The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: May 2016

“A Complete Way of Death”

A Coffin Called Islam

On May 26, Family
Security Matters
reprinted an article, co-authored by Clare Lopez and Retired Admiral James A.
Lyons
,  which originally appeared on Accuracy
in Media
. “Misrepresenting the Threat of Islam” largely a critique of
retired General David Petreaus’s article in the Washington
Post
(May 15).

Lopez and Lyons score Petreaus on his politically
correct verbal soft-shoe about Islam, pointing out that he overlooks or chooses
to ignore the fact of the Global Jihadist Movement (GJM), and that Islam is
fundamentally not “religion of peace”
that was “hijacked” by “extremists.” Jihadists, they write,
…are carrying out the core principles of
Islam as specified in the Quran, Shariah and the hadiths.
 Anyone who
has bothered to peruse the Koran,
Sharia law, and the hadiths, will acknowledge that this is a true statement. I
maintain a folder devoted exclusively to violent Koranic verses;  there are
over two hundred of them I could easily cite here. The core principles reside
in those verses and they are taken literally by jihadists of the Sunni and
Shi’ite branches of Islam – as they were meant
to be taken and which do not leave any room for subtextual interpretation. Those
verses do not represent a guide to becoming flower children, but rather to
becoming conquerors and killers.
Lopez and Lyons also upbraid Petreaus on his cheap
shot at the First Amendment.
Petreaus
not so subtly actually attacked our First Amendment rights when he expressed
his concern over the current political dialogue that highlights the threat from
Muslims and Islam. This was unconscionable! He has fallen into the trap of
“Don’t criticize or take a position that might offend” the seventh century
sensibilities of the followers of Islam.
Heeding that draconian advice would effectively
shut down all criticism of Islam – scholarly, satirically, and vocally. Permanently.
No one could open his mouth about or apply a pen to the subject without
inviting a Muslim or government “backlash.” And what were Petreaus’s squeamish
words?
Setting aside moral considerations, those
who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing
directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’
explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling
Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When
Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster
the terrorists’ propaganda. At the same time, such statements directly undermine
our ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and undermining the
allies whose help we most need to win this fight: namely, Muslims….
I fear that neither is true; in fact, the
ramifications of such rhetoric could be very harmful — and lasting.
Let’s parse that statement, and not “set aside moral considerations.”
After all, Muslims are the most sensitive crybabies around (until they become
crybullies).
“…those
who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing
directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.”
Not criticizing or mocking Islam has not
caused al-Qaeda or ISIS or a domestic Muslim convert to refrain from beheadings,
bombings, and conquests. Official government silence, on the other hand, has invited
the terrorists to commit more atrocities. Jihadists rush to fill the vacuum
left open by political correctness and appeals to “moderation.”
The
terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations —
telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion.”
But the
clash of civilizations has been underway for decades, and no American president – not Reagan, not either of the Bushes, and
certainly not Obama – has ever had the courage or the moral rectitude to
recognize that the West ought to be
at war with Islam, especially because Islam has declared war on the West. The
“provocation” has come and gone, and Islam owns it.
When
Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster
the terrorists’ propaganda.”
This is an
indirect reference to Donald Trump, but also to other critics of Muslims and
Islam who have proposed the same thing. I personally fail to understand how
speaking out against Islam and jihadists “bolsters” terrorists’ propaganda.
They will spew their propaganda regardless. They would prefer that we keep our
mouths shut and go quietly into the night, and that anyone voicing opposition
to Islam or Muslims or jihadists be silenced and punished in accordance with the
West ‘
sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of
Muslms by eviscerating freedom of speech (per the Muslim Brotherhood
Memorandum
of 1992). Read a portion of the memorandum here.
“The
process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word
means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America
is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization
from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands
of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious
over all other religions.”
“At the same time, such statements directly
undermine our ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and
undermining the allies whose help we most need to win this fight: namely,
Muslims.”
This is
news to me, that we have “allies” among Muslims in this country or elsewhere.
There’s nothing to “undermine.” A Muslim rooting for the Dallas Cowboys or
having an ice cream cone is not a definition of a Muslim “ally.”
But the
one statement by Lopez and Lyons that caught my attention was this:
Muslims do not consider Islam to be a
“religion.” They call it a “complete way of life.”
A complete way of life. I had encountered the phrase almost
repeatedly in my Islamic readings, but never grasped its significance in
relation to Islam until Lopez and Lyons stressed it.
Yes, I
knew that it meant the totality of
living. Lopez and Lyons wrote:
Clearly, our leaders need to understand that
Islam is a totalitarian ideology,
governed by an alien legal system called Shariah that obligates all Muslims to
carry out jihad to conquer the world and subjugate it to Islamic Law. [Italics
mine]
Every
dictator in history has preached a “way of life” to his subjugated citizens –
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. And in every instance those “ways of life” have
invariably led to misery, slaughter, and poverty. And to death. What the
dictators preached, however, was that the imposed “way of life” was a struggle
to achieve some of kind of happiness on earth.
Islam’s
notion of a “complete way of life” is quite the opposite.
And what
is a “religion?”
Every
definition of it I found boiled down to the same basic parameters: the
institutionalized worship of and reverence for a deity or supernatural being,
with obedience to the deity’s wishes in variance with the severity of the creed.
Some religions impinge on one’s daily life to some degree, or not at all. One’s
“way of life” can include following divinely given golden rules, or none at
all. But most religions allow one to set aside some quantum of mortality for
oneself.
Islam does
not. However, here are some excerpts from a handful of Islamic sites that
emphasize a “complete way of life.”
Argument 2: One could out of sheer academic
interest look at every aspect of life covered by Islam. Then one could develop
alternative forms for each aspect and thereby have a theoretically complete way
of life (assuming that Islam is indeed a complete way of life). However, the
alternative way of life, although complete, would obviously be a
humanly-inspired way of life. Again, being a complete way of life is not a
sufficient condition for being divinely-inspired. The very concept of divine
inspiration includes the concept of being a complete way of life.
This assumption holds that the concept of
divine inspiration logically entails, or analytically includes, the concept of
being a complete way of life.
[Emphasis mine]
Assumption 3: If a way of life is not
complete, then it is not divinely inspired.
It says
that while one may have a “religion,” it does not mean that the “religion” is a
“complete way of life.” It rejects the human element. Islam regards man-made
law as pernicious.
From “Islam 101:”
The Shari‘ah thus
prescribes directives for the regulation of our individual as well as
collective lives. These directives affect such varied subjects as religious
rituals, personal character, morals, habits, family relationships, social and
economic affairs, administration, the rights and duties of citizens, the
judicial system, the laws of war and peace and international relations. They
tell us what is good and bad; what is beneficial and useful and what is
injurious and harmful; what are the virtues which we have to cultivate and
encourage and what are the evils which we have to suppress and guard against;
what is the sphere of our voluntary, personal and social action and what are
its limits; and, finally, what methods we can adopt to establish a dynamic
order of society and what methods we should avoid. The Shari‘ah is a complete
way of life
and an all-embracing social order. [Emphasis mine]
Sharia law commands that its “complete way of
life” be integrated with an “all-embracing social order.” Which means that
Islam is totalitarian, from top to bottom. It embraces everything you do, say,
or think.
A Complete Way Of Life !
Islam is a religion, but not in the western
meaning of religion. The western connotation of the term “religion”
is something between the believer and God. Islam is a religion that organizes all aspects of life on both the
individual and national levels.

Islam organizes your relations with God, with yourself, with your children,
with your relatives, with your neighbor, with your guest, and with other
brethren. Islam clearly establishes your duties and rights in all those
relationships.
Islam establishes a clear system of worship,
civil rights, laws of marriage and divorce, laws of inheritance, code of
behavior, what not to drink, what to wear, and what not to wear, how to worship
God, how to govern, the laws of war and peace, when to go to war, when to make
peace, the law of economics, and the laws of buying and selling. Islam is a complete code of life. [Emphasis mine]

Instead of the crescent and star,

this is the proper symbol of Islam

Islam is
arguably more totalitarian then were Nazism
and Communism. Nazism at least allowed you to eat your sauerkraut in peace
before you attended the next Munich rally or killed another Jew. Communism
allowed you gulp your vodka without recrimination before killing another kulak or
Polish officer in the Katyn Forest.
Islam allows
you nothing that is proscribed or specifically forbidden, or nothing that is
not halal. Every little detail of
living is governed by Islam, except for minor concretes, such as the brand of
your underwear or the make of your car.
And what
is the purpose of Sharia law and conforming to Islam? To gain a place in
Paradise. Life on earth is not important. One’s life is not important except as
it relates to Allah’s will and pleasure. Islam could be said to be similar to
Christian altruism. But in Christianity it is a virtue to sacrifice values. In
Islam, it is a virtue and an obligation to sacrifice non-values. Such as infidels, Jews, and other non-Muslims. Islam
can’t value that which it condemns or does not value; albeit, the non-values can be eliminated, destroyed,
and infidels can be enslaved to serve Muslims and Islamic purposes.
Islam has
no values, not for anyone who values his life, not for anyone who wants to
achieve or keep values. It is the perfect system for those motivated by envy,
by hatred of the good for being the good, and by a Kantian will and rote-learned
imperative to destroy for the sake of destruction. The elimination of values is
the only value possible in Islam. And to a rational Western mind, that is a non-value.
Islam is
not interested in creating a Paradise on earth. It is interested only in
creating a perfect human society that abides by Allah’s wishes. It creates a
hermetically sealed society that permits no air, no choices, and no freedom, with
everything predetermined and beyond the realm of reason and choice. It is the
enemy of volition and values. It is a system of nihilism.
Islam is
literally a “complete way of death.” It is not for nothing that it is often called
a death cult by its critics. Its devout worship and live for death, in various
degrees of fervor, whether or not they consume ice cream or root for the Dallas
Cowboys or set off bombs in Belgian airports or slaughter concert goers in
Paris or massacre 3,000 people on 9/11.
The only
way for “peaceful” Muslims to cast off the stigma of responsibility for the
crimes committed in the name of Islam is to understand and repudiate Islam.
Men like
General Petreaus are politically correct ignoramuses and dhimmis.
However, do
we really want Islam— or systemic nihilism – to gain more than the toe-hold it
already has in America?

Beyond Satire

Real life too often today puts satire to shame. I
shall begin with “Liberal Line Dancing.”

Some years ago in Baltimore I took a stroll through
a street festival near the Inner Harbor. One event I encountered was something I
hadn’t witnessed in person before: line dancing. I had become immersed in the subject
of dancing while researching the Sparrowhawk
series, set in 18th century Britain and America. I learned that it was only in
the early 19th century that individualized dance between couples was introduced
and became popular, preceded by the form of highly formalized and controlled
modes such as the minuet and its variants, in which the couples barely touched
each other.
Until then, from Medieval times to the present, dance
was largely a collective pastime. Line dancing seems to be a hybrid of square dancing,
which itself has roots in contra or country dancing preceding even Shakespeare’s
time, but without participants even having to touch anyone. I was obliged to square
dance in high school, and had to clasp the sweaty palms of dozens of others of
either gender I didn’t know and didn’t want to know. Personal choice in such
affairs of one’s partners was ruled out.
In liberal political, synchronized line dancing,
all the players, in unison, wobble, wiggle, gesticulate, kick, turn about,
swivel their hips, pantomime, roll their shoulders, and place their hands over
their ears, mouths, and ears. The moves are commanded by a dance master,
accompanied by a fiddler playing a monotonous tune over and over again, or
perhaps with a Karaoke player. The most popular liberal line dances are called “The
Shuffle,” “The Dodge,” “Duck and Grovel,” “The Wet Dog,” “The Double Side Step,”
“Shake ‘n Bake,” “The Burqa Bop,” “The Muslim Moon,” “The Prayer Rug Stomp,” “The
Shadada Shimmy,” “The Cover Your Butt,” “The Twirly,” and “The Hillary Rodham.”
Of all the religious, ethnic, or political groups that
make up this country, only Muslims have no dance tradition. Islam does not
permit dancing, except for joyous, spontaneous jumping up and down every time
Americans or Westerners are killed. Muslims only believe in making babies, and
that can’t be comfortably done on the dance floor.
On a more serious note, one of the biggest allies
of Muslim immigration (and also of illegals from South of the Border) are the
myriad “fair housing laws.” The federal government has issued them,
and so has every state and local municipality. “Fair housing laws”
prohibit discrimination by race, creed, etc. by property owners or landlords.  I left this amended comment on a Sultan Knish
column, “Only
Islam Can Save Us From Islam
.”

Employing this law, the feds and Christian charities that bring in Muslims by
the boat full can dump Muslims “immigrants” in places as urban as New
Jersey and as unlikely as Montana.

The irony of a “fair housing” law is similar to that of a state or
city banning smoking in “public” spaces like restaurants, private
clubs, and so on. The irony is that if you set the terms of whom one can
associate with in these conditions, you own the facility, not the owner.
Non-smokers wanted their “safe places” in which to dine. So bars and
restaurants lose business and eventually go out of it. I’ve seen it happen over
and over again where I live.


And if you try to prohibit Muslims from even applying for living space in this
country in a private venue, you no longer own your apartment or residential
block; the government does and the only beneficiaries are the
“discriminated” applicants. You will be called to court and fined up
the wazoo. And probably even told to pay compensation to Muslims for trying to
keep them out of your hair, out of your daughter’s shorts, and off your neck in
terms of knives. You’ve hurt their feelings. Freedom of association is a dead
letter. If you can’t choose your tenants, then you are but a steward of
“public” property, and the master sets the rules.
Related to this subject is the new, utterly bizarre
anti-discrimination rule in New York City, which prohibits private businesses
from barring LGBT and other anti-sex groups from employment and perhaps even
housing, and probably even forces bakeries to bake cakes or taking wedding
photographs of people you really don’t want to see or touch. Daniel Greenfield
discusses this rule in a Front Page article, “New
York is Enforcing Gender Identities It Can’t Define
.”
Individuals
living in New York City can choose from a minimum of 31 different gender
identities, many of which allow them to fluctuate between some version or a combination
of male or female identities.
Businesses
that don’t respect and accommodate an individual’s chosen gender identity
risk incurring six-figure fines under rules implemented by the city’s
Commission on Human Rights.
The list
of protected gender identities is available online and includes options such as
“gender bender,” “two spirit,” “third sex,” “androgynous,” “gender gifted,” and
“pangender.” A city official  confirmed
to The Daily Caller that all of the listed identities are protected by the
city’s anti-discrimination laws, but said that the list was not exhaustive.
“Exhaustive” is too delimiting a term. Say, rather,
the list can be expanded ad infinitum.
You have only to use your imagination.
BI-GENDERED
• CROSS-DRESSER • DRAG KING • DRAG QUEEN FEMME QUEEN • FEMALE-TO-MALE • FTM •
GENDER BENDER GENDERQUEER • MALE-TO-FEMALE • MTF • NON-OP • HIJRA PANGENDER •
TRANSEXUAL/TRANSSEXUAL • TRANS PERSON WOMAN • MAN • BUTCH • TWO-SPIRIT • TRANS
• AGENDER THIRD SEX • GENDER FLUID • NON-BINARY TRANSGENDER ANDROGYNE • GENDER
GIFTED • GENDER BLENDER • FEMME PERSON OF TRANSGENDER EXPERIENCE • ANDROGYNOUS
Don’t blink, or you’ll miss page two of all the
alternative genders. Greenfield remarks: “About 70 percent of this list means
the same basic thing. Non-op is also redundant because the official doctrine
now is that a man can claim to be a woman without undergoing any surgery.”
Reading the list, I was reminded of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode
in which Dr. Beverly Crusher, the Enterprise’s medical officer, was having an
affair with a humanoid alien who was actually just the host of a parasite that
was the real intelligence. The host suddenly dies and a new one is sent for. The
actual alien, put in stasis until the new one arrives, resembled nothing less
than a bovine liver.
The new host arrives. It’s a woman.
Dr. Crusher rejects the prospect of having an
affair with her. When asked why by the host (speaking unseen for the
transplanted bovine liver), she responds that the human race “hasn’t progressed
that far yet.” Or words to that effect. Crusher would be amazed by the number
of “new” genders that don’t even include the livers of ungulates. Perhaps she
would prefer necking with the bladder of a yak. There are more genders on the New
York City Commission’s list than aliens in the crew of the Enterprise, more
aliens in gender than in a Star Wars
cantina sipping Galactic Slurpees.
Of course, readers will all remember the arduous affection
of an Argentinean (or Peruvian) who, with great ceremony, married a tree.
Determined to go one better, several San Diego students married the ocean at
the behest of Santa Monica philosophy professor Amber Katherine. Truth Revolt’s
Trey Sanchez carried the headline grabbing story, “This
Week in Progressive Lunacy: ‘EcoSexual’ Professor Marries Students to the Ocean.
Campus
Reform
talked with Amber Katherine, a philosophy professor, to explain the
event and what it means. She said it was to bring about an “ecocentric
passion and even lust” for the Earth. Funding for this environmental
“marriage” came courtesy of SMC’s Public Policy Institute, as well as
other campus organizations.
Rings were handed out and students were led
with the pronouncement, “With this ring, I bestow upon the sea the
treasures of my mind heart and hands—as well as my body and soul. With the
power vested in us, we now pronounce you ‘married to the sea.'”
Once “wed,” the class was
instructed to “make love with the water” by dipping toes in the sea
“or any part of your body that you want.”
Splish, splash! Looking out, of course, when
engaged in connubial bliss, for sharks, Portuguese-men-war, and moray eels.
When you marry the ocean, it isn’t promising you a rose garden. Still, the
ocean is what the New York City rules might define as “gender fluid.”

Meryl
Dickson, of The Walking Dead, in between sips of his whiskey, asks:

“Never mind socialism. Do they know anything about  differential calculus?”

Let us not forget the landlocked Wiccans, who held
a formal ceremony in the name of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie
Sanders. Craig Bannister of MRCTV reported on May 1st, in “Sanders Camp Holds Friday 13th ‘Ritual for
Bernie’ for Wiccans, Druids and Heathens”:
A
Bernie Sanders event in Portland, Oregon is inviting wiccans, Druids, heathens
and atheists to a “Ritual
for Bernie”
to “raise the energy” of his presidential campaign:
“Clearly
you’re feeling the Bern. Maybe you’re a Wiccan? Pagan? Goddess worshiper?
Heathen? Druid? Spiritual but not religious? Secular Jew? Spiritually open
minded? Unaffiliated? Atheist who likes ritual? Other? And you would like to
engage with a community of like minded individuals to raise the energy of the
Bernie Sanders vibration to a higher frequency and ultimately change the world
for our children, grandchildren, and all future generations. I hear you!”
The
event is aptly set for Friday 13th in a place called Woodstock Park
– and, spelling errors aside, appears to be legitimate, since it claims to be
“Paid for by Bernie 2016” and lists both a “Contribute” button and Sanders’
official campaign mailing address
.
With
such hope and change offered by the Wiccans, all Sanders needs now to clinch
the Democratic nomination is a rain dance by Elizabeth
Warren
, that war bonnet-wearing faux
Cherokee Indian from Massachusetts.
Let us not leave out the ethereal perorations and scribblings
of university professors. They are in large part responsible for the lunacy in
our culture. On May 16th, Tom Ciccotta ran a Breitbart column, “Madness
Behind the Method: The Writings of the Craziest SJWs in Academia.
 Here are some samples of papers written by
the cream of academe:
From North Carolina State: “Sexy warriors: the politics and pleasures of
submission to the state”
Jesse
Paul Crane-Seeber, who received a Ph.D in International Relations at North
Carolina State University, wrote his dissertation on why “war is sexy in
contemporary US culture.” The paper, which was titled “Sexy warriors: the
politics and pleasures of submission to the state” allowed Crane-Seeber to
become an Assistant Professor in Public and International Affairs at NC State.
From
Palgrave Macmillan, publishers: “Pornographic Animals”
“Pornographic
Animals” is a text written by R. Malamud to explore the intersection of visual
sociology and human sexuality. In this groundbreaking work, published by
Palgrave Macmillan, Malamud writes about human-Animal intercourse and why
humans are sexually attracted to animals.
From
the University of California-Santa Barbara: “Smart Cookies: The Gendered
Spaces of Labor, Citizenship, and Nationalism in the Girl Scout Cookie Sale”
This
2013 PhD dissertation points out the danger of selling of girl scout
cookies and argues that the practice “prepares girls for their roles as
American women in a neoliberal and capitalist society.” According to the
author, the girl scout cookie selling tradition is responsible for aiding
in unconscious female support of “market capitalism, neoliberalism, and
American nationalism.” The dissertation argues that the annual girl scout
cookie sale manipulates young girls into blindly accepting American society’s
expected role for women.
From the University of Alberta: “The
Moving Body and Social Change”
Pirkko
Markula of the University of Alberta argues that one of the best ways to fight
capitalism is through personal exercise routines. According to Markula, through
her “experiences as a fitness instructor”, the work “explore[s] if it
is possible to practice movement differently beyond the biopolitics of
neo-liberalism.”
Had enough? There’s much more in Ciccotti’s
article, if you need a good laugh.
But do not laugh too hard or too long. These people exist in
the real world. They want you to come along with them and share their Kook Aid
and power bars. Progressivism is a long, long progression to insanity.

It Didn’t Start With Marx

An extraordinary book came my way, one which alters
to some degree my own focus on the current conflict between socialism and
conservatism, between secular political collectivism and religious political
collectivism in America. This is George Watson’s The Lost Literature of Socialism, originally
published in 1998 and reissued in 2001. Then, as now, it is largely unheralded
by the doyens of socialism and conservatism. The book remains obscure for many
reasons, not least of which is that its contents are a revelation which current
socialists and egalitarians would prefer not become general knowledge. 

Many of the unsavory roots of socialism, as
highlighted by Watson, are hardly complimentary or flattering and do not lend
themselves to the unicorn picture of a humane political system in which no
person wants for anything, neither free cell phone, an education, and two cars
in every garage. But the sources and roots of socialism are basically unknown
to modern advocates, who are genuinely ignorant and oblivious to what their
forerunners had in mind. They are asking for something the true and inevitable
nature of which they do not bother to examine in any depth other than quoting
Marxist “scripture” out of historical context and often out of the context of a
writer’s works.
Modern socialists are not holding fingers to their
lips and urging sotto voce, “Shush!
It’s really embarrassing what so many of our pioneer socialists said and did,
it’s best that this knowledge not get around! If people knew, it could harm the
cause!” No. They are utterly oblivious to the truth.  Watson notes that, overall, modern Marxists “were
not just ignorant of the world. They were ignorant of Marx.” (p. 27)
In
1983, in one of his last books, Politics
of the Ancient World
, [Moses] Finley rightly deplored the vulgar habit of
calling all class analysis Marxist, since, he said, it is in fact at least as
old as Aristotle.
Socialism as an articulated, propagated cause,
therefore, did not start with the publication of The
Communist Manifesto
(1848) or with Das
Capital
(1867). It had been growing long in the tooth for decades, even
centuries before Marx was even born. Watson, a British Liberal, in his Preface,
writes:
The
literature of socialism is lost in the sense that it is unread….A lost
literature is still a literature, after all, whether it survives in books, periodicals,
or manuscripts, and it is the business of the literary historian to read it….
There
is abundant evidence…that socialism was not always supposed to be left-wing or
favorable to the poor, whether by its adherents or its opponents. It was not
anti-racialist…and not always in favor of the welfare state.
Why have they not been heralded? Why have these
classic works been ignored, that is, ignored in the sense that they are known
and contain inconvenient ideas, not because they are known but snubbed and
given short shrift? In the main, most advocates of socialism today do not
understand what it is they are advocating. It is because Watson, in researching
the sources and foundations of socialism and socialist thought, realized that
most of the big names in the history of the development of socialist ideology
were, practically to a man, conservatives!
That is, they wished to preserve the status quo of
an elite cadre that governs men and disposes of their lives and property. They
wished to have the power of Mandrake the Magigian to appropriate the wealth
created by capitalism and create a new social order based on collectivism using
that wealth, with themselves as the governing class above everyone else.
The vision they commonly held was one that projected
an “idyllic” Medieval era, when knights jousted on brave steeds, the elite held
court and ate well, and the general population existed at subsistence level or was
locked into a guild socialism mosaic of trades and crafts, never to dream of
leaving their assigned stations in life or aspiring to leave their allotted
status as yeomen and servants for the privileged.
The Kennedy clan can be said to be the first
full-fledged realization of a self-perpetuating aristocracy that lorded it over
the rest of us. It was Joseph Kennedy, Sr.’s intent that his family should
rule, and rule in the literal sense of the word, a rule that bought off the
populace with socialist bromides and platitudes to placate the hoi polloi and plebeians with
legislative crumbs.
There isn’t a howling socialist demonstrator or
candidate for political office who does not
want to be in that elite, from Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Paul Ryan, and
virtually every Democrat and Republican. They want to preserve the status quo
so that they can rule, and rule from the vantage point of privilege and
empowerment. The “revolution” they want to ignite is not a drive to higher
heights of social organization, but a revolving door that puts them back in
power, after some messy “revolutionary” disturbances, as the privileged class,
insulated from the travails they impose on the population at large.
Until Karl Marx came along, socialists who predated
him thought of socialism in terms of rank,
not class.  The difference between rank
and class is purely “social,” and has little to do with “class warfare” or the
evolution of capitalism to an ideal social state. Rank implies that one knows
one’s place in society. You take orders, do what’s expected of you, and never
presume to tell the next person up the ladder his business.
A promotional flyer for Watson’s book reads and
captures the tenor of Watson’s opus:
…Watson
examines the foundation texts of socialism to find out what they really say:
the result is blasphemy against socialism and against socialism’s canon of
saints. Marx and Engels publicly advocated genocide in 1849; Ruskin called
himself a violent Tory….and [George Bernard] Shaw held the working classes in
utter contempt. Drawing on an impressive range of sources from Robert Own to
Ken Livingstone, the author demonstrates that socialism was a conservative,
nostalgic reaction to the radicalism of capitalism, and not always supposed to
be advantageous to the poor….Two chapters…study Hitler’s claim that the whole
of National Socialism [Nazism] was based on Marx, and bring to light the common
theoretical basis of the beliefs of Stalin and Hitler which lead to death
camps. As a literary critic, Watson’s concern is to pay proper respect to the
works of the founding fathers of socialism, to attend to what they say and not
to what their modern disciples wish they had said….
Here is a sampling of what the “ancients” of
socialism said. In 1862, John Ruskin (1810-1900), an art critic and essayist, and
virulently opposed to the Industrial Revolution, published Unto
This Last
. Watson writes:
Whether
medieval, Neolithic, or Paleolithic, socialism was from its origins a
hierarchical doctrine, and it habitually venerated aristocracy and leadership. “My
continual aim,” Ruskin wrote in Unto This
Last
,
…has
been to show the eternal superiority of some men to others, sometimes even of
one man to all others; and to show also the advisability of appointing such
person or persons to guide, to lead, or on occasion even to compel and subdue,
their inferiors according to their own better knowledge and wider will” (paragraph
54).
Those
who have wondered why, in practice, socialists can be so snobbish may have
their answer here. They were not snobs in spite of being socialists…but
socialists because they were snobs. Capitalism, after all, is radically vulgar…and
it can give spending power to the most dreadful people. (p. 48)
I may be an upper class twit, but I own you.
I do not know if Ruskin ever killed anyone, but
V.I. Lenin (1870-1924) killed on a mass scale once the Bolshevik government was
established in 1917. Yet, he hailed from the Russian aristocracy. His father
was made an hereditary nobleman for his work in education. Lenin, for all his
hard-scrabble revolutionary activities and periods of imprisonment and exile,
had aristocratic pretensions. Watson sheds some light on Lenin’s aims:
The
principle of socialist aristocracy was candidly announced by Lenin fifteen
years before he seized power, and in What
Is to Be Done?
,
a pamphlet written in exile, he put a blunt case for
the rule of an intellectual elite….Lenin’s argument is uncompromising. Since
Marxist revolution is based on theory, and only intellectuals can understand
theory, only an intellectual elite can lead the revolution: “the educated
representatives of the propertied class, the intelligentsia.” (pp. 48-49)
The chief and overriding end of Lenin’s crusade
against the Romanoffs and aristocracy was to replace them in fact and in
political practice with Lenin and his commissars (and their successors). This is
what happened. Soviet Russia, for over half a century, was ruled by a
self-perpetuating aristocracy.
Socialism
necessarily means government by a privileged class, as Lenin saw, since only
those of privileged education are capable of planning and governing. [George
Bernard] Shaw and H.G. Wells [both British Fabians], too, often derided the
notion that ordinary people can be trusted with political choice….Socialism had
to be based on privilege…since only privilege educates for the due exercise of
centralized power in a planned economy….The next step was for the ruling elites
of the socialist world to grant themselves the privileges, sometimes even
hereditary privileges of a ruling caste. (p. 49)
On pages 62 and 63, Watson provides an note about
the origin of key terms:
Socialism
was first used as a term by Robert Owen in the “Cooperative Magazine” in 1827;
and it was an English Christian Socialist, Goodwyn Barnby, who claimed in 1848
to have invented the word “communism” in Paris in 1840.
Watson cites numerous “unknown” advocates or
critics of socialism throughout The Lost
Literature
, among them Alfred Sudre, a French lawyer and writer who
published, in 1848, Histoire
du Communisme
.
Its subtitle was “an historical refutation of
socialist utopias.’ Sudre opposed socialism and communism. He wrote that
private property was the best defense of the poor against oppression by a stratified
communist or socialist aristocratic establishment. Watson writes of Sudre that
he averred that
The
liberating claims of socialism…however sincere, are a chimera, and the nation
that places economic power in the hands of a central authority, Sudre argues,
will end with a tyranny like Plato’s guardians, ruled by fear and military
discipline. It was the commitment of political thinkers in antiquity to the
concept of a perfect state that led them into the monstrous errors that now
threaten mankind, and Sudre was the first to notice how deeply indebted the
early socialist thinkers were to the heritage of ancient philosophy, though his
target was not Aristotle, who inspired Marx, but Aristotle’s master, Plato.
Sudre, writes Watson, was more radical than
traditionalist, radical in the sense that he saw free enterprise and private
property as a defense against socialist tyranny.
His
case is both theoretical and practical. The real charge against communism is
that, whatever its motives, its effects would be to create a privileged caste. It
is more conservative, as an idea, than any group or party which, in a
democratic age, chooses to call itself that. (p. 66)
Watson’s discourse is replete with discussions of
obscure writers and excerpts from their works, pro and con socialism. Sudre,
John Millar, David Hume, William Morris, Marx, Engels, and so on. It was not so
startling, for example, to read that Hitler was first and foremost a socialist
(thus the name of his Nazi party, the National
Socialist German Workers’ Party), but he was willing to allow some free
enterprise in order to prop up his command economy. The striking thing is that,
while he maintained a lifelong enmity for socialists and communists, he
admitted in private that he and Nazism were indebted to Marx and Marxism –
including the means to exterminate whole races as Stalin could, except he claimed
that the Nazis were more efficient at it.
 
I highly recommend Watson’s The Lost Literature of
Socialism
, especially to those socialists among us who wish to redistribute our
lives, our property, and our futures. As a friend who has read it remarked, “there
is a nugget on every page.” Socialists who heed my recommendation, however, may
need to recalibrate their political philosophy.

The
Lost Literature of Socialism
, by George Watson. Cambridge, UK: The
Lutterworth Press, 1998. 112 pp.

Preview of “Exegesis”

I expect to finish
Exegesis by at least the end of May. I
thought this would be a fitting inaugural post for the “new” Rule of Reason.
I hope you enjoy it.

Foreword
by the Author
It is late June, 1929. Cyrus Skeen has concluded his case in Stolen Words, in which he exonerated a
prominent novelist of the charge of murder, even though the author had
plagiarized other authors with the cooperation of the now defunct publisher. Skeen’s
artist wife, Dilys, has returned from a visit to relatives back East in
Massachusetts, and was preparing to work on her first painting. Skeen’s new
secretary, Lucy Wentz, is quick on the uptake, and is working out fine.
But now a new nemesis has confronted Skeen, an unknown person who
is killing people who have committed horrendous crimes. He writes Skeen and
expresses his appreciation for Skeen’s crime-fighting acumen and skills, but
wants Skeen to join him in a crusade to terminate all killers. Skeen has not
killed any criminal gratuitously – he has killed in self-defense only when
someone has threatened to kill him or someone who is a value to him – and wonders
why his admirer thinks he would be open to the idea. Then the district attorney
for San Francisco demands an explanation for why Skeen’s revolver was found
next a murdered mass killer. More criminals are found dead. The unknown
vigilante pins a note to each body, signed “Exegesis.”
In another unusual case tackled by Cyrus Skeen, the intrepid and
unflappable detective delves into the mystery with his usual panache and
certitude. 


Chapter
7: An Evening at Maud’s 

Mrs. Maud Skipton, prominent society hostess and wife of the ever-absent
Jerome Skipton, wealthy shipping magnate and Pacific trader, hosted lavishly
catered parties in her Nob Hill mansion, which was directly opposite Carmel
Towers on Sacramento Street on the other side of the Hill. Her wealth and
ability to become Nob Hill’s social arbiter was sustained by her husband, who
had interests in almost every facet of Pacific trade and shipping. Cyrus Skeen,
private detective and a member of San Francisco “society,” could
recall meeting Mr. Skipton only once and very briefly years ago at another of
his wife’s parties. He somehow managed to be away on business in the Far East
every time his wife threw one of her get-togethers.
Mrs. Skipton was stout and aged fifty-two. Skeen and his wife occasionally
attended her parties more for the kinds of people they might meet than out of
any expectation of enjoyment. Dilys frequently referred to Mrs. Skipton as the
“de facto dowager.”
Skeen regarded Maud Skipton as a simple, charming and harmless woman who
valued the beauty of a high society community into which she welcomed anyone
with a certain amount of class and sophistication. Although she herself was not
brilliant in any sense, she put great stock in the brilliance of her soirees.
She tolerated Skeen’s ribbing and jesting about her because she knew he was not
vicious. Her frequent and well-attended parties were an antidote to her cloying
loneliness.
Skeen and Dilys walked from Carmel Towers to the Skipton Mansion across
Nob Hill. It was a pleasant, warmish evening. The doorman recognized them and
greeted them. The Skeens knew their way around the mansion and went directly to
the grand staircase that led to the ballroom upstairs.
The dazzlingly lit ballroom beyond was thick with guests, men in tuxedos,
women in evening gowns, and servants circulating with trays of drinks. A band
somewhere in the back played a popular tune at just the right pitch so as not
to drown out conversation. Dilys gave the butler her black cape at the door.
She and Skeen were instantly greeted by the hostess.
Maud Skipton, sporting three strings of pearls and in a silvery gown that
did not attempt to disguise her stoutness, gave them an effusive welcome.
“Thank you both for coming this evening, my two dearest neighbors! I could hug
you both!”
“Thank you for inviting us, Maud,” said Skeen, resplendent in his tuxedo.
Dilys was wearing a shimmering, blue satin, backless frock. Her blondish-brown
hair featured a black feathered headband with a black feather.
“Happy birthday, Maud,” said Dilys.
Skeen presented the woman with a flat box gift-wrapped in sparkling green
paper. “Something to keep you warm on chilly nights,” he said.
Attached to it was a small, enameled white cardboard with caricatures
Dilys has drawn on it: Skeen was represented by a pair of probing eyes and a
lock of hair over his forehead; Dilys represented herself with half-closed, seductive
eyes and pouting lips. At the bottom of the card were Skeen’s and Dilys’s
signatures.
Maud took the package and stared at the caricatures. “How ingenious! How
marvelous! I shall keep the card alone!” She shook the box and looked
quizzical. “What’s in here?”
Skeen grinned impishly. “Well, we found Mr. Skipton, dry-cleaned him,
folded him up, wrapped some colorful ribbons around him, and fitted him into
the box. He protested a little, but we gagged him.”
Skeen knew that he could jest about Jerome Skipton without hurting the
woman’s feelings. It was a running private joke between Maud and him.
In the box was a sable shoulder wrap Skeen had found in Baum’s on Union
Square.
The hostess laughed and squeezed Skeen’s shoulder. “You naughty boy! I
ought to send you to your room without supper! In fact, you two are such dears
to me I wish I could adopt you both as my children!”
“You’d regret it,” said Dilys. “We’re unruly and misbehaved. Cyrus and I
had to report to the Truancy Department twice just this week.”
“Dilys – may I call you Dilys? – ” Maud answered, touching Dilys’s bare
shoulder, “you look enchanting. The feathers become you. And my hero here looks
dashing, he’s my favorite real-life heartthrob, you know!”
Dilys leaned a little closer to Maud. “Just you keep your hands off of
him, Mrs. Skipton,” she said in jest, “or we shall have to go three rounds.”
“Gladly, darling,” replied Maud. “You’re a sprite, and could probably fly
circles around my head and make me dizzy. Well, here’s the to-do, the buffet is
over there, drinks are on me, of course, and I’m sure you’ll want to meet old
acquaintances. The band I hired sounds lively. Shoo!” She waved the couple
inside the ballroom and handed the butler the gift. Another couple was waiting
to be greeted.
Dilys remarked to Skeen as they went in, “She’s a pip.”
“A pip and a half.”
“Am I really a sprite?”
Skeen grinned. “You’ve had your spritely moments, darling, but you are
most assuredly not a sprite.”
“What am I to you, if not a sprite?”
Skeen put his arm around Dilys’s waist and squeezed it. “You’re my very private
vamp.”
Dilys pressed his hand closer on her waist. “Yes, I am. You had an
exclusive on me a long time ago.”
“Do you like vamping me?”
“Yes. Every minute. Because I know what to expect.”
“And you don’t have to bat a single eyelash.”
Dilys grinned broadly up at her husband. “But, if I batted one eyelash,
I’d be winking at you.”
“I won’t stop you.”
The ballroom was ringed with café tables, each of which held a slim vase
with a rose in it, a crystal ashtray, and tiny placemats on which were
inscribed, “Happy Birthday, Maud.”. Skeen and Dilys found a vacant table and
sat down. They were almost immediately approached by a servant who asked them
what they would like to drink.
Skeen said, “Scotch and soda, please.”
Dilys answered, “The same, thank you.”
The servant disappeared into the milling crowd. Skeen broke out his
cigarette case and lighter and placed them firmly on the white napkin before
him. Dilys took a cigarette holder out of her tiny purse, which was attached to
her wrist by a silver cord.
Couples sat at either side of the Skeens, and were busy with their own
conversations. The crowd was decidedly middle-aged, with a generous sprinkling
of older men and women. Carpeting had been removed to make room for a dance
floor in front of the band, which sat on a slightly elevated platform. Close to
it was an open bar manned by three bow-tied bartenders in white shirts. On the other
side of the band was the buffet with a variety of food and desserts. At the end
of the buffet was a table holding an enormous birthday cake of blue, green, and
yellow icing. It was half gone by now; a woman in a maid servant’s uniform was
handing out slices to guests. Multicolored paper ribbons and balloons hung from
the ceiling and moved gently in the wafting air.
“The band sounds good,” Skeen remarked as he lit an Old Gold. “Better
than the last time we were here.”
Dilys nodded. “I think the band leader or the drummer was drunk that
night.”
“Yes, that’s right. The band leader couldn’t keep up with the drummer, or
the drummer kept falling behind the notes. I don’t think Maud asked that band
back again.”
The servant reappeared and gave them their drinks. He bowed once and went
to other tables to offer to refresh the occupants’ drinks.
“That’s a nice tune,” remarked Dilys. “Never heard it until now.”
“I think it’s called ‘The Cat Walk.’ It was being played over the
speakers at the Merry-Go-Round the other day when Millard and I had lunch there.
I asked the waitress what it was. There was a singer, some of whose lyrics I
couldn’t understand. But some of what he sang went, ‘It’s nice to hear you purr
over me.’ Or words to that effect. His ‘meows’ were definitely off-key.”
“See anyone you want to talk to?” asked Dilys.
Skeen said, “I see a few people I’ve offended one way or another at past
parties, but I don’t think they’d welcome another conversation with me. And at
the moment, I don’t feel like introducing myself to strangers.”
“I hope Maud likes her present.”
“She will.”
“What’s that dance people are doing to ‘The Cat Walk’?” asked Dilys.
Skeen studied the couples, who were doing fantastic contortions and
whirls and pausing now and then to stamp their feet on the floor. He shrugged.
“I guess it’s a leftover from Isadora Duncan’s day. A combination of ‘I’m a
Little Teapot,’ an epileptic seizure, and the Argentine tango. I don’t think
cats have anything to do with their gyrations.”
“It’s a horrible dance,” said Dilys. “It’s worse than the Charleston.”
Dilys asked Skeen, “Isn’t that Louise Brooks over there? In the corner,
at the buffet with that sour-looking fellow.”
Skeen looked at the object of Dilys’s attention. “Yes, I think it is.
She’s looking particularly sultry this evening.”
They chatted amiably without consequence with some guests who came to
their table, then went for slices of Maud’s birthday cake, which they brought
back to their table..
Skeen blinked once after a few forkfuls. He said to Dilys, “Correct me if
I’m imagining things, but I think the creator of that cake slipped in a few
poppy seeds. The better to wish Maud a very
happy birthday.”
Dilys smiled. “I’m feeling distinctly light-headed, too. I wonder if Maud
knows, or if she gave the baker special instructions.” She paused and stared at
her cake. “It might have been a whole bushel full.”
Skeen hummed to himself. “I think we’d better have a plate of the beef
Stroganoff. And coffee. I suspect that Maud had had a few slices of her cake by
the time she greeted us.”
“You know,” said Skeen, glancing at the glittering, noisy crowd before
them, “I think most of the guess tonight are giddy from her birthday cake. They
seem unusually chatty and bubbly.”
The party went on. As soon as Skeen and Dilys had finished their beef
Stroganoff, a waiter came to sweep the porcelain away. A couple approached
their table. “Excuse me, sir. Aren’t you Cyrus Skeen, the fabulous private
detective?”
Skeen nodded. “And this is my fabulous wife, Dilys.”
The two couples exchanged nods.
“Pleased to meet you both, for sure. I’m Baxter Barnes. This is my wife,
Josephine. We live in the Cow Hollow down the hill.”
“A pretty steep climb,” Skeen remarked.
Mr. Barnes chuckled. “It is! But, I just wanted to ask you what you
thought of this Carlyle business? It’s just a shame that he chose to end it
all. He was a pretty promising fellow. Could’ve succeeded Kragan, if he lasted
long enough.”

Skeen scoffed mildly. “He was promising, but apparently he didn’t deliver
on that promise.”
“That’s a rather cryptic observation, sir.”

“Read tomorrow’s Observer-World for more details about Mr. Carlyle. I’m
not at liberty to divulge them at the moment.”
Mr. Barnes smiled and wagged a finger. “I knew you had something to do with it! You’re always involved in
some scandal or other!”
Skeen shook his head. “Maybe, Mr. Barnes, and I’m not even a
scandalmonger.” He rose and said, “You’ll please excuse us, but my wife and I
would like to take a turn on the floor.”
Dilys rose in answer.
Mr. Barnes offered his hand. “Well, nevertheless, sir, I’d like to thank
you for keeping our streets free of criminals.”
Skeen shook the man’s hand and replied, “The irony of it is, Mr. Barnes,
is that most of the criminals I’ve collared have never endangered or harassed the
public at large.” He smiled, took Dilys’s hand, and led her away.
Skeen and Dilys danced a fox trot to “Double Talk, Trouble Talk,” and
then a slow dance to the Gershwins’ “Someone to Watch Over Me.”
When the numbers were finished, they went directly to the bar, ordered
fresh drinks, and returned to their table. Skeen lit another cigarette, and lit
one for Dilys after she had fitted one into her holder.
She noticed a small, cream-colored envelope sitting atop Skeen’s old
drink. It was addressed to Skeen. “I think someone’s left you a mash note,
darling. Please, don’t let it be from Maud.”
Skeen grinned, took the envelope, and slit it open. He took out the note
that was inside, unfolded it, and then put down his new drink.
Dilys glanced at his face. It was grim.
Skeen said, “He’s here.”
“Who?”
He handed her the note.
Dilys read the note, her brow becoming dark with anger. The elegantly
written note read:
“Mr. Skeen:
Well played, sir. I regret that the experiment cost Mr. Carlyle his life.
I had not intended that. I was hoping he had the stamina and bottom to work to
replace the implacable Mr. Kragan, some day, at least, but that is now not to
be. But, I was certain you would have had enough of the matter that you would
take matters into your own hands and, like, Theseus, venture into the
Minotaur’s own lair. Your unintended slaying of the poor fellow at his own game
was a masterpiece. My hat is off to you.
                                  ‘Exegesis’”
Dilys handed the note back to Skeen. “Where is he?” she asked, her eyes
busy scanning the crowd.
‘I don’t know, darling,” said Skeen. “I’ve never set eyes on him. But if
he’s here, then he must be on the guest list.”


©

֎

A Last Great Hope

What follows is an especially articulate
and unedited endorsement of Donald Trump,
who, following the primaries, has become the Republican Party’s de facto
nominee for President. Trump’s statements fly in the face of the political
establishment’s policy of stealth socialism and submitting America to “global”
priorities and agendas. Trump is an outsider not beholden to the socialist GOP,
and his statements and positions are already eviscerating the “Grand Old Party”
and sending its flock of status-quo hens and chickens fleeing hither and yon like
headless chickens in the Washington barnyard. We know, however, given the GOP’s
caliber, and also as the “Me, Too” party that takes its lead from the looting,
welfare state Democrats, that members of the GOP are conspiring to block Trump’s
nomination by fair means and foul.  But,
a clearer and more accurate policy statement you won’t find in the news media
or from any other former or prospective candidate.  Edward Cline

Why
Trump Deserves to Win the American Election

by Olivia Pierson  April 28, 2016

“My foreign policy
will always put the interests of the American people, and American security,
above all else. That will be the foundation of every decision that I will make.
America first will be the major and overriding theme of my
administration.”
  Donald J Trump.


If Americans still care about the legacy they once wrought out of a raw but
magnificent continent, if they still give a damn about prosperity, security and
freedom, then Trump ought to be their man.

Watching from a far off country gives one a certain measure of objectivity when
viewing the American Presidential elections, but one thing is indisputable:
love him or hate him, Trump oozes the All-American spirit of advancement,
achievement and strong familial ties.


Since 2008 and the election of President Obama, the world has watched America
slide backwards.  Grownup politics has been replaced by a revolting
imposter – Social Justice Warrior politics.  I’ve often thought Obama
looks like a guy who cares more about just getting an approving hug from any
random stranger than he does about the success of his own country; a country
which in many respects has always played an impossibly important part in
helping to forge the future of the whole world. Obama has been a boy playing at
being a president, with dangerous results.

In direct contrast to the current president, Trump is a real man, and a real
achiever.  He’s the stuff of gruff charm and hard-out competence, whose
appeal largely has its roots in the appeal of the classic Alpha male. He’s big,
bold, brash and boastful, at least he is when he’s locked in a competition –
and given that the competition to become a president is outrageously difficult,
that’s exactly the sort of spirit I want to see win.

But apart from these personality impressions, I feel a sense of relief when I
hear him state some of his policies.  I didn’t realize how much I’d given
up on ever hearing a presidential hopeful say the things which are now going to
go down in history as Trumpisms.

1. A temporary ban on Islamic immigration into the United States. 

This is way beyond important. It should have been an imperative straight after
the perpetrators of 9/11 wreaked their terrible murder on US citizens one clear
and beautiful morning. This was a profound act of war, but its soldiers were
hiding.  It doesn’t matter if many Muslims might be innocent, so long as
they are the adherents of a bloody and backward superstition which is hostile
to the West, whose holy-book not only allows for, but actually calls for acts
of murder, they should be viewed with rational suspicion by anyone who claims
to care about having a developed society. The safety and security of American
citizens needs to be upheld first, second and last by their president. The
United States is not automatically responsible for being the benefactor of all
peoples who live in foreign lands – even if they do just want to go to
Disneyland.

Now that Trump has laid out his Foreign Policy, a policy which is basically a
return to “no foreign entanglements” that are not within the
self-interest of the United States (unless they are paid handsomely for the
privilege), Americans can rest assured that if he should become President
Trump, they will have the hardest of fighters, the toughest of negotiators and
a man of immense instinctive talent representing their foreign interests.

2. The building of The Wall (which Mexico is going to pay for).

As Carly Fiorina pointed out many times in the primary debates, the stemming of
illegal immigration into the States through the southern border has been talked
about and debated, with only half-ass measures being enacted for about 30
years.  Action to actually stop this flow has been pitiful.  We now
know that  ISIS can and have sent operatives straight through that
border.
  Are people under the illusion that the Mexican government is
going to extend big efforts to put a stop to this? They don’t even stop their
own people (good and bad) from crossing.  So now a nominee who has a
spectacular history of building huge, complicated projects is stating that he’s
going to build a wall across this rogue border.  Amen!  The safety
and security of American citizens needs to be upheld first, second and last by
their president. The United States is not automatically responsible for being
the benefactor of all peoples who live in foreign lands – even if they do just
want to go to Disneyland.

3. Rethinking NATO.

It has become typical now of the news media to shriek and spit every time Trump
says something sane.  His desire to rethink NATO is a classic example of
this. As it now stands, NATO consists of: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherland, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United
States.

NATO’s stated purpose is this (taken from the official NATO website): the Alliance’s creation was part of
a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism,
forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong
North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political
integration.

Not only has Soviet expansionism into Ukraine and Crimea occurred without any
backlash from NATO, the whole world has watched Europe staunchly uphold its
weak-spirited commitment to fashionable cradle-to-grave socialism and unlimited
“tolerance.” In so doing, their commitment to multiculturalism has been totally
paramount.  They have allowed unprecedented Islamic immigration into its
respective countries, (some more than others) culminating recently with the
Islamic Immigration Crisis; welfare dependent Muslims which Germany is forcing
all other countries in the EU to accept, whether they want them or not. 
EU hopeful, Turkey, is negotiating this flood of people, who are most assuredly
not just coming from war-torn Syria!  Deeply hostile to Russia, who he
accuses of intensifying the conflict and resultant refugees into his land (an
accusation I have no doubt is true), Erdogan threatens to further flood Europe
with many more millions of Muslim refugees.  Read here about the next coming Immigration Crisis.

Turkey is a deeply Islamic nation which refuses to make war on ISIS but would
happily bomb the Kurds to oblivion.  They are no longer the Turks of Kemal
Ataturk’s liberal imperatives. President Erdogan is the devout Muslim who
states that, “there is
no such thing as moderate or immoderate Islam: Islam is Islam, and that’s it!”
(And
here is the West trying to sort Islam out into nice, neat, palatable categories
– that which is lethal, that which is peaceful, that which is in between.) We
should take Erdogan at his word – he knows a thing or two about that of which
he speaks.  Peaceful, violent, latent, nominal or radical, Islam is all
one ideology.  The differing sects (among them Shia & Sunni are just
the narcissism of small difference – similar to a Methodist arguing with a
Jehovah’s Witness, except neither the Methodist nor the JW will shed each
other’s blood over their differences).  Those who kill in Islam’s name are
the ones who take their religion literally.  They are the ones whom their
prophet would call “Good Muslims.”

A return to Nationalism and a breaking away from the EU may just be the only
way for these small countries to protect their cultures from being swamped and
Islamicized (under orders from multicultural-obsessed Brussels) – yet one of
NATO’s stated reasons for existence is to forbid Nationalist militarism. 
Can you see a poisonous dilemma brewing here which America will be pulled into?
Trump can; hence his wariness on NATO and his bold statement to rethink it
all.  It will take a mighty heart and diplomatic brain to sort through the
mess that is NATO, especially with Russia fanning the flames with its dangerous
bedfellows ie: Iran and Syria. The safety and security of American citizens needs
to be upheld first, second and last by their president.  The United States
is not automatically responsible for being the benefactor of all peoples who
live in foreign lands – even if they do not want to go to Disneyland.

 4. Enough with the PC Feminazi Nonsense! (Okay, not technically a policy)


When Megyn Kelly, in the first Fox-hosted Primary debate, asked the awful
question of Trump…

    “You’ve
called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals… For
the record, it was way beyond Rosie O’Donnell… Your Twitter account has
several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on
the Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.
Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as
president? And how do you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton – that you are
part of the war on women?”

…it caused a furore which went on for months and months, and to which Donald
Trump remained admirably unapologetic.  He knew he was being hit hard by
the Humourless-Harriet; politically correct feminist nonsense which has
emasculated men for several generations now.  Frankly, Kelly was dealing
with the wrong type of man, and has suffered Trump’s contempt ever since; a thing
which has hurt her as the top darling of the Fox News Channel in a contentious
election, more than it has hurt Trump.  She may as well have asked him,
“When did you stop raping your wife?”   Trump was rightly galled that
this was considered to be “good moderation” from the nation’s best
journalists.


This is where even Trump’s foibles are All-American in their essence.  He
is a lover of beautiful women, of which Kelly is one, but if women try this
emasculation shit out on the likes of him, especially drawing on examples of
his alleged behaviour from his life as a non-political businessman, they’re
toast.  He subsequently refused to be interviewed by her, he verbally
hammered her in public and he even declined to attend a debate which she was to
moderate.  The ongoing nature of the feud was devastating to Kelly, so
much so that she recently said she was thinking about not renewing her contract with Fox because it had been hard,
not only on her, but also on her boss Roger Ailes.

It is so typical of the feminist mindset to want to play hardball with the men,
then run and cry to other men to take a stand to defend you.  Kelly made
the comment that she was disappointed her colleague, Bill O’Reilly, didn’t make
more of an effort to defend her.  Why would he?  She had been warned
by her co-moderators Brett Baier and Chris Wallace, when they were running over
the questions before the fatal debate, that if she persisted in that kind of
questioning, there would be a lot of pushback (their male instincts were right
on cue).  She insisted on having her way. Well, she didn’t just get
pushback, she managed to alienate a potential future president from her network
(which since seems to have resolved itself, no thanks to Megyn’s own charms).

Kelly then invited the disgusting, sneering, morbidly obese, even uglier than
Rosie O’Donnell, Marxist lowlife, Michael Moore, on to her show to bottom -feed
with her about Trump’s decision to skip the next debate. Michael f**king
Moore!!  A man who is militantly hostile to Western values and everything
America has traditionally stood for.  They giggled and indulged in words
of admiration with each other – enough to make a grown-girl hurl. 
Suddenly Trump’s insults about Megyn’s being a “bimbo” and “overrated” started
to make an awful amount of sense. 

It has now come to light that in order to calm this feud, Kelly has reached out
to Trump personally and gone to Trump Tower for a meeting.  The result is
an upcoming one-on-one interview with Trump on Fox, scheduled for May 17th. We’ll see how that works out, but
I’m betting Grandma’s creamiest pearls that Kelly will conduct herself with a
renewed sense of respect, and for that Trump will reward her with his time and
attention.

Trump won by not fawning over an uppity little femme with a fashionably
gratuitous absorption in resentment of the opposite sex (the feminist
agenda).  If this is going to be typical of what is in store for Hillary
should he win the nomination, I can’t wait.  Especially considering that hiding in Hillary’s filthy feminist closet are
toe-curling stories about her own personal war on the women who  allege that they were
sexually assaulted by her own husban
d, and then systematically besmirched and threatened by
Hillary in the Clintons’ long ascent to attain the Whitehouse.  If she
thinks Trump is going to go easy on her because she’s choosing to build her
campaign around playing the “woman” card, then she is in for the ride of her
life.  One I believe she will lose, because some part of me still actually
believes that while scum often does rise to the top, it can be blown away by
the vim of a powerful challenger with right on his side.  I hope America
proves me right.

BIG EDIT:
I’m just going to add right here that I have noticed many, many Right-leaning
people and above all, Libertarians, suffer from a massive snob-factor in
holding on for dear life to their Trump Derangement Syndrome. People who
consider themselves “intellectuals” take issue with his apparent lack
of smarty-man clever talk about The Constitution and Individual Rights,
forgetting that the human quality of AUTHENTICTY trumps, and should trump
cleverdickness on any day of the week in human affairs. People of aesthetic
sensibility take issue with his Liberace hair do, his Nouveau Rokoko palatial,
gold-drenched residence and white piano.
People who only care about the Free Market forget
that they have never lived in one, but somehow Trump is this radical, unusual
newcomer who is going to rob them of it (forgetting America does business
everyday with countries who do not observe anything close to a free market
standard). There are also those who take issue with Trump’s wanting to ban
Islamic immigration, totally dropping context of the fact that America has been
in a war since 9.11 with Islam – that Islam has declared and America has
pretended to be oblivious to. I am so disgusted with these people for
pretending to have such “great judgment” yet are not able to see their
own shocking propensity for context dropping, despite their self-proclaimed
intellectual prowess.
They, in their various critiques, get to feel superior to Trump in
some f**ked up way – and that is the only emotion which carries them along in
their criticism and Derangement Syndrome. I hope they have the good grace to
let me know when they have created a family fortune of 10 billion plus, have
the heart, guts and competence to want to save their country from becoming a
“once was” civilization. I hope they let me know when they have 2
ex-wives as good friends, along with five high-functioning kids who absolutely
adore them – and, more importantly, want to learn from them. I won’t hold my
breath.

http://www.oliviapierson.org/blog/why-trump-deserves-to-win-the-american-election
 

Islam by a Thousand Cuts

Lingchi língchí; ling-ch’ih,
alternately transliterated ling chi or leng t’che), translated
variously as death by a thousand cuts,
(shā qiān dāo/qiāndāo wànguǎ), the slow process, the lingering
death
, or slow slicing,
was a form of torture and execution used in China from roughly AD 900
until it was banned in 1905. It was also used in Vietnam  In this form of execution; a knife was used to
methodically remove portions of the body over an extended period of time,
eventually resulting in death.
Death,
in the context of this column, means Islam. Islam is a death worshipping cult.
Death is the end of Islam for anyone who encounters it, Muslim or non-Muslim.
One exists and lives for the sole purpose of dying to meet Allah in Paradise.
Allah owns your life and it is your duty to obey his every command and whim,
even if it means….death.

Celebrating Death: Shia Muslims love self-flagelation


“Death
to America!” is the familiar chant of Muslim demonstrators, from New York City
to London to Berlin and Cologne, from Cairo to Gaza to Damascus, from Kuala
Lumpur to Sydney and Kabul. Death is what is intended by the Muslim
Brotherhood. It states that quite explicitly in the 1991 Explanatory
Memorandum
on the General Strategic Goal of the Brotherhood in North
America. Here is what it says:
·        
In order for Islam and its Movement to
become “a part of the homeland” in which it lives, “stable”
in its land, “rooted” in the spirits and minds of its people,
“enabled” in the live [sic] of its society and has firmly-established
“organizations” on which the Islamic structure is built and with
which the testimony of civilization is achieved, the Movement must plan and
struggle to obtain “the keys” and the tools of this process in carry
[sic] out this grand mission as a “Civilization Jihadist”
responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and – on top of them –
the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.
·        
The process of settlement is a
“Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan
must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in
eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and
“sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the
believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over
all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this
challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s
destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until
the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those
who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.
So, how
is Islam “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within”? By
working every little gambit to dissolve Western institutions, principles,
traditions, and norms, and replace them with Islamic ones, first as “co-equals,”
and eventually as the dominant ones
By
applying a thousand little, barely noticed and hardly earth-shattering
concessions by the West to Islamic demands for “respect” or the enforcement of
Islamic religious observation or deference to Muslim sensibilities and
prejudices, the Brotherhood agenda is on schedule. There will always be the
spectacular, headline-grabbing massacres to remind us that Islam declared war
on the West long, long ago and that the bombings and beheadings and stabbings
are not forgotten as the end-all of life for infidels and those who do not
submit to Islam. Islam means, after
all, submission.
But it
isn’t those which are rotting the West “from within.” The West is definably “miserable”
because it will not stand up for itself, will not take the steps necessary to
preserve its existence as a life-loving as opposed to a death-worshipping political
system. Whose hapless “hands” are aiding and abetting the incremental assaults?
They are many and legion. CAIR simply advises the EEOC of a case rich in
conflict, presumably because it knows that CAIR in an unindicted co-conspirator
with terrorist organizations and refuses to condemn Hamas. Better these stupid Americans
give other Americans the hot foot.
We can
start with the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which works hand in glove with the
Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
to ensure that employers conform to Muslim expectations and prejudices, and
also inures American employers to Islamic religious dress “codes.” The EEOC
will agree with CAIR that a Muslim has been “discriminated” against and
penalized (either fired or not hired) because of his “religion.” Case in point:
Abercrombie
& Fitch
vs. a Muslim woman who wanted to violate the store’s dress code
for employees by wearing her hijab.
The Muslim teen worker who scored a legal victory in
an anti-discrimination suit against Abercrombie & Fitch, which cited its
dress code in insisting she not wear a hijab to work, says the retailer’s policy
is “very unfair.”
A federal judge issued the ruling last week that Abercrombie & Fitch discriminated against Hani
Khan, 18, when she was fired from its Hollister store in San Mateo, Calif., in
2010 because she refused to remove her head scarf on the job…..
The U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit on Khan’s behalf in 2011. A trial on the
company’s liability and punitive damages is scheduled for Sept. 30.
Another
nijab case went to the Supreme Court. In June 2015, the High Bench ruled in
favor of the Muslim and against Abercrombie & Fitch. The Guardian
reported:
The US supreme court on
Monday ruled in favor of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who was denied a job at
an Abercrombie & Fitch clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a
headscarf for religious reasons.
The justices decided the case, which united Christian,
Muslim and Jewish and other religious organizations, with an 8-1 vote, ruling
in favor of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which
sued the company on behalf of Elauf.
“The EEOC applauds the Supreme Court’s decision
affirming that employers may not make an applicant’s religious practice a
factor in employment decisions,” said EEOC chair Jenny Yang, in a statement.
“This ruling protects the rights of workers to equal
treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs
or practices.”
Next
comes the Islamic assault on The Citadel, a military school in South Carolina with
a strict dress code for its cadets, on and off school grounds. A Muslima
applied to the school and insisted that she be able to  wear her nijab with her uniform. On April 22,
the Washington
Post
reported:
When news spread that The
Citadel was considering the first-ever exception to its strict uniform
requirements to allow an admitted student to wear a hijab in keeping with her
Muslim faith, reaction was intense. Some welcomed the possibility as an
important symbol of religious freedom, but for many in the tight-knit community
of cadets and alumni, the very idea of an exception was anathema because the
ideals of loyalty, uniformity, and corps-before-self are so central to
the storied public military college’s mission and traditions….
On Friday, Brett Ashworth, a
Citadel spokesman, said the school is considering two specific requests from
the student: That she be allowed to wear a hijab and that she be allowed to
cover her arms and legs.
The
school is still mulling over whether or not  to grant the Muslima’s wishes (the hijab in
uniform, her own separate room, special clothing during physical exercises,
etc.; I wonder if she gets to break classes and drill to bow to Mecca and has
special meals prepared for her in the mess hall). The cadet who leaked the
story to the press, was punished.
Citadel Cadet Nick Pinelli, the cadet who leaked the
story of the school’s consideration of a Muslim student’s request to wear a
hijab, was reportedly punished
with 33 hours of marching according to a post on Jihad
Watch
….
According to an article in the
Post and Courier
The Citadel spokesman, Col. Brett Ashworth, declined to
confirm whether or not Cadet Pinelli was being punished over leaking the story
citing FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act).
Next up
is our court system. CAIR issued a press release about a Louisiana traffic court
judge who ordered a Muslima to leave the courtroom unless she removed her
nijab. The
Florida Family Association
reported in late April:
 CAIR issued the following press
release
: 

CAIR Asks Louisiana Judge to Ensure that Courtroom Hijab Ban Not Be Repeated

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 4/28/16)– The Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and
advocacy organization, today called on a Louisiana judge to ensure that the
recent removal of a Muslim woman from court because she wears an Islamic head
scarf, or hijab, not be repeated.

CAIR said the Muslim woman, who does not want to be
identified, says she removed from Jefferson Parish Traffic Court on Tuesday
after a bailiff asked her to remove her hijab and she refused. The woman
stated: “I started to cry because I felt so embarrassed and
humiliated.” Judge Raylyn  Beevers,
who admitted that she asked the Muslim woman to leave the courtroom, now says
she did not realize the head covering was worn for religious reasons.
It is
not known if Judge Beevers relented and allowed the Muslima into the courtroom
wearing the nijab. The CAIR letter to the judge implies that she regretted her
decision to ask the woman to leave, and hoped the “misunderstanding” was not
repeated.
Next
up, the Muslim truckers. On June 2nd, Daniel Greenfield reported in “Obama
Inc Sues Trucking Company
for Firing Muslim Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Alcohol”
from the DougRoss@Journal:
 Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in
Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees
because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged
in a lawsuit filed today.
The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to
provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it
terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol.
Greenfield
commented:
A trucking company may be obligated to accommodate religious
observance by providing time off for holidays or prayers. It is not obligated
to excuse employees from doing their actual job. And delivering alcohol is part
of what being a truck driver means. If it’s against your religion, find a job
that doesn’t involve delivering large quantities of foods and beverages.
In fact there is no actual prohibition that bars
Muslims from driving a truck full of alcohol. There are prohibitions on
drinking alcohol. Every Muslim corner store I have ever seen sells alcohol,
alongside smuggled cigarettes and lottery tickets. Many Muslim countries allow
the sale of alcohol.
And,
the Muslim truckers won the suit. The Washington
Post
reported on October 23rd:
One more data point on the “When
does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?

question — like it or not, under American law, employers sometimes do have to
excuse employees from tasks that the employees find religiously objectionable.
Tuesday, two Muslim truck drivers who were fired for refusing to deliver
shipments containing alcohol were awarded $40,000 in compensatory damages and
$200,000 in punitive damages by the jury in their discrimination claim.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit on their
behalf (EEOC v. Star Transport Co., Inc. (N.D. Ill.)), arguing that the
employer had failed to provide “reasonable accommodations” to the employees —
i.e., accommodations (including an exemption from job duties) that could be
provided without “undue hardship” to the employer or others. The court noted
that Star Transport had indeed often “swap[ped]’ loads between drivers,” and
Star Transport conceded that it could have easily accommodated this request,
too, but argued (unsuccessfully) that it shouldn’t be liable for punitive
damages.
It’s
now doubtful if the Muslim non-truck-drivers will ever collect their award. The
Post article concludes:
But as the Peoria Journal
Star (Andy Kravetz)
notes, “Whether the men collect their money is another
story. Star Transport went out of business earlier this year and it’s unknown
who is now responsible for the judgment….
To underscore
the assertion that Islam is a death cult, Daniel Greenfield also writes about what
Muslim women who hanker for Paradise can expect upon expiration of their
worldly existence. They would be no contest with “90
Foot Islamic Virgins
” awaiting the male Jihadist “martyrs.”
The 90-foot-tall transparent
creature with visible bone marrow and none of the functions of life is a giant
skeleton. The love that Muslim terrorists have for it is a love for death.
 
ISIS is recreating the Islamic paradise on earth by capturing and handing out
girls of “tender age” to the Jihadists. It forces them to take contraceptives
and conducts forced abortions so that, like the 72 virgins, the captured girls
will never actually have children. It even conducts reconstruction surgery
after the rapes so that their victims will more closely resemble the eternal
virgins of Islamic paradise.

The Islamic State isn’t just Islamic. It’s a hellish attempt to create an
Islamic heaven on earth.
Finally,
there is this unkind cut from our House of Representatives, as first reported
on Gates
of Vienna
December 29, 2015 and reprinted in the Counter
Jihad Report
on the 30th, “HR 569:
CAIR’s Standard Operating Procedure” for applying the scalpel to America.
The
author of the Gates of Vienna piece argues that HR 569 will not pass; the
numbers are against it. After reprinting the pious language of the Resolution,
he remarks:
Once again, this will not
pass. However, the fact that 82 Democrats have co-sponsored it will be used to
validate the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc. etc.) claim that hate
crimes have increased (and of course they haven’t for Muslims, although they
may have increased against Jews in America, who are historically identified in
FBI statistics as victimized in hate crimes five to ten times more frequently
than Muslims in America)….
So it won’t pass, but it’s still useful to
the Muslim Brotherhood to validate their claims among their own constituency,
as well as to the media and the Low Information Voters, or those who just
respond to any kind of “virtue-signaling”. And it’s useful to the 82
co-sponsoring Democrats, and the Democratic National Committee as a whole, to
claim that all Republicans who did not co-sponsor are therefore, by definition:
  • racist;
  • Islamophobic;
  • bigoted;
  • engaged in
    hate speech, by the sin of omission of not cosponsoring; and
  • engaged in
    incitement to hate crimes, by the implied sin of hate speech resulting
    from the sin of omission of not co-sponsoring.

It’s also worth noting that there are 188
Democrats in the House of Representatives, and 246 Republicans. So unless this
gets a lot of new co-sponsors in 2016, a counter-argument against the DNC on
this Resolution would be that it has met with overwhelming bi-partisan
opposition from the majority of Democrats (106) and all Republicans in the
House.
But
yes, it is a
successful effort for the target audiences at which it is aimed, including the
foreign funders for CAIR, ISNA etc., all of whom will be tickled pink that this
bill has 82 co-sponsors. As will the OIC, who might have helped a bit in
drafting the Resolution.
There
are dozens of pages of the “cuts” that have been inflicted on this country,
many, if most, aided by the eager interference of a Federal agency, the EEOC. I
could go on for twenty more pages just to list them. The country is being bled
dry, and the wounds will not heal until the EEOC is defunded, Americans see Islam
as the death cult it really is, the ISNA, the ICNA, the MSA, and all its
terrorist-affiliated ilk are booted out of the country, and the current
principals of CAIR are finally indicted, tried, and sent to jail with bread and
water as their only solace. All Muslims currently living in this country –
legally or illegally – should be disenfranchised, so as to not provide our
native statists with an extra power base.
Until then,
the cuts will continue in furtherance of the pursuit of death.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén