929.
Skeen asks the Bureau if it has any information on a German
mystical cult that may have connections with the Nazis. Members of the cult
apparently have been murdering San Franciscans as sacrificial offerings to a
Nordic god.
In The Black Stone: A Detective Novel of 1930,
Skeen visits the BOI on Gough Street in San Francisco to see if the agency has
any information on the Muslim Brotherhood or any other Middle East organization.
Skeen is investigating the horrific murders of Jewish girl and a New York newspaper
reporter. The agency knows nothing about the Muslim Brotherhood and not much
more about Middle Eastern affairs.
Finally, the BOI turns up in A
Crimson Overture
: A Detective
Novel of 1930
, and again the private detective, Skeen, consults the BOI
about the extent of Soviet espionage in the U.S. and in particular in the San
Francisco Bay Area. A British spy has been murdered, but there is evidence that
she was assassinated by a Soviet mole. And in the course of the story, an FBI agent
is later murdered with an ice pick. Skeen and a handful of agents become allies
and friends.
That wouldn’t happen today. Not in any future novel
I might write.
When I was researching The Chameleon, there was some information I needed to learn but which
only the FBI could give me. Or so I thought. This was about where the BOI’s offices
were located in San Francisco, the size of its staff, and other minor details. I
contacted the local FBI office in Richmond, and posed my queries. With all the information
the Bureau collects and stores, surely, I thought, it would know where its
offices were located around the country in any given period. The Richmond office
in turn contacted FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. A hush-hush telephone conference
was scheduled for me with two agents and a monitor at headquarters.  
The whole exercise of agency caution was pointless,
and, from my perspective, utterly fruitless. Nobody knew anything, not where
the BOI was located in San Francisco in 1929, how big the office and staff were,
and so on.  If there were records of
correspondence between headquarters and regional offices, they were probably molding
in a cardboard box in some warehouse. I had the same problem with locating the
British, German, and French consulates in the city in Skeen’s time. Nobody knew
anything, not Washington, not London, not Berlin, not Paris, not their
embassies, and not any of their current consulates. I wound up having to scour
the Internet and resort to the local library and old newspaper files to find
the information about the BOI and the consulates. I found it all, but with no
assistance from any these government entities. Invaluable starting points were
the San Francisco telephone directories from 1929 and 1930. From those I followed
what seemed like an endless trail of connecting dots until I got the answers I needed.

The occasion for this divorce (à la Islam: “I divorce thee! I divorce thee! I divorce thee!” – but
then the new FBI wouldn’t know what I was talking about, since it isn’t allowed
to know anything about Islam) is the linebacker role the agency is performing
for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as its pyromaniac flunkies and thugs set
fire to empty
land in Oregon to intimidate and dispossess cattle ranchers
of their property. Rather than admit that a terrorist with terrorist ties and
predilections has committed a terrorist act in the name of Islam, the agency
will now give the public its own style of taqiyya
(Islamic double-speak) until it can no longer deny that the terrorist act was
an act of Islamic terrorism, and that it really had nothing to do with “extremism”
or “radicalization.” Listening to FBI Director James Comey or any other recent
Director talk his way out of admitting the fact that Islam has everything to do
with terrorism, especially when the terrorists boast of it, is like listening
to Porky Pig recite the alphabet.
The FBI has abandoned its mandate to preserve and
protect this country and its Constitution. It can blame President Barack Obama all
it wants for ordering the redaction of all references to Islam and Muslims in
its literature and training materials, but good, honest FBI employees would
leave the agency or revolt against Obama’s domestic ROE’s. Perhaps that’s what
they’ve done, for it seems the country is saddled with paycheck collectors more
worried about their perks than anything else.
Now it is running interference for one of the most
notorious land-grabbing federal agencies, the BLM, squelching independent
reporting of what is happening in Oregon and calling the patriots who occupied
a vacant federal shack in protest of the railroading of two ranchers “terrorists.”
Rather than admit that the BLM is an agent of
federal terrorism with a long record of property seizure, confiscation, and
destruction, it is partnering with this mini empire builder. This is disgrace
the FBI will have to live down for a long time.
Today, I wouldn’t give an FBI agent the time of
day. He would have to confiscate my watch – at gunpoint.

Twitter’s Blue Bird of Sharia Compliance

Twitter seems to be in partnership with the U.S.
House of Representatives in its determination to culturally enrich America with
Sharia speech restrictions. On December 22nd I reported, in my Rule of Reason  column, “A
Congressional Overture to Censorship
,” on House Resolution 569, submitted
on December 17th to the House committee process, which in its content and
intent, preempted Twitter’s January 1st, 2016, publication of its new rules
that prohibit the promotion of hate content, “sensitive” topics, and the
advocacy of violence globally. Ostensively, it is a stab at combating
terrorists from using Twitter
as a means of communication to its allies and its enemies, but it is too
coincidental with both the Congressional resolution and the OIC’s Sharia
compliance plans. Here is a copy and paste from Twitter’s support page.

What products or services are subject to this policy?

This policy
applies, but is not limited, to:
·        
Hate speech
or advocacy against an individual, organization or protected group based on race, ethnicity, national origin, color, religion, disability, age, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, veteran status or other protected status. Violence
or threats of violence against people or animals
·        
Glorification
of self-harm or related content
·        
Organizations
or individuals associated with promoting hate, criminal, or terrorist-related
content
·        
Inflammatory content which is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction or
cause harm.
  • Offensive,
    vulgar, abusive or obscene content 
    [Emphasis mine]
What products or services are not
subject to this policy? 
This policy generally does not
prohibit:
  • News and
    information that calls attention to hate, sensitive topics, or violence,
    but does not advocate for it
  • Commentary
    about products, services, companies, or brands, including potentially
    negative commentary
 The Twitter rules do not mention Islam or Muslims, but the whole
statement is in line with the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s
(OIC) Ten-Year-Programme to impose UN Human Rights Council Resolution
16/18
globally and especially on the U.S.  The OIC “program” was inaugurated
in December 2005 and has, as of December 31st, 2015, accomplished its ten-year
goal. In Part III of its program, it specifies:
III.     
Islam – The Religion of Moderation and Tolerance
1.  Endeavour
to spread the correct ideas about Islam as a religion of moderation and
tolerance and to safeguard Islamic values, beliefs and principles in order to
fortify Muslims against extremism and narrow-mindedness.
2.  Condemn
extremism in all its forms and manifestations, as it contradicts Islamic and
human values; and address its political, economic, social, and cultural
root-causes, through development programs and resolution of long-standing
conflicts, which are to be faced with rationality, persuasion, and good
counsel.
 3.  Emphasize
that inter-civilizational dialogue, based on mutual respect and understanding,
and equality amongst people are prerequisites for international peace and
security, tolerance, peaceful co-existence, and participation in developing the
mechanism for that dialogue.
4.  Encourage
inter-religious dialogue and underline common values and denominators.
5.  Ensure
the participation of the OIC and its specialized bodies, as a proactive
partner in the dialogue among civilizations and religions, as well as in
initiatives and efforts exerted in this regard.
6. Utilize
the different mass media in order to serve and defend the causes of the Muslim
Ummah, promote the noble principles and values of Islam, and correct
misconceptions about it.
7.  Strive
for the teaching of Islamic education, culture, civilization, and the
jurisprudence and literature of difference; call on Member States to cooperate
amongst themselves in order to develop balanced educational curricula that
promote values of tolerance, human rights, openness, and understanding of other
religions and cultures; reject fanaticism and extremism, and establish pride in
the Islamic identity.
Stephen Coughlin has minutely detailed the stealth jihad concerning
“interfaith dialogue” throughout his Catastrophic
Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, but most particularly
in the Appendix, Part XI, “Interfaith Outreach,” reviewed on Rule of Reason in “Interfaith
Bridges to Islam
.” The OIC’s principal goal is to stamp out “Islamophobia.”
Stating the truth about Islam is treated as “Islamophobia,” and even stating a
demonstrable and uncontroversial truth about Islam is “slander.”

What must be kept in mind when reading Point III is that all the
benign, surfacy terms such as “understanding,” “tolerance,” “mutual respect,” “openness,”
“human rights, and “equality” do not mean to the OIC or in Sharia what they
mean to Westerners. They mean the exact opposite. Exploiting the postmodern
miasma of words having no fixed meaning, The OIC and its UN doppelganger
Resolution 16/18 have consciously engaged in what can only be called Super-Taqiyya, of saying one thing to
the public but meaning quite another thing to and among Muslims.
VII.    
Combating Islamophobia
1.  Emphasize
the responsibility of the international community, including all governments,
to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation.
2.   Affirm
the need to counter Islamophobia, through the establishment of an observatory
at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an
annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with the relevant Governmental and
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in order to counter Islamophobia.
3.  Endeavor
to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter
Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including
deterrent punishments.
4.  Initiate
a structured and sustained dialogue in order to project the true values of
Islam and empower Muslim countries to help in the war against extremism and
terrorism.
VIII.  Human
Rights and Good Governance:
1.  Seriously
endeavor to enlarge the scope of political participation, ensure equality,
civil liberties and social justice and to promote transparency and
accountability, and eliminate corruption in the OIC Member States.
2.  Call
upon the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers to consider the possibility of
establishing an independent permanent body to promote human rights in the
Member States, in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration on
Human Rights in Islam and to also call for the elaboration of an OIC Charter
for Human Rights. Introduce changes to national laws and regulations in order
to guarantee the respect of human rights in Member States.
3. Mandate
the OIC General Secretariat to cooperate with other international and regional
organizations to guarantee the rights of Muslim Minorities and Communities in
non-OIC Member States, and promote close cooperation with the Governments of
the States hosting Muslim communities.
 If one treats the OIC as a global caliphate
entity, one can see that it is already moving to impose Sharia controls over everyone
everywhere, affiliated with the United Nations. The House Resolution, however,
is certainly copacetic with both the OIC’s program and UN Resolution 16/18 and with even the Countering Violent
Extremism narrative (CVE), which is built into our emasculated “War on Terror”
efforts
. One can only suspect that the wording of Resolution 569 is not
only indicative of Congress’s willingness to submit to Sharia, but also of the
subornation of Congress itself by a foreign power to abridge or obviate the
First Amendment. The OIC is certainly a “foreign power.”
Frank Gaffney, in his Breitbart column of January 3rd,
Shariah-Compliant
Twitter
,” reported also that a sitting president and a presidential
candidate (but then Secretary of State) are behind UN 16/18 and the OIC’s
efforts to gag America when it comes to even thinking about Islam.
In
2011, with the active support of the Obama administration, this gambit
produced UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. It basically gives the
imprimatur of international law to Shariah’s demand that speech, books, videos
and now Tweets that “defame” Muslims or their faith be prohibited.
In
July of that year, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicated herself
personally in this affront to our First Amendment guarantee of free expression.
She launched with the OIC and the European Union the so-called “Istanbul
Process,” a tripartite effort to accommodate the Islamic supremacists’ demands
that Western nations conform to Resolution 16/18 by adopting domestic
strictures against offense-giving to Muslims. 
On
that occasion, Mrs. Clinton famously declared
her willingness “to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and
shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we
abhor.” The message could not have been more clear to jihadists around the
world: The United States was submitting to shariah blasphemy norms.
Clinton has since doubled down on that commitment.
Medichecker, in “Hillary Clinton: Defamation of Islam Must be Prevented
— in America (UN Resolution 16-18
)
, ” reported on May 1st,
2014:
At
the invitation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
representatives of 26
governments and four international organizations met in Washington, D.C. on
December 12-14, 2011 to discuss the implementation of United Nations Human
Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18 on “Combating Intolerance, Negative
Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence
and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.”
In her closing
remarks, Secretary Clinton stressed, “The United States is hosting this
conference because religious freedom and freedom of expression are among our
highest values. They are enshrined in our Constitution. For people everywhere,
faith and religious practice is a central source of our identity. It provides
our lives with meaning and context. It is fundamental to who we are.” (Emphasis
in article; Italics mine.)
There’s that Obama meme, “Who we are,” about which he
knows nothing concerning who or what the U.S. is, or is hostile to. It has been
repeated several times since 2014 by the usual suspects. Mediachecker goes on
to point out:
The
OIC’s purpose, as stated explicitly in its April 2011 4th Annual
Report
on Islamophobia, is to criminalize “incitement to hatred and
violence on religious grounds.” Incitement is to be defined by applying the
“test of consequences” to speech. Under this twisted perversion of falsely
“yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” it doesn’t matter what someone actually
says — or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence
and says it’s because of something that person said, the speaker will be
held criminally liable
.
(Emphasis
in article)
In other terms, if you called Al Capone a syphilitic
mobster, it would be a true statement, but it would earn you a pair of concrete
shoes and a permanent dip in Lake Michigan. “Yes, it’s true,” Frank NItti ,
Capone’s second-in-command and heir, might say, “but we don’t want you should
be telling others that, people might get the wrong impression, it’s slander and
a defamation of Al’s character.”
The
OIC is taking direct aim at free speech and expression about Islam. Neither
Christianity nor Judaism
is named in the OIC’s official documents, whose
only concern is to make the world safe from “defamation” of Islam — a charge
that includes speaking truthfully about the national security implications of
the Islamic doctrine of jihad. (Emphasis
in article)
Per the OIC and Resolution 16/18 rules, under “Slander
and Free Expression”, Part IV, “Organization of the Islamic Caliphate,”  in Catastrophic
Failure
, Stephen Coughlin goes into detail about the implications of making
a true statement about Islam. He quotes from Reliance
of the Traveler
, a basic and fairly comprehensive manual of shariah law:
Under
the Sharia slander regime, someone can be guilty of slander even if what is
said is true. Getting more specific from Reliance:
In
fact, talebearing is not limited to
that, but rather consists of revealing anything
whose disclosure is resented
….The reality of talebearing lies in divulging
a secret, in revealing something confiddential whose disclosure is resented. A person should not speak of anything he
notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim
.
Slander
in Islamic law does not necessarily concern questions of truth or falsity but
rather the inviolability of Muslims and, by extension, the Qur’an, Islam, and
its Prophet. Slander is saying something disfavored by Islam.  (pp. 249-250; emphasis author’s.)

In every set of rules, even in Sharia,
there is a loophole. Coughlin continues:
There
are, however, six reasons for permitting slander, only one of which we will
review. From “Permissible Slander,” in Reliance:
Slander,
though unlawful, is sometimes permissible for a lawful purpose…the legitimating
factor being that there is some aim
countenanced by sacred law that is unattainable by other means
.”
This
means that when an issue favored by shariah cannot be advanced honestly, then
defaming an opponent or his issue becomes permissible. This can take the form of
accusing someone of defaming Islam or, as has become the narrative, of
Islamophobia. (p. 250; emphasis
author’s.)
It also means defaming Israel, defaming Germans who
protest the Islamification of Germany, slandering Britons who oppose the
Islamification of Britain, and so on. The worst adherents to Sharia law in
defaming their enemies, are not Muslims, but dhimmified Western politicians,
charitable organizations, and the Sharia observant MSM.
Twitter, five percent of whose stock is owned by Saudi
Prince Alwaleed
Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, a co-enabler of Islamic terrorism
together with his princely brothers, cousins, and nephews, who in 2011 invested
$300 million
in the social network, has been dhimmified, as well.
Tweeters, be advised. And beware. Twitter is
becoming a veritable anti-social network, thanks to Sharia.
Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, by Stephen Coughlin. Washington DC: Center
for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.

Some Cheap Shots at Islam

Permit me some levity and incidental observations
about Islam. It’s a stress reliever. And I need to laugh occasionally;
otherwise I’d curl up in a fetal position and suck my thumb. Not really. But I
do need to vent my inner humor
For starters, it would be interesting to delve
briefly into the psychological and character makeup of the man the Muslim
Brotherhood (MB) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have
practically elevated to sainthood, Sayyid Qutb. He is the prissy Muslim squirt
whose various scribblings are held in such high esteem by the Ummah. Qutb (1906-1966) wrote Milestones, which is considered such a basic,
fundamental document in the Islamic literature, that it may as well be treated
by infidels (looking in from the outside) as an extension of the Koran. Omar Sacirbey in a February 2011
Washington Post article called him the Muslim Brotherhood’s “intellectual
godfather
.”
Beginning in 1948, Qutb spent about two and a half
years in America (with some little time in Washington, D.C. and Palo, Alto,
California), attending a college in Greeley, Colorado. He was sent there, as
the story goes, by his friends in the Egyptian ministry of education to get him
out of harm’s way from the Nasser government, which was beginning to be annoyed
by the Muslim Brotherhood’s call for a return to Islamic purity. Qutb was
showing signs of sympathizing with those calls. As Robert Irwin, in a Guardian
article
of late October 2001, put it:
Everything
changed in 1948 when he was sent to study education in the US. It was a fateful
decision. Perhaps those who sent him thought that it would broaden his
horizons.
Instead, the sojourn in Colorado shriveled his
horizons. He was alienated by American culture and society. He wanted to be a
“good” Muslim, not a part-time Muslim. That meant renouncing virtually all
earthly temptations and pleasures.
Almost
immediately his newfound resolve was tested on the [ocean] liner, as a drunken
American woman attempted to seduce him. Qutb did not succumb, nor was he later
won over by the charms of the American way of life. He was repelled by
prejudice against Arabs and shocked by the freedom that American men allowed
their women. He described the churches as “entertainment centers and
sexual playgrounds”. After two and a half years of exposure to western
civilization he knew that he hated it and, on his return to Egypt in 1951, he
joined the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood.
Who knew that American culture and society could so
aggrieve a person that he would devote a goodly portion of his hate-filled writing
and preaching to excoriating America? Greeley was a “dry” town, with nary a bar
insight (it became “wet” in 1969). It was a church-going town, too, and this is
what the easily offended Qutb probably saw as America’s greatest failing and
sin: they were virtually the only venues where men and women could meet and
socialize. It was also too “materialistic” and obsessed with sports. A Smithsonian
article
from February 2006 noted:
Regarding the excesses of American
culture—vulgarity, materialism and promiscuity—Qutb expressed shock, but it
rang a bit hollow. “The American girl
is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity,” he wrote. “She knows it
lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows
seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely
thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it.”

These curvy jezebels pursued boys with “wide, strapping chest[s]” and “ox
muscles,” Qutb  added with disgust. Yet
no matter how lascivious his adjectives, the fastidious, unmarried Egyptian
could not convincingly portray the church dances and Look magazines he
encountered in sleepy Greeley as constituting a genuine sexual “jungle.”
Qutb ought to have spent some time in the American
South among the Baptists, which was and probably remains a greater sexual
“jungle” than staid, religiously conservative Greeley, Colorado. But I suspect
that Qutb’s objection to those American girls who knew how to flaunt their
assets, and those robust American boys who conquered them, was based on envy
because of an Islam inculcated incapacity in himself to enjoy life. Islam
frowns on earthly paradises because those pleasures and temptations will be
available in Islamic paradise. Allah’s Paradise doubtless is imagined by the
faithful as one eternal disco party, with Allah as the Wolfman Jack-like DJ,
with flashing disco balls overhead, with with scantily clad houris lap- and
pole-dancing, with an open bar and buffet, and “private rooms” galore for all
the randy Rashids and “martyrs.”
A National
Public Radio
broadcast of May 2003 noted that Qutb reported:
“They
danced to the tunes of the gramophone, and the dance floor was replete with
tapping feet, enticing legs, arms wrapped around waists, lips pressed to lips,
and chests pressed to chests. The atmosphere was full of desire…”
In another life, Sayyid Qutb could have been the
author of a dozen sexually charged bodice-rippers,
writing under the name of Pearly Gates.
Egyptian
political scientist Mamoun Fandy tells [Robert] Siegel that Qutb’s critique of
America was in many ways a critique of Egyptian society. “Fandy says Qutb
was warning Egyptians of the West, of modernity, of things they were very
attracted to,” Siegel says. As for Qutb’s revulsion over American
sexuality, Fandy says there is no evidence that Qutb ever had a sexual
relationship in his life.
From my readings of Qutb, and especially what
little of his 1950 The America That I
Have Seen
I have been able to read (called a “book” in some quarters, it
was only a magazine-length
article), he was a repressor with no capacity for enjoyment in life other than
perhaps food. He may have also been a latent homosexual. (He was especially exercised
by Greeley’s “bloody, monstrous” wrestling matches.)
To Qutb, America was jahili, or backward, as much of a “moral desert” as the Arabian
Peninsula was before Mohammad converted it by sword and extortion. Concerning
the “proper” role of sex in his “perfect” world, Qutb wrote in Milestones:
The
family system and the relationship between the sexes determine the whole
character of a society and whether it is back or civilized, jahili or Islamic. Those societies which
give ascendance to physical desires and animalistic morals cannot be considered
civilized, no matter how much progress they may make in industry or science.
This is the only measure which does not err in gauging true human progress….
Thus,
only Islamic values and morals, Islamic teachings and safeguards, are worthy of
mankind, and from this unchanging and true measure of human progress, Islam is
the real civilization and Islamic society is truly civilized. (pp. 98-99; Milestones, Dar Al-Ilm, Damascus, Syria,
no publication date).
I’ve always tried to imagine what a global
caliphate would look like. It is world domination that the Islamic Movement
seeks to accomplish. Here’s one translation of the applicable Koranic verse, Chapter (2) sūrat l-baqarah (The Cow,
2-193):
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah
(disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind
of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no
transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers,
etc.)
So, there would be a global caliphate, divvied up
between a bingo cage of sub- or regional caliphates. But it wouldn’t matter
where you lived. It would be an “ideal” Islamic society, such as Qutb
envisioned. Practically, it would be a society in stasis, a society arrested in
progress, immobile, and stagnant. Everyone would be a Muslim, except for what
remained of the unconquered, unbelieving infidels, who would presumably be kept
in an open-air corral and trotted out to work in salt mines or granite quarries.
An electronic signal from the magic clock
tower
in Mecca would inform everyone that it was time to pray, and every
Muslim in the world would stop what he was doing and, facing East and Mecca,
perform the Shahada
and other Islamic ablutions, sink to his (or her) knees, raise his derriere (an
action which I call mooning the West and Western civilization), and mutter his complete,
degrading, and utter servitude
and submission
to Allah.
“There
is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” Longer versions are
common, especially those beginning with “I bear witness” or “I testify,” e.g.:  “I bear witness that there is no god but
Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
The ideal Islamic society is a society calculated
to dull the sharpest minds, or to keep them submerged until they drown. The
whole world would be at “peace” (a Sharia-enforced “peace”), nothing important
or noteworthy would happen, passions would be abridged or squashed, there would
be no one left to “fight,” it would be insufferably dull and uneventful, except
for the chance to taunt the surviving infidels.
Allah, by the way, is an indescribable being with
the contradictory powers of omniscience and omnipotence. Most artistic
representations of him have been made by Western artists. Islam forbids any
representations of Allah to prevent “idolatry,” as well of Mohammad. The Greeks
and the Romans at least imagined their gods (and goddesses) as beings of human
form. Eastern religions mostly fashioned their gods after animals or human-like
animals (or, if you will, animal-like humans). But Allah is just a “force,” and
so, in the abstract, is the Judeo-Christian Supreme Being. Perhaps this is the
ubiquitous “Force” in the Star Wars
films. ”May the Force be with you.” The most iconic Christian depiction of God
is Michelangelo’s on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican. The
Jewish Torah
and Talmud
also state that man was created in God’s image, although there are no Jewish
artistic representations of God. 
Without any known human attributes, Allah must be
imagined to be some kind of glowing, pulsating force of a whimsical mien. One
could call him the Supreme Finger-Snapper, except we don’t know if he (or it)
has any hands. Or arms or legs. Or a head. Or a torso.
Former Christian clerics, if they participated in Interfaith
Dialogue
with Muslim clerics, and learned to their ultimate dismay that
Islam promotes Unifaith, or Islam, as the only true faith,  would have also learned by now that the Jesus
they once touted as the bringer of peace, tolerance,  brotherly love, and turning the other cheek
was not the same Jesus, or Isa. Christ was one of
the Biblical characters that the early Koranic fabricators appropriated from
early Christianity. The Islamic Jesus was a bonafide Muslim preacher. This
Islamic Conan the Barbarian
will slay
swine and fight the one-eyed Deceiver
, Dajjāl,
who will pose as a Messiah or a
prophet. Isa will defeat him in a terrific battle.
The
three actions of breaking “the cross”, killing pigs and abolishing the jizyah
tax are based on the notion that Jesus will eliminate all other religions on
the earth other than Islam.  Shafi and Usmani explain that to “break the
cross” means to “abolish worship of the cross”.  Several Muslim friends
that I’ve spoken with have expressed their understanding of this tradition:
Jesus will break or remove all crosses from the rooftops and steeples of
churches throughout the earth. 
This
action will thus indicate that Jesus will be making a clear statement regarding
his disapproval of the false notion that he was ever crucified on a
cross.  The killing of the swine is so that the “Christian belief of its
lawfulness is belied.” 14 The reason for abolishing the jizyah tax
(the compulsory poll-tax that non-Muslims must pay in order to live in a Muslim
land) is based on the idea that when Jesus returns, the jizyah tax will no
longer be accepted.  The only choice that Christians will have is to
accept Islam or die. As Sideeque M.A. Veliankode states in Doomsday Portents
and Prophecies
:
Jesus,
the son of Mary will soon descend among the Muslims as a just judge… Jesus
will, therefore, judge according to the law of Islam… all people will be
required to embrace Islam and there will be no other alternative.
The Islamic story of the Virgin Birth is also a tweak
from the Christian tale. Allah just said, “Be!” and unmarried “Maryam” was with
child. Joseph the cuckolded carpenter makes no appearance in the story, either.
Muslims angrily deny that Christ was the son of Allah. Muslims say that Allah
would never stoop to such a ridiculous ruse. Isa was just another mortal, but a
special one who could speak almost as soon as he emerged from the womb, and worked
miracles even before he was out of diapers, or what passed for diapers in
pre-Mohammad times. He was never crucified. He just vanished in his early
twenties, and was reputed to return at the End of Days to swing his sword and cause mayhem
among the unbelievers, and then act as co-judge with Mohammad about who should
enter Paradise and who should burn in Hell forever. However, the tale of Maryam
brings new meaning to the role of single motherhood.
That battle scene scenario would be great material
for a new video game, or a big-screen Islamic epic, something on the order of a
Star Wars movie.  The Islamic Jesus could wield a light saber
instead of a genuine sword. Al-Buraq,
Mohammad’s winged horse with the head of a woman could play a role, too, picking
up thousands of unbelievers and dropping them from 10,000 feet. There would be
a CGI cast of millions of armed Muslims with zap guns against millions of Satan’s
soldiers flailing away at everyone with their katanas and tossing bacon
falafels at the enemy, causing great consternation among the devout and almost
causing Jesus to lose the battle. What a spectacle that would be!
There. That’s out of my system. And now back to our
regularly scheduled programming.

I might add that I’m merciless in my treatment of Islam
in my novel, The
Black Stone
, a Cyrus Skeen detective novel, set in San Francisco in
1930.
 

Interfaith Bridges to Islam

Writing as an atheist, I at first thought it would
be difficult to comment on a specific part of Stephen Coughlin’s Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, which is Part XI:
Interfaith Outreach (Appendix One, pp. 511-574). But Coughlin presents the
subject in such clear terms that it was  fascinating and definitely instructive to
observe how the Islamic Movement ensnares Christians and Jews in “interfaith
dialogue” for the Muslim Brotherhood’s own nefarious purposes. Much of the
slithering methods of the interfaith dialogue promoted by various Islamic
organizations, which can be viewed as a master template, can be seen in how
Muslim “experts” in Islam are used to help American counter-intelligence
formulate useless and vacuous analyses of threats by ISIS and al-Qaeda and
other terrorist groups, which is also exhaustively detailed by Coughlin in his
book.  

Readers and fans of my novels know that I can mock
any religion, but refrain from such business in real life because all those
religions but one are not out to kill, convert, or subjugate me. They leave me
alone, I leave them alone. Except for Mormon and Jehovah Witnesses
door-knockers, who are mostly unsolicited pests. They’re not on my doorstep for
long.
The exception is Islam.
The biggest beneficiary of postmodernism – that is,
the broad movement of denial of the value and efficacy of reason – aside from
the Democrats, aside from the “trigger warning” and “safe place” addicts, aside
from the advocates of open borders, aside from the advocates of moral relativism,
aside from gun-control advocates, aside from Black Lives Matter, aside from the
assailants on the First Amendment, and etc., is Islam. In  the suffocating, mind-stunting miasma of
postmodernist thought and practice in Western culture, the biggest victor is
and will continue to be Islam.
Postmodernism has allowed Islam unopposed and
unparalleled entrée into the minds and values of Westerners. Coughlin discusses
how this entrée works and the consequences of Christian and Jewish religionists
compromising their own beliefs by agreeing to form a “united front” for peace
and coexistence and multi-beliefs with Islam. He correctly identifies the chief
culprit and enabler of Muslim Brotherhood-dominated interfaith dialogue as
postmodernism. Postmodernism is not incidental to the inroads being made by
Islam in the West. It is a key factor.
Without the assist of postmodernism – which Islam
did not create – neither the Brotherhood nor the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC) could exploit the self-criticism of the West nor inveigle
their way into the language and behavior of non-Muslim interfaith participants.
Islam would be stopped cold, told to return to the miserable pestholes from
which it came, and not admitted through the gates of Aristotelian thought. The
shiny shield of reason consistently applied to everything and every idea, could
not be breached by the underhanded finagling and deft finessing machinations of
the Brotherhood and the OIC.
A West that doubts or questions its own value qua
West is destined for destruction, either by Islam or by “its own hands.” Islam
will provide the rope.
Islam has proved adept in exploiting the
anti-reason, anti-man culture of the postmodern world. But its somersaults and
linguistic gymnastics would fall flat in a one hundred percent Aristotelian
West.
What is postmodernism? Britannica
Online
has a succinct description:
Postmodernism as a
philosophical movement is largely a reaction against the philosophical
assumptions and values of the modern period of Western (specifically European)
history—i.e., the period from about the time of the scientific revolution of
the 16th and 17th centuries to the mid-20th century. Indeed, many of the
doctrines characteristically associated with postmodernism can fairly be
described as the straightforward denial of general philosophical viewpoints
that were taken for granted during the 18th-century Enlightenment,
though they were not unique to that period.
For example:
The
descriptive and explanatory statements of scientists and historians can, in
principle, be objectively true or false. The postmodern denial of this
viewpoint—which follows from the rejection of an objective natural reality—is
sometimes expressed by saying that there is no such thing as Truth.
The Brotherhood and the OIC would agree: There is
no such thing as Truth – except for the “truth” of Islam. And what is it that
the Brotherhood and the OIC have had successes in corrupting, sabotaging, and
misdirecting?
Reason
and logic are universally
valid—i.e., their laws are the same for, or apply equally to, any thinker and
any domain of knowledge. For postmodernists, reason and logic too are merely
conceptual constructs and are therefore valid only within the established
intellectual traditions in which they are used.
Coughlin begins “Interfaith Outreach” with:
While
penetrating government and civil organizations is important, the interfaith
movement constitutes a major supporting line of operations in Brotherhood
penetration operations. Through subversion of the interfaith community, the Brotherhood
seeks to manipulate other religions in furtherance of dislocating their faith.
[Its ultimate goal being the imposition of Sharia law.] Regarding the
interfaith community, the “hands of the believers” are primarily the
Brotherhood and Islamic Movement participants, while “their hands” refers to
those non-Muslim clerics (ministers, priests, and rabbis) who help facilitate
the mission of “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”
[Excerpted from the Brotherhood Explanatory
Memorandum
of 1991.]  Because a
Quranic basis exists for what the Brotherhood strategy states is its
intent,  all interfaith activities
emanating from or involving known Brotherhood groups should be viewed with this
understanding. (p. 512)

Imams and other Muslims who meet with non-Muslim
clerics are not so much having a “dialogue” as engaging in dawah, or Islamic proselytizing. It is a one-way street, and the
non-hostile, non-threatening conviviality of Muslim clerics with the clerics of
the People of the Book (Christians and Jews, called in the Koran apes and pigs) blinds the clerics to what is actually
happening.

Coughlin discusses at length book published in 2011
by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), based in Herndon,
Virginia., Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide
for Muslims
, by Muhammad Shatfiq and Mohammed Abu-Nimmer. It is a kind of
guide of what to do and say and what not to or say when having a “dialogue”
with non-Muslim clerics.
From another Islamic publication, The Methodology of Dawah Illallah in
American Perspective,
by Shamin Siddiqi, published in 1989 by The Forum for
Islamic Work, based in Brooklyn, New York, Coughlin quotes from Siddiqi on the
similarities between that publication and Interfaith
Dialogue
:
The
I.M.O.A. [Islamic Movement in America – an early designation for the Muslim
Brotherhood in America] will open dialogues with dignitaries of the religious
institutions, presenting Islam as the common legacy of Judeo-Christian
religions and as the only Guidance now available to mankind in its most perfect
form for its Falah (Deliverance and
Salvation). These talks must be held in a very
friendly and non-aggressive atmosphere
, as directed by Allah (SWT) in the
Qur’an as to how to talk with people of the scripture – “And argue not with the people of the Scripture unless it be in a way
that is better.”
[bold the author’s] (Al- Qur’an  — 28,.46)
The “common legacy,” Muslim dialogue participants
will not enlighten their opposite numbers with, is that the Koran historically
was a work-in-progress over centuries that cadged from Judeo-Christian texts
and lore. Coughlin:
As
Siddiqi stated, the Brotherhood views the methodologies used in dawah as
prescribed by Allah. When assessing the intentions of the Brotherhood’s work
product, it is important to remember that is manner of communication is
generally consistent with Omar Ahmad’s requirements to send two messages in the
same communication:
…We
will recognize the source of any message which comes out of us…if a message is
publicized, we will know…the media person among us will recognize that you send
two messages; one to the Americans and
one to the Muslims….
(Bold Coughlin’s]
Coughlin highlights what non-Muslim clerics ought
to know about the Brotherhood’s ends that is rooted in Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones,
but don’t know because they are too enthralled by the prospect of having a dialogue
with Muslims without being cursed out or killed.

Another
indicator that interfaith Dialogue
reflects the Muslim Brotherhood mission is the repeated allusion to bridge
building. Sayyid Qutb used this term in Milestones
to set the limits of dawah interaction with non-Muslims: “the chasm between
Islam and Jahiliyyah [society and
government of unbelievers, or, pagan ignorance; specifically, a pre-Koranic
state of ignorance ]is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that
the people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people
of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam.” P. 515)
In short, the interfaith dialogue “bridge” only exists,
as far as the Muslim Brotherhood is concerned, to facilitate non-believers to
cross over to Islam. It’s a one-way bridge. Muslims will never cross it to join
the non-believers.
There’s more. Why are Muslim clerics so eager to
share the same air with infidel clerics? Coughlin writes:

Interfaith Dialogue positions Hudaybiyah [a
ten-year “treaty,” actually a truce, between Mohammad and Meccans in 628 A.D.] to
establish the claim the Prophet had an overwhelming interest in maintaining
peace, even going so far as entering into treaties that were unpopular and
humiliating. Interfaith Dialogue
states:
The
treaty shows that the Prophet preferred peace even at the cost of annoying some
of his close followers. He knew that peaceful living would allow Muslims to
dialogue with non-Muslims, move about freely, and build relations with other
tribes. The treaty is an excellent example of giving the extra mile with others
to achieve peace.
But, there’s a catch, which Coughlin details.
Without
an awareness of Islamic law [Sharia], interfaith partners read this observation
and think it reflects an ongoing commitment to peace grounded in an explicit
preference of the Prophet. Yet a quick reference to Reliance of the Traveller makes it clear that this is not the case.
The relevant shariah is in the section on jihad concerning truces. Reliance shows that Islamic law does not
permit treaties, but recognizes only truces that are made on a short-term
basis. Of note, Interfaith Dialogue erroneously
designates Hudaybiyyahas a treaty,
not a truce.
Further,
because truces require the nonperformance of jihad, truces are disfavored,
cannot be entered into merely to preserve the status quo, and can only be made
in times when Muslim weakness, lack of numbers, or because the other side may
convert to Islam. (p. 516)
Briefly, no member of the tripartite alliance of jihad, dawah, and ummah in the
organizing principle, which is Sharia, can nullify, frustrate, or contradict
the other two. They work together as one entity in an aggressive ideological gestalt.
Non-Muslim interfaith partners are misled or
deluded when they encounter in their “dialogue” with their Muslim opposite
numbers such terms as “peace,” “goodwill,” “justice,” “injustice,” “liberty of
thought,” and “human rights.” They do not realize, or do not care to know, that
these terms only apply to Muslims. “Peace” is the peace of a global caliphate. “Goodwill”
is extended solely to Muslims. “Justice and “injustice” apply only to Muslims. “Liberty
of thought” means being “free” to convert to Islam. And only Muslims have “human
rights.” Non-Muslims are “tolerated” only if they pay the jizya or poll tax imposed by Islamic authorities. If they refuse,
they die.
When Christian and Jewish clerics read something
like:
Islam
is not an arbitrary religion, nor has it ever ordered Muslims to force others
to adopt it even though it is the final and complete revelation from God. He
says: “Let there by no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from
error.” (Sayyid Qutb, in Islam and Universal
Peace
, Q.II.256). (pp. 518-519)
 …their “hearts
and minds” go aflutter at the prospect of “getting along” with their Muslim “brothers,”
unaware that the words they are familiar with mean that it is an issue of
converting to Islam. The phrase, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” is an
invitation to voluntarily convert to Islam,
that the “Truth” is Islam, and that the “error” is their Christianity or Jewish
faith.

Coughlin notes:

When
Jewish or Christian “partners” work with Muslim Brothers who declare a complete
commitment to peace, are they aware of what is being committed to? The only
thing worse than interfaith partners not knowing the Brotherhood’s agenda when
they engage in outreach with them is that some partners may know. As shepherds of their respective flocks, interfaith
leaders should take the time to know the equities and interests of all parties.
Shepherds who cannot recognize the wolf are not good shepherds. (p. 519)

When meeting with their Muslim interfaith partners,
there are rules that govern the “give and take” about what to say about one’s
religion. But, with Islam, it’s all “take” and very little “give.” It’s the
Jews and Christians who must do the “soul searching” and “reflection” about the
“truth” of their faiths. The terms “reciprocity,” “trust,” and “honesty” might
be in the dialogue lexicon, but they’re not observed by the Muslims. “Reciprocity,”
in the context of interfaith dialogue, for Muslims  is nearly akin to shirk or apostasy, while “honesty” about Islam is right out. The truth
about Islam might frighten the “partners” away, and that would be the end of
the dialogue. The Brotherhood has invested too much effort in getting the
infidel clerics to “sabotage their miserable faiths by their own hands” and at
the hands of the Brotherhood to indulge in frank and brutal honesty about Islam
and their goals. “Trust,” to Muslims, is an understanding that their interfaith
“partners” will not ask Muslims embarrassing questions that would require Muslims
to bare their true intentions. Not that they ever would in any circumstance.

But Christian and Jewish dialogue partners are so
anxious to “iron things out “with their Muslim opposite numbers that they are
virtually hypnotized by their own delusions about what is possible. In effect,
they become subordinate to the Muslim clerics, because the dialogue is
conducted solely on Islamic terms. This is in keeping with the Islamic goal of
becoming the dominant religion; no concessions are made by Muslim interfaith
partners. The “bridge” they throw across the chasm of doctrinal differences is
meant for the infidel clerics to cross over to Islam. Muslims will never set
foot on it.
There are, writes Coughlin, Jewish and Christian
clerics who know what the score is, yet continue the interfaith dialogue
charade and have prestige invested in it. They are willing to compromise – and even
betray – their core religious beliefs to publically meet their Muslim opposite
numbers “half way,” knowing that their Muslim “partners” are in the game for
the whole pot.  Coughlin writes:
Interfaith
rules are thinly veiled postmodern assaults on reason that succeed by undermining
basic principles of logic. (p. 523)
Coughlin cites the three laws of Aristotelian logic
– the law of identity, the law of the non-contradiction, and the law of the
excluded middle – to drive home his point that Jewish and Christian clerics,
visi-a-vis their religious principles, are products of our postmodern culture. They
are willing to accept the contradictions, and hang all their hopes and wishes
for a multifaith détente  on a phantom excluded middle. They are
fascinated with and entranced by the crocodile that smiles at them, unaware
that sooner or later, the crocodile will attack and eat them, but not before
drowning them in their own folly.

Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, by Stephen Coughlin. Washington DC: Center
for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.

 

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén