The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: July 2016 Page 1 of 2

We Don’t Want You to Know

Let’s now turn to the deliberate manipulation or
obfuscation or suppression of official reporting on crimes committed by
“migrants” (aka Muslims) in the U.S. and in Europe, such as the recent rape of a 5-year-old
girl in Idaho
by “underage” Muslim boys in Idaho.
Davis Odell, a community resident who has been in close contact with the
victim’s family said the boys dragged the unnamed girl into a utility room in
the Fawnbrook Apartments, a low-income, subsidized housing complex in Twin
Falls, and assaulted her in an attack that ended when a neighbor happened upon
the scene and called police….
Twin Falls Police Chief Craig Kingsbury told reporters the suspects are
Iraqi and Sudanese. [County Prosecutor Grant] Loebs said he does not know how
long they have been living in the United States.
Twin Falls activists say the case and the lack of information from
authorities demonstrates the problem with state and federal programs to
resettle refugees in cities and towns.

The local police
hemmed and hawed about the character of the crime and dragged their feet on the
exact identity of the perpetrators. Residents brow-beat the chief of police,
but it was clear that the police were under higher authority pressure to not be
forthcoming with the truth lest it reflect badly on “migrants” resettled at the
behest of the Obama administration. Shades of the Rotherham
sex slave
and prostitution ring in Britain, a ring that was run for years
with impunity by Muslims. IPT
reported that “Between 1997 and 2013, well before the recent mass migration to
Europe began, an estimated 1,400 children had been sexually
abused
in Rotherham, England, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani
men.”

At a City Council meeting Monday night, residents demanded answers from
law enforcement regarding the crime and the resettlement program, with some
calling for the removal of all immigrants in the city.
And the much touted
and feared “backlash” against resettled (or shall we say forced integration of
Americans with hostile Muslims) never came to Twin Falls or anywhere else,
except sporadically in Europe with the setting fire to “resettlement” housing.
Steve Emerson of IPT reports that the censoring and suppression of information
about the migrant crime rates in Germany and Sweden is “justified” by backlash
fears.
Authorities now believe that more than 1,200 women were sexually
assaulted – more than twice the original estimate of 500. While more than 2,000
men were allegedly involved, only 120 suspects — about half of them recently
arrived migrants — have been identified.
One explanation for why it took half a year for the full
extent of the crime to be revealed is the German police’s effort to avoid a
public backlash against refugees. But ultimately, Holger Munch, president of
the German Federal Crime Police Office, acknowledged to the German newspaper Sueddeutsche
Zeitung
that there is “a connection between the [sexual assaults] and
the rapid migration in 2015.” [The police in all countries invaded by the
“migrants” are under orders by the governments to under-report, or not report
at all, or to dismiss women’s complaints about rapes and send the women away,
or to punish them further for committing slander against Muslims and migrants.]
See also Daniel
Greenfield’s article “New
War Crimes in Germany
.”

The majority of the Muslim rapists came from North African countries.
Half of them had been in Germany for less than one year. If there were a UN
tribunal to be held for the war crimes committed by Muslim migrants against
European women, Frau Merkel should be sitting in the dock.
It was her decision to open the borders that led to the horror inflicted
on 1,200 women in one night.
And 1,200 women is just a single episode. We don’t know the full total
numbers. And we may never know them. Yet at this rate it’s entirely possible
that the total of Merkelicide might exceed even the wildest inflated estimates from
the Bosnian war. And yet it’s considered indelicate to discuss such things
because this time around Muslims aren’t the victims, they are the perpetrators.
In Sweden, rape
statistics are deliberately buried in order not to alarm the public. Gatestone
reports:
  • Forty years after the Swedish parliament
    unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a
    multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by
    1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed
    only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.
  • Significantly, the report does not touch on
    the background of the rapists. One should, however, keep in mind that in
    statistics, second-generation immigrants are counted as Swedes.
  • In an astounding number of cases, the Swedish
    courts have demonstrated sympathy for the rapists, and have acquitted
    suspects who have claimed that the girl wanted to have sex with six, seven
    or eight men.
  • The internet radio station Granskning Sverige
    called the mainstream newspapers Aftonbladet and Expressen
    to ask why they had described the perpetrators as “Swedish men”
    when they actually were Somalis without Swedish citizenship. They were
    hugely offended when asked if they felt any responsibility to warn Swedish
    women to stay away from certain men. One journalist asked why that should
    be their responsibility.

So, the question
is: Why don’t the authorities want the public to know the extent of crime
committed by Muslims on Westerners? There is the standard “backlash” argument,
which culminates in a single person leaving a slab of bacon on the doorknob of
a mosque or even a pig’s head on a mosque doorway. However, the “backlash” is
wholly Muslim in nature with regular violent riots of Muslims
in France
amounting to running battles between Muslims and the police.

The attitude
seems to be: “We don’t want Americans attacking Muslims or migrants because
they might fight back, causing a civil war we neither want nor would be able
to  control without siding with the
victims (that is, with the Muslims, not with their victims). After all, it’s wrong to hate Muslims, just because
a few of them commit horrendous crimes. The crimes they are responsible for
have nothing to do with their faith (Islam). That is the official stance from
the imperial seat of power and we the local police are not going to buck it or
resist it.  We are not here to formulate
or redefine immigration or foreign policy, not to pass judgment on Islam or on
savage foreigners. We are here to uphold the law as it has been prescribed on
high.”
This is what Ayn
Rand would call massive “blanking out” and an evasion of reality and facts, which
condemns a man to a mental state lower than that of a Muslim. Men who practice
it should be relieved of their law enforcement duties without severance pay and
run out of the town or country they refused to protect. “We don’t want you to
know about how bad it is,” such a person chews in his mind, “because then you’d
be upset and angry we’d need to do something about it and that would cause
trouble. All we want is the passive serenity of not judging anyone except for a ‘white privileged’ victim when she
defames her rapist or attacker. We don’t want the responsibility. We don’t want
to know and we’d prefer you not to know.”
It’s called
faking reality as an operative policy. Forcing the authorities to face reality
now will draw one punishment and penalties. Actual perpetrators, if their
crimes cannot be ignored, if they are judged at all, will get off lightly. The
fakers of reality commit fraud and have a vested interest in keeping you
ignorant.

The Muslim Clown can always rely on the police to protect him.
Knowledge can be
a dangerous thing, especially for those who don’t want to be bothered with it.
Being a moral man is just too much of a burden for the non-judger.

I contend that
any man who subscribes to such an anti-mind philosophy is sub-human.

Islam Inculcates Criminality

I am more and
more convinced that, aside from its totalitarian elements, Islam, from a
psychological perspective, deliberately plants the seed of criminality in the
average Muslim. The essence of any criminal act is the initiation of force –
whether it’s robbery, rape, vandalism, etc., which is to wish for and take the
unearned. I should think that would be obvious to the occasional reader of the
last few weeks’ depredations, from the two Paris massacres to the rape of a 5-year-old
girl in Idaho
by “underage” Muslim boys I see nothing but an inculcated
urge to kill, maim, to inflict pain and humiliation, and this urge is
sanctioned by any number of Koranic verses and Hadiths.

Violent verses
from the Koran:
2:191-193:
“And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they
expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by
the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you,
slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over,
surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no
persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be
no enmity save for evildoers.”
4:34:
“Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in
bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their
property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for
Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to
their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way
against them; Allah is All-high, All-great.”
4:89:
“They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be
equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in
the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them
wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or
helper.”
5:33:
“This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and
hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or
crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they
shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world;
and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”
5:38:
“And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for
what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah; Allah is
All-mighty, All-wise.”
8:12:
“When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the
believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the
necks, and smite every finger of them!’”
8:39:
“Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely;
then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”
8:60:
“Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify
thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you
know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall
be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”
9:5:
“Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you
find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every
place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms,
then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”
Islamic criminality is rooted in
tribalism. See Ayn Rand’s article on “The
Missing Link
,” or the “anti-conceptual mentality.
Racism
is an obvious manifestation of the anti-conceptual mentality. So is
xenophobia—the fear or hatred of foreigners (“outsiders”). So is any caste
system, which prescribes a man’s status (i.e., assigns him to a tribe)
according to his birth; a caste system is perpetuated by a special kind of
snobbishness (i.e., group loyalty) not merely among the aristocrats, but,
perhaps more fiercely, among the commoners or even the serfs, who like to “know
their place” and to guard it jealously against the outsiders from above or from
below. So is guild socialism. So is any kind of ancestor worship or of family
“solidarity” (the family including uncles, aunts and third cousins). So is any
criminal gang.
Tribalism
. . . is the best name to give to all the group manifestations of the
anti-conceptual mentality.
I think that one
of the most spectacular dramatic demonstrations of tribalism is the film
version of The Godfather (Parts I and
II). Except for the concretes, fundamentally there is not much difference between
the tribal code of the Corleones and that of the Islamic Ummah.

Vito Corleone: Head of his Mafioso Ummah


Islamic behavior
fits the bill completely: Muslims are racists (how else to explain the multiple
crimes against Westerners?); they are xenophobes, even when they have invaded
and settled in Western nations and expect Westerners to conform and observe Islamic
practices and Sharia law; Muslims have an internal caste system, beginning at
the top with imams and mullahs (the “spiritual leaders”) descending to women,
the lowest caste in Islamic society, except for the occasional female spokesmen
for Islam and who are just window dressing; Muslims like to “know their place”
and will not depart from it, but those who dare to leave the Ummah (the larger tribal group) are
usually punished with death (honor killings), or physical maiming or disfigurement,
such as acid attacks); Muslims are “snobbish” (we are the superior group and
all you infidels are lesser beings); the common “ancestor.” 
Muslims worship without
reservation or question is Mohammed and in defiance of his reputation as a
criminal. One must learn the hard way that to emphasize Mohammed’s record or “rap
sheet” to a Muslim is a futile enterprise in persuasion; a Muslim’s mind is
anti-conceptual and proof against any argumentation or evidence. To dwell on
Mohammed’s record of criminality is regarded as blasphemy and as an insult. The
average non-violent Muslim is a tribalist and anti-conceptual mentality to the
core. There is no such thing as an individual Muslim. There are only countless reifications
of zeroes
, or vessels or clones of non-thought. See Rand’s observations on
that subject:
A vulgar variant of concept stealing, prevalent among avowed mystics and
irrationalists, is a fallacy I call the Reification of the Zero. It
consists of regarding “nothing” as a thing, as a special, different kind
of existent. (For example, see Existentialism.) This fallacy breeds such
symptoms as the notion that presence and absence, or being and non-being, are
metaphysical forces of equal power, and that being is the absence of non-being.
E.g., “Nothingness is prior to being.” (Sartre)—“Human finitude is the presence
of the not in the being of man.” (William Barrett)—“Nothing is more real
than nothing.” (Samuel Beckett)—”
Das Nichts nichtet” or “Nothing noughts.”
(Heidegger). Consciousness, then, is not a stuff, but a negation. The
subject is not a thing, but a non-thing. The subject carves its own world out
of Being by means of negative determinations. Sartre describes consciousness as
a ‘noughting nought’ (
néant néantisant). It is a form of being other than its own: a mode
‘which has yet to be what it is, that is to say, which is what it is, that is
to say, which is what it is not and which is not what it is.’” (Hector Hawton, The
Feast of Unreason
, London: Watts & Co., 1952, p. 162.)
(The motive? “Genuine utterances about the nothing must always remain
unusual. It cannot be made common. It dissolves when it is placed in the cheap
acid of mere logical acumen.” Heidegger.)
There are “individual”
Muslims, that is, the homicidal ones, who wish to act out their internal emptiness
in attempts to prove the efficacy of nothingness, that is, by destroying men or
other values. And a motive for such compulsive destruction is to achieve the kudos
of their fellow Muslims and reach a state of martyrdom or “sainthood.” “I am
full of envy and rage and anger because I am nothing. You who are something must feel pain and die, then,
when we are both nothing, we will be equal!”
And how many
non-Muslims have been slaughtered if they were not able to recite the shadada? (The prayer recited before
Muslims bow and bang their heads on the ground in craven submission to that
“all-compassionate, all-forgiving” ghost.)

The Koran fosters the search for the
unearned. Ayn Rand,
the novelist/philosopher wrote, long, long before Islam grew to be on everyone’s
minds
:
 The
desire for the unearned has two aspects: the unearned in matter and the
unearned in spirit. (By “spirit” I mean: man’s consciousness.) These two
aspects are necessarily interrelated, but a man’s desire may be focused
predominantly on one or the other. The desire for the unearned in spirit is the
more destructive of the two and the more corrupt. It is a desire for unearned greatness; it
is expressed (but not defined) by the foggy murk of the term “prestige.”
. . .
Unearned
greatness is so unreal, so neurotic a concept that the wretch who seeks it
cannot identify it even to himself: to identify it, is to make it impossible.
He needs the irrational, indefinable slogans of altruism and collectivism to
give a semi-plausible form to his nameless urge and anchor it to reality—to
support his own self-deception more than to deceive his victims.
Her
subject was “prestige” and not criminal acts based on seeking the unearned in
terms of material values or tangible things, but her observations are
applicable to the criminal Muslim mentality. 
The
Muslim criminal, the murdering jihadist, seeks the unearned which is
non-existence

which he also wishes to impose on others (the unbelievers, the
apostates, the infidels) who value their own existence.

On the Destructiveness of Political Correctness

A guest essay by William S. Lind from An Accuracy in
Academia Association meeting in 1998. The Wikipedia entry for
him reads:
William S. Lind (born July 9, 1947) is an American monarchist,
paleoconservative, columnist, Christian,
and a light
rail
enthusiast.[1][2][3]
He’s the author of several books and one of the first proponents of the Fourth-generation warfare theory. More
recently Lind has advocated for police to have RPGs as standard issue, and for a return
to death by
hanging
as a common sentence for crime in ‘urban areas’.[4][5]
Lind is a key proponent of the “Cultural
Marxism
” conspiracy theory, he asserts that Marxists control
much of modern popular media, and that Political correctness can be directly
attributed to Karl Marx.[6][7]
Lind also wrote Victoria: A Novel of 4th Generation War, in which a
group of Christian Marines leads an armed rebellion against political
correctness within the American government.[8]
He revealed using the pseudonym Thomas
Hobbes
in a column for The American Conservative.
See also the Full Wikipedia on Lind. Here
is his ALA  paper on
political correctness:
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
 The Origins of Political Correctness

An observation from the late, great Barzun


An Accuracy
in Academia Address by Bill Lind (7/10/1998- 13th AIA Annual Summer Conference)
Variations
of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the
2000 Consevative University at American University
Where does
all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the
gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies,
the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time
in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they
write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word,
a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.
We have seen
other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case.
And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful,
some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow
a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But
we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college
campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?
We call it
“Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke,
literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only
half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our
century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe,
in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC
is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look
at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly
what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated
from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the
1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we
compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the
parallels are very obvious.
First of
all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political
Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of
which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or
faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender
feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic
group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves
around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal
system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding
– and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole. 
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian
because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly
understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis
of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality
contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to
acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie,
and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use
their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true.
I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the
demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian
state.
Second, the
cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single
factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is
determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political
Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups
defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups.
Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the
past is about that one thing.
Third, just
as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are
a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are
evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good
– feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to
exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be
“victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of
them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.
Fourth, both
economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical
Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated
the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural
Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like
quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is
denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as
well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned
companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company
owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for
both forms of Marxism.
And finally,
both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want.
For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist,
it’s deconstruction.
Deconstruction
essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any
meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the
suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of
these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all
history is about which groups have power over which other groups.” So the
parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar
with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as
Political Correctness. 

But the parallels are not accidents. The
parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political
Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are
aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the
history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies
that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.
Marxist
theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe
in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their
governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in
common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common
with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came
and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and
happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the
leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no
parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in
Europe. So something was wrong.
Marxists
knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a
Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it
stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread
immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the
Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t
support them.
So the
Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio
Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will
never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are
freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that
they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs,
who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said
in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also
theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the
culture: Western civilization itself.
Lukacs gets
a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik
Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy
commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education
into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the
Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast,
workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that
today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest
thing.”
In 1923 in
Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating
Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness
as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end
of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a
millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and
has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the
Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of
the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of
Marxism.
And he says,
“What we need is a think-tank.” Washington is full of think tanks and
we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows
an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that
was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the
people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to
be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name
it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very
clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a
principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research
soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to
become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Well,
he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an
Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay,
“by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed.
The initial
work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new
director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He
was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt
School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their
thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what
they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless
this.”
Horkheimer’s
initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making
the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially
that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be
said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself
primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic
sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the
Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after
1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the
traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was
brought into question by Critical Theory.”
The stuff
we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s
studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments
– all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School
essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this
theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to
ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is
that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to
lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t
be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their
definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the
repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the
Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression
– we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing.
It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way,
designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the
feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that
kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the
1930s, not the 1960s.

And we plan to have many more spoiled brats!


Other key
members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most
importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an
element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual
element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society
of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of
the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is
writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political
Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and
femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the
Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life
functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct;
sexual differences are a construct.
Another
example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as
far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward
nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral.
“The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ”
was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent
years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor,
(here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another
dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In
one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation,
written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal
gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred
to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in
the name of a higher morality.”
How does all
of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and
indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist,
they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany,
and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its
members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished
there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in
German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive
criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed
toward American society. There is another very important transition when the
war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert
Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and
some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These
origins of Political
Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two
subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s,
which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the
Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They
couldn’t
just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to have
some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested
in
wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light,
and most
of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert
Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to
Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled
by the
student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels
come into
Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert
Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great
chance.
He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make
it the
theory of the New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse’s books was the
key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of
the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a
capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is
subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud
describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual
instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this
existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in
which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can
“do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no
longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the
mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never
having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here
is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which
is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do
it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is
also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming
back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating
tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance
for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932
(if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.

The Dictionary of the English
language: on  the 
Progressives’ own Index Librorum Prohibitorum?
In
conclusion, America today is in the throws of the greatest and direst
transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country
with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In
“hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political
thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further.
Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from
Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen
happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And
we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it
will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever
defined as our freedom and our culture.

Freedom of Speech Go to Hell

Angela Merkel and Mark Zuckerberg, brave souls, are disguised as Muslims

Both wings of the totalitarian Liberal/Left, The American and European ones,
have proven themselves to be as dedicated to suppressing and censoring speech
as have been the Muslims. Totalitarian activists like Angela Merkel and Mark
Zuckerberg would punish anyone who on Facebook or Twitter says nasty or
critical things about Muslims or Islam. As
Daniel Greenfield
has eloquently pointed out, Germans who speak out about
the rapes of German women by “migrants” or about the other crimes committed by
“migrants’ are likely to be handed penalties as severe if not more so than any
migrant charged and sentenced.

It’s not that German authorities are incompetent. A
January headline informs us, “Germany springs to action over hate speech
against migrants”. Merkel forged a censorship deal with Facebook and Twitter.
So that next time Muslims commit thousands of sexual assaults, it will be much
harder for the populace to get the news out through the digital curtain of dot
com censorship and propaganda.
With her Communist background, Merkel understands
the mechanics of censorship. And that makes her an accessory to the war crimes
that Muslim migrants have committed in their invasion of Europe both before and
after the fact.
A 29-year-old German woman had received five months
probation for her outrage over Muslim rapes of women. In today’s Germany, the
sentences for Muslim sexual assaults and for denouncing them are eerily
similar.
It is an issue of self-loathing, for the Muslims as well as for the likes
of Angela Merkel and Mark Zuckerberg, the censor and her enabler. As Muslims
hate existence as well as their own, alleged “Westerners” like Merkel and
Zuckerberg also hate their own and the superiority of the West. The poppies
must be leveled, and everyone reduced to the lowest common denominator and if
that means reducing men of independent thought to non-thinking conformists,
erasing beauty as Muslims tried to erase Lara
Logan in Tahrir Square
, as the killers of Bataclan
in Paris tortured and mutilated Westerners. When attempting to understand why
many Westerners would turn against the civilized milieu in which they were
raised, one can’t help but venture into a bit of “psychologizing.” Muslims subscribe
to the notion that they are not fit for living except to serve Allah; why not
ascribe the same or similar motive to Merkel and Zuckerberg? Merkel hails from a
failed Communist regime, and is apparently making up for that by turning
Germany into a fascist dictatorship that eats the non-Muslim or non-“migrant” citizens. 
Zuckerberg undoubtedly comes from a society that holds self-sacrifice as
a paramount moral virtue, as did Bill Gates, who has made it a goal to
liquidate his own fortune, “to give back” what he claims he took from society. Altruism
can emasculate a person, and turn him not only into a self-sacrificing
nonentity but move him to become a monster who wishes to sacrifice anyone else who
does not apologize for his existence or for what he may say. 
Zuckerberg is as
much a power-luster as is Merkel even though he does not occupy political
office. He may as well occupy one for he is willing to employ his fortune in
the service of those who do, who wish to shut people up and to keep them in
darkness. “Ignorance is Strength” ran one of Big Brother’s mottos. Germany and
Sweden are practicing it full tilt in regards to number of sex crimes committed
by Muslim men.

Muslim “Bluestockings”


“Don’t complain when you are brutalized by a Muslim, or you will
be punished further,” warn the governments. “Your duty is to sacrifice yourself
to the ‘new citizens’ of our countries. We, the political elite, don’t want to
know about your shame and pain. Just keep quiet about it and bear it, or there
will be worse consequences. Self-sacrifice is a noble virtue! Haven’t you been
taught that? And we, your guardians, are prepared to help you remember those
lessons. You will be quiet about the evil we have unleashed on you, or you will
be banned from discussing it on our social media! Freedom of speech can go to
hell!” Freedom of speech can
go to hell! We, the ‘superior’
culture, can learn something from those barbarous Muslims!”

Do Merkel and Zuckerberg hate themselves? Do they hate existence? Very likely
on both counts. If you hate existence then you must hate what is required to
live successfully in it. And that is to acknowledge reality and that it permits
no wishful thinking or fraud. A is A. Islam is a totalitarian ideology posing
as a “moral” guide to living.
But, in truth, Islam is a guide to death. See my column “A
Complete Way of Death
” from May.  Don’t
tell anyone that. Freedom of Speech can go to hell. In ignorance there is
strength!

An Unleashed Comment


Little did I realize that my discussion
on defining evil echoed Augustine and Aquinas from centuries ago. As an
informed and educational comment on Unleashed
II,
I could not resist republishing it in full. The author is one of the
editors of Gates
of Vienna
, perhaps the best blog site reporting daily on the Islamic invasion
of the West and the destruction wrought by the barbarians at the invitation of
our political elites.  Gates of Vienna is
one of the very few blog sites that has consistently damned Islam as a religion, so I stand corrected.  What I think deters such bloggers as Pamela
Geller and Robert Spencer from across the board condemnations of Islam is their
own religious tenets. It’s just a smidgen of political correctness that serves
to undercut their arguments and reportage on the ongoing depredations of “radical
Islam,” which is a term I myself have opposed for years. Examined more closely,
Islam is nothing if not “radical” qua political ideology.  And here is the comment:
Evil as a negation of good goes all the way back to Augustine (he
was the Bishop of Hippo, a cosmopolitan city with a university he founded. The
city disappeared under the Islam hordes a few hundred years later). It was he,
and later, Thomas Aquinas, who preserved Aristotelian and Platonic thought, and
the philosophy of good and evil (later to be called “ponerology” in
the realms of political evil).

I have often described Islam as evil. And we say repeatedly at GoV that it’s
not a religion but rather a juridical, supremacist, utopian world view (their
Utopia would be the Ummah, of course). Islam closely resembles Marxist
Communism. The main difference is that Islam has Allah stuck on top of its
ideas where for Communism; the ‘withering of the state’ is the summum bonum.


Islam is not only evil, it’s psychologically regressive; any kind of moral
development stops at Level One or Two: something is wrong only if you get
caught doing it.
The obsession with sex, with
what’s clean* vs. what’s not, with what’s haram vs. what’s halal (the list of
the former is much, much longer, including music, dogs, laughter)
A Turkish neurologist (M.D.) made
a very good case* for why Mohammed, if he existed (and that is becoming more
problematic as they examine original documents) probably had a lesion in his?
parietal? lobe. That’s why he was often slightly incontinent and obsessed on
the long bathing rituals before prayer – a spot of urine on clothing meant you
had to start all over. He also seemed not to be aware of his left side -or not
as aware. Wore no jewelry on his left side, for instance. “Radical”
imams, in imitation of Mohammed, wear watches on their right arm. His obsession
with ritual was concerned with base things – the kind of poop/pee obsessions
that very young children display. Thus the rules about which foot goes first
into the toilet cubicle. It’s a normal part of child development; Islam never
outgrows it.

Its obsession with women’s sexuality is also primitive: baby/momma revenge
fantasies that normal Western adults outgrow as they move into the ten year-old
range remain a conscious focal point for Islamic men. Thus their repetitive
acting-out on women.


Part of the reason for so many unhinged adult male Muslims is the extremely
high rate of sexual abuse of children, especially males, starting in infancy.
In a kind of you-break-it-you-pay-for-it ‘morality’, a man who we in the West
would call a pedophile is not seen that way in Islam. He only owes for his
transgressions if he does any physical damage to the child-object. Same rules
apply to a neighbor’s goat. His own goat? He contaminates the animal for his
own future consumption but he’s free to sell it in the next village without
mentioning his hobbies.
Yes, Islam is disgusting as well as evil. But many
tribal cultures are, Rousseau and Margaret Mead be damned.

The Evil Unleashed on Us II

Evil needs to be more precisely defined if we are ever able
to deal with it.
Evil is not some kind of hobgoblin
or leprechaun or deity independent of men’s actions, flitting about and
striking at random like a natural disaster. Evil is a product of men’s actions,
exclusively. Volcanic eruptions, rattlesnakes, and wolf packs are not evil.
Evil is the conscious negation of a
value. The value, of course, must be a pro-life value. It does not necessarily
mean it is a “good.” The assault on Lara
Logan
in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in February 2011 was an overture to what
Muslim men hanker do to infidel women and what they do to their victims.
Logan’s blonde hair was pulled out in clumps and her arms were partially
dislocated from their sockets. This was in addition to the repeated rapes. The
object was to inflict pain and ultimately to erase her.
Reportedly some of physical and sexual assault activity was caught on
camera phones as well. One video purportedly involved some boy fondling the
breasts of the reporter. However, another purported video that was described by
a controversial YouTube video claims that a bearded man ripped the top off the
reporter and began slapping her face and breasts. He then pinned her to the
ground, and by this time she stopped resisting, apparently accepting the fact
that she was overpowered. The bearded man then removed her pants and masturbated
in front of her before raping her. He also reportedly clawed at her breasts
with his hands. The YouTube video claims that at least six men raped her
vaginally, and a number of men also raped her anally as well. She was
reportedly masturbated on and urinated on by some men as well according to the
YouTube video claims which was supposed to be pieced together from information
and videos posted on Arab Websites and other sources.
Read the treatment by ISIS of Yazidi
women
and girls.
Men who indulge in evil derive a sense of metaphysical efficacy in
destroying the good. Especially when they are unopposed or even encouraged by
the secular institutions who have a moral obligation to protect the good. “See?
I have power. I can destroy.” All you need to do is observe the boisterous,
hubristic behavior of Islamic jihadists “The good is helpless in our hands.”

Islam is a life-sucking vampire.

Islam sanctions evil, and sanctions its conscious, premeditated
commission. Were it not evil, to a Muslim male, there would be no point in
committing the action if it did not negate or appropriate a value or inflict on
a victim a sense of loss or violation or pain or shame or humiliation.
Committing evil imbues the In Islamic “ethics,” the commission of any evil is
rationalized as a”right” and a sense of “rightful’ supremacy. Aside from
committing rape, murder, and mutilation, the Muslim male delights in torment.
“I know this wrong and you know it’s wrong, but I’m going to do it anyway,
who’s to stop me?”
Islam is the antipode of any moral system that offers a value. The
system may not offer rational values (such as the music that was to be performed
at the Bataclan
concert
in Paris before the concert goers were tortured and murdered). The
whole system of Islam is founded on what could be called the “death premise”
(see my column “A
Complete Way of Death
” from May 30th). Ayn Rand, the novelistphilosopher,
had a few choice explications on the subject of the desire to destroy values as
a means of negating
existence
:
To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise
directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise
directing his actions is death.”
“Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the
act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not
blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know.
Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a
commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is
anti-life.”
And Muslims follow a course of action knowing full well that the end is
non-existence, for themselves as well as for their victims, or of objects that
contradict their world view (such as churches, art, women’s fashions, freedom
of speech)
From one horse’s
mouth
about Islam’s death worship:
“We love death like our enemies love life!” he said. “We
love martyrdom, the way in which [Hamas] leaders died.”

A top Hamas leader mocked the Israel Defense Forces, declaring they are
fighting “divine soldiers” who love death.
“Today you [Israelis] are fighting
divine soldiers, who love death for Allah like you love life, and who compete
among themselves for Martyrdom like you flee from death,” said Hamas Chief of
Staff Muhammad Deif in a recorded statement broadcast Wednesday by Al Aqsa TV,
the Hamas channel.

The sight of non-Muslims living and
enjoying life is both a contradiction and a reproach. “If we must die, we want
to take you with us. It is necessary. We are so commanded. It is against Allah’s
will to have you remain behind to desecrate his earth. We are the superior
ones, you are infidels and inferior. We have not been blessed by Allah with a
capacity for living. Allah deems it wrong that you have such a capacity and so
you must be punished horribly and extinguished, for you are an affront to Allah’s
divine will. We exist only to reach a state of non-existence. We live to die. Your
last conscious, pain-ridden thought must be the sight of my face drooling on
your near-lifeless body.”
I have yet to read or hear a major
writer on any other blog state unequivocally that Islam is pure unmitigated
evil. “But it’s a religion! It’s
wrong to damn someone’s faith!” Is that so? If that is what you think, that Islam
has nothing to do with its integral political – or Sharia – structure, then don’t
expect to make any headway in combating its reign of terror, destruction, and
death.
My solution to rid ourselves of the
death worshippers is to give them what they want.

Edward Cline: After Nice: Bruce Bawer on No More

Edward Cline: After Nice: Bruce Bawer on No More: From Bruce Bawer on City Journal. I couldn’t have said it better. https://www.facebook.com/edward.cline.77/posts/1071398272926393?not…

After Nice: A Guest post by Bruce Bawer


From Bruce Bawer. I couldn’t
have said it better.
https://www.facebook.com/edward.cline.77/posts/1071398272926393?notif_t=like&notif_id=1468794657704889

No more flags of foreign countries posted on
Facebook in a spirit of solidarity. No more empathic Twitter hashtags. No more
empty statements by heads of government declaring that “the terrorists have
failed in their effort to turn us against one another.” No more equally empty
statements by other heads of government expressing their own country’s support
for “our ally in its time of grief.” No more calls for love in the face of
hate, or candlelight processions as a response to murder. No more clicking of
tongues and shaking of heads over the horrible loss of life—as if people had
died in a one-off natural disaster, a hurricane or tornado or tsunami—followed,
after a few days, by a return to normal. Until the next time, of course.

No more attempts to psychologically analyze
every new jihadist—to probe his troubled family or professional life in an
attempt to figure out what “turned him to violence and extremism.” No more
reflexive reassurances that “this has nothing to do with Islam,” that a handful
of bad guys have “hijacked” a “peaceful” faith, and that “the great majority of
the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims are, of course, peace-loving people who utterly
reject this kind of action.” No more slick pivoting to the subject of gun
control, or American homophobia, or whatever other diversion seems useful under
the specific circumstances. No more blaming of Europeans’ supposed failure to
accept or embrace or integrate or employ Muslims, or of Muslims’ alleged
poverty or hopelessness or frustration or alienation.

No more hand-wringing by journalists, as they
stand mere yards from the bodies of the dead, about the possible “backlash”
against Muslims (which never really materializes). No more declarations by U.S.
officials that the mere mention of Islam in connection with Islamic terrorism
is “dangerous” and “counterproductive” because it “alienates” the Muslim allies
and Muslim communities whose help we need in fighting this problem that we dare
not properly name. No more respectful TV interviews with representatives of
“Muslim civil-rights organizations” that have been proven over and over again
to be fronts for terrorism.

No more outrageous lies by government and
media that, almost fifteen years after 9/11, keep so many Americans so
outrageously in the dark about the world in which we live now. No more of the
despicable day-to-day efforts by the same actors to keep those Americans who do
get it in line, to instill in them an unholy fear that, if they dare to address
the problem honestly, they’ll be thrust forever out into the dark—beyond the
realm of decent society, unacceptable, unemployable, unfriendable. No more
societal tyranny by those who (because they’re cowardly, or feel powerless, or
have no sense of responsibility to preserve the precious gift of freedom that
their own forebears fought and died for and have bequeathed them, or are,
inconceivably, unconcerned about the world their own children and grandchildren
will inhabit) treat as enemies not those who seek to destroy them but those who
dare to speak the truth about it.

The Evil Unleashed on us by our Governments


The face of Islamic evil is so evident now, given the Nice
butchery
of July
14th
that even the most morally dissolute and corrupt among the Progressive
totalitarians cannot but concede that they could be next. It won’t matter to
the jihadist truck driver who he mows down. It could be a life-long socialist
or dedicated multiculturalist, or a woman with an infant in her arms or in a
baby stroller, it won’t matter, if you’re white and look healthy and happy, you
are slated for death. The Islamic killer doesn’t want to bother discriminating
between victims.
I could not help but note that in all the videos of the Nice massacre
that all the bodies left in the wake of the driver’s rampage were of whites. Let
no one deny that Islam is waging not only an ideological war against the West
but a racial one. This has been made abundantly clear by Obama and his ilk –
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, et al. – that they wish to destroy “white” culture.

Nice
attacker named as Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel

He was a Muslim and French citizen from
Tunisia
, still harboring a
grudge against France
over its colonial policies. In the meantime, our
cravenly corrupt Secretary of State John Kerry is boasting that 85,000
Syrian “refugees”
will be foisted on the American people in 2016, so that
they can help “transform” the country. One thing that should sit in the craw of
all Americans is that Obama, Clinton, Kerry and their ilk will be insulated
from the consequences of this planned invasion of aliens hostile to all Western
values and won’t need to deal with them.
In the meantime, Black Lives Matter and the New
Black Panther Party
are promising to disrupt the Republican convention with
guns. This is another facet of the race war Obama and his ilk are promoting. To
point out that Donald Trump is defying the poisonous PC multicultural party
line is to risk being labeled a racist. 
In Germany, Germans are subjected to raids
by the police
for their “anti-migrant” (read anti-Muslim) comments on
Facebook.

“German Police Raid Homes Over ‘Verbal Radicalism’ On
Facebook,” By Craig Boudreau, Daily Caller, July 13, 2016
The onslaught of evil unleashed by our government, and by European governments
is so ubiquitous that I often feel that I can no long tolerate it. I don’t see
any pushback or outrage, excepting my own, which got me booted from my own home
in the USA. I am very, very tired.

Fugitive Reflections


I settled into my new apartment here in the “Heart of Texas” (the town shall
remain nameless to all but those close to me) which is, from all outward
appearances, an intellectual wasteland, I began to make some observations. Trying
my best to acclimatize myself to the heat and realign my sense of direction, in
the beginning I would sit for a while on a neighbor’s steps and endeavor to
de-simmer.
The town is like Las Vegas; tawdry on one hand, without character on
the other. It shares also with Vegas the heat. However, whereas in Vegas, there
are few pleasantly cool mornings, until the heat that collects in its basin
soars dramatically as the day wears on reaching the uppermost neighborhoods,
here there are many evenings and nights when I needed to cover myself with a
blanket, it was so cold. The mornings are pleasant enough, until the heat
builds and climaxes a little past noon. And here, because the place is
relatively flat, winds blow the heat around, but not fast enough to make it
miserable. Air conditioning is an absolute necessity. It makes one wonder, as I
often did about Vegas, how people managed to live without A/C, crawling in
their wagons at oxen-speed through hostile terrain and onto Death Valley and
California beyond or ensconced in their adobe or tin roof huts cooking hot
meals under broiling sun
There is a nursing home beyond the wire fence facing my patio. I have a
magnificent view of two of its dumpsters, and a regular parade of nursing home
personnel hauling trash to those dumpsters, taking their time to have a smoke
on the way and to yak about the day’s developments inside the home. The nursing
home itself resembles a morgue or a crematorium.
For a while I would sit and stare at the pitiful sight of a dead
sparrow that had tried to fly through the fence, near the bottom. Its head and
neck drooped on the wire, and its feathers would flutter in the breeze. It
served to deepen my depression for my circumstances. I felt like I had a
personal connection with that bird.
I grew tired of seeing it. One afternoon I rose and walked over to the
fence to nudge it with my shoe so that it would drop out of sight into the
nursing home parking lot and I wouldn’t need to see it again. To my surprise,
it wasn’t a sparrow at all or any other kind of hapless bird; it was a tiny twig
with several gray-grown leaves. The discovery served to raise my spirits a
smidgen. I nudged the faux bird over the fence.
The town is not a hub of intellectual vitality. It is top-heavy with “plus
size” fat people whom I think have never cracked open a book since high school.
For all the brands of food sold in the local grocery market – a huge affair,
almost as big as the local Wal-Mart – the ones that feature “reduced fat”
advisories on their labels, the admonition doesn’t seem to sit well with so
many of the inhabitants with the mandatory calorie counts and highlighted
announcements of the twelve essential  vitamins
on packaging  It’s mostly women who are balloon-size
or near clinically defined obese. And mostly they’re white.
I made another observation, that there are more “mixed couples” here
than I’ve seen anywhere else, that is, of black men with white wives or common
law wives. Or just companions. For some reason, black men almost universally
prefer plump, slobbish white women. The women have children, are homely, and there
is a dullness in their expressions that confesses a certain level of mental
inertia that could be deemed criminally stupid and obsessively short-range.  I can’t explain that. I don’t think personal
esthetics has much to do with the pairings, either from the men’s standpoint or
from the distaff side. The men typically are bruisers with dreadlocks, which
may be a sign of virility in black sub-culture. Black sub-culture is so
malevolent it repels any kind of prolonged investigation, by me, at least. The
main “attraction” between them seems to be a matter of convenience. Any port in
a storm and it becomes permanent anchorage.
The drive to Texas from Virginia was incident-free. I was not in a
hurry and did not push my car to extremes. I kept a steady 60-65 mph pace and
rarely got up to 70. I just let all the highway traffic pass me. When I had the
road to myself, I would “thread the needle,” that is, feed into a curve in the
road on my left and then feed into the opposite curve on my right. I learned
that trick years ago while driving across country. The maneuver slices miles
off of one’s mileage. It has to be done when there’s no one behind one.
Truckers rule of the roads. Except when they decide to call it a day
and “coop out” in their cabs for much needed sleep. That can occur day or
night. There were countless “truckers only” spots off the highways where
perhaps a dozen rigs would be pulled up, their drivers stretched out in their
bunks, if they had one of those double-decker cabs atop the seats. I don’t know
what else the cabs are equipped with. Perhaps with fridges and water. At night,
or close to morning, one could see swarms of these behemoths grouped at the
stops, their cabs and haulage lit up like horizontal Christmas trees, looking
like snoozing creatures. The Highway Patrols of each state keep out automobile
traffic.
Truckers by and large are the safest drivers on the road. They’re more
considerate of automobile traffic than the drivers of cars are to anyone else.  
I did see one major accident on the way through Arkansas. It seems that
a big rig had a passing dispute with two cars. The cars got bumped off the road
and were demolished, and I guess so were the inhabitants. The rig itself went
off the highway and landed upside down in a gully, its cargo strewn all over,
and the cab itself smashed to pieces. Ambulances, fire trucks, and two dozen
police vehicles had blocked the northbound traffic for two or more miles. That
was the only mishap I witnessed on the entire trip from Williamsburg, which
lasted about a week and a half.
It is a little-known fact that truckers did not always rule the roads.
When President Dwight E. Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway law in 1956
(it may have been in 1955), truckers in short time took away a lot of business
from the railroads, and once the interconnecting interstates had been built and
were linked up. The federal highways had to integrate with state and local
highways. Railroads had to scramble to save their business, aside from having
to kowtow to the rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission.  Highways, said the law, had to have portions
of them long enough to accommodate landing military aircraft, at least a mile
in length. For a long time, railroads used to supply every nook and cranny in
the country with food and other necessities. But no more.
Readers may have noticed that Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, which
focuses on the fortunes and misfortunes of railroads under government
regulation, particularly Taggart Transcontinental, was researched and written
before Eisenhower’s stroke of a pen created the interstate system. Rand’s opus
debuted in 1957, a year after transcontinental shipping was doomed to second
class status by federal fiat.  
From my perspective, the most “romantic”
places on the road are the truckers’ stops, They have names such as the Flying
J, or Love’s, TA, or Petro. This is where trucks are refueled at special pumps,
their tires re-inflated, engine repairs are made, and their haulage weighted,
as well, in anticipation of trucks having to stop at state weighing stations.
They usually feature “truckers” only lounges, bathrooms, and shower stalls. The
shops inside sell every imaginable thing one could want or need for
long-distance driving. There are restaurants and other food concessions. Some
stops promote entertainment and gaming arcades for children.
Of course, this is an
awkward time to be extolling truckers, on the occasion of the Islamic truck
massacre in Nice, France.

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén