The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: December 2016

The Madness of Queen Angela

I take the title of this column from a 1994
British film, “The Madness of
King George
,” which dramatizes the enveloping insanity of George III, the
monarch who lost America and was losing his mind. George kept committing
actions that were “embarrassing” to the nation, but most of all, to the dignity
of his station. Doctors were at a loss to diagnosis and possibly correct the
king’s bizarre behavior and eccentricities. Given the primitive state of mental
and physical science of the time, they were reduced to examining his stool for
clues to a remedy. The only doctor to make a semblance of progress was one who
insisted that all regal niceties be dropped and the King be put through a régimen
of what only could be called, in certain military circles, “square bashing.” George
would be put in a straight jacket every time he “misbehaved.”

But George III’s madness was a low-level one
compared to Chancellor Angela
policy of madness. She cannot help but be aware of the insanity and
the suicidal consequences of her policies, but she chooses them. George’s
madness could not be corrected with rational persuasion or introspection. He
was not capable of conscious irrationality. His mind careened in its own world
of causo-connections.
As does Merkel’s.
Merkel’s madness seeks to reduce her nation
to being a deferential caliphate of Islam against the will of the non-Islamic
population, which is expected to meld peacefully without complaint with the
savages, rapists, thieves and welfare parasites. It is based on the madness of
her brand of collectivism, Marxism.
Marxism itself is a system of madness that
defies or denigrates human volition and goes against any measure of rationality.
If you were born in a certain “class,” preferably a poor one, then you were
destined to become a communist, or at least a socialist, and resent anyone
better off economically than you. Dialectical Materialism brands you from the beginning
and you have no choice about what you are and what you condition is. Your
economic condition or circumstances indelibly “condition” how you think and
Wikipedia has this description
of Marxism:
Marxism is a method of socioeconomic
analysis that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical
and a dialectical view of social transformation. It originates
from the mid-to-late 19th century works of German philosophers Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels.
methodology originally used a method of economic and sociopolitical
inquiry known as historical materialism to analyze and
critique the development of capitalism and the role of class
in systemic economic change.
To Merkel’s mind, immigrants who rape,
murder, or turn into bloody jihadis are just that way, through no fault
of their own, it’s their cultural heritage, and they must not be judged
according to Western measures of civil conduct, they were just born that way,
and extraordinary efforts must be made to persuade them to be nice, and not
commit crimes. They are blameless because that was how they were born.
The Grand Mufti reviewing Muslim troops in Bosnia
On the other hand, native Germans must make
an effort to accommodate migrants and Muslims, and form a societal union with
them until all conflict between Western and Muslim culture ceases. Unfortunately,
the only “dialect” Muslims practice and understand is force. “Peace” in Islamic
“dialectics” means your submission, or your death.
If you ever knew freedom under capitalism,
you will, because of inevitable, irresistible Hegelian
, come to question capitalism and your freedom, and argue for
impersonal anonymity as a member of a “class.” Your mind and your values will
automatically change. You will no longer value freedom.  You will be absorbed into a great collective.
You will become one with the “Borg.”
The Phenomenology of Spirit charts the development of
consciousness as it rises from lowly common sense to the heights of what Hegel
calls ‘absolute knowing’ – the unconditioned form of thinking proper to
philosophy itself.
This has been true of Islam since day one of
the “religion” in the 7th century. Unless an individual born into a Muslim milieu
resists the appropriation of his mind and body, he becomes a part of the Islamic
gestalt or the global Islamic Ummah. In Germany, in Sweden, in
other European nations swamped by hostile migrants, it becomes a “clash of gestalts.”
It is no wonder why the Left finds common cause with Islam. Marxism entails the
surrender of your freedom, of your mind, of your “materialistic” values.
Angela Merkel

(born 1954) was, in a sense, “ready-made”
to become the nation-destroying beast she is now. Wikipedia reports her early

Like most young people in the German Democratic Republic (East
Germany), Merkel was a member of the Free
German Youth (FDJ)
, the official youth movement sponsored by the ruling Socialist Unity Party. Membership
was nominally voluntary, but those who did not join found it difficult to gain
admission to higher education] She did not participate in the
secular coming of age ceremony Jugendweihe,
however, which was common in East Germany. Instead, she was confirmed. Later, at the Academy of
Sciences, she became a member of the FDJ district board and secretary for
(Agitation and Propaganda). Merkel claimed that she was secretary for culture.
When Merkel’s one-time FDJ district chairman contradicted her, she insisted
that: “According to my memory, I was secretary for culture. But what do I
know? I believe I won’t know anything when I’m 80.” Merkel’s progress in
the compulsory Marxism–Leninism course was graded only genügend
(sufficient, passing grade) in 1983 and 1986.
After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it was
easy for her to make the transition from a communist political environment to a
statist one, once East Germany was dissolved.
Apologetics and Agape featured this
interesting quotation of
“It’s been our misfortune of have the wrong
religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice
for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammadan religion too would have
been much more acceptable to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be
Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” (p. 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor,
Martyr, Prophet, Spy
”, by Eric Metaxas)
Merkel’s Muslim-friendly actions in favor of Islam
are basically, part and parcel of Hitler’s admiration of Islam as a complete
and unmovable state, society, state of mind, and existence. I’m certain that
the historical ideational connection has occurred to her and her Party, but it
can’t be one she appreciates or wishes to draw attention to. An article by Joost
Niemöller, appearing on the Gates of Vienna
in August 2015, states:
It is well
known that Mein Kampf is still very popular in the Muslim world: for
example, in Egypt and some Arab countries. But also in Turkey. In
Iran or in  Pakistan. Germans
in the Islamic world are being addressed enthusiastically, because they hail
from “The Land of Hitler”. Not so long ago I heard this again from a German
friend who travels to the Middle East regularly. In the Islamic world a direct
link is being drawn between Hitler’s warfare and the Jihad. At the same time
it’s very fashionable among Muslims to deny the Holocaust, which in the eyes of
an anti-Semitic would rather damage Hitler’s status as a hero; why then still
read his book? But then the denial of the Holocaust is again necessary to
refuse the justification for the State of Israel.
“It’s been
our misfortune of have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of
the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The
Mohammadan religion too would have been much more acceptable to us than
Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and
flabbiness?” (page 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric
When it
comes to feeding hate, logic is irrelevant.
Mein Kampf‘s popularity in the Muslim world is only one
signal. Many links exist between Nazism and present day Islamism. One of the
abundant examples is the fact that the fake document “The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion”[7], promoted by the Nazi ideologist Rosenberg, which
would be the ultimate proof of a Jewish complot to overthrow the Christian
world, became popular again among the PLO via the Islamic world….

Of course it
is characteristic of the existing politically correct climate that such
thoroughly researched and well-founded historical works do not constitute part
of any basic debate about Islam in the mainstream media. Presently Islam
is part of an obsolete multicultural society; anybody criticizing this is a
kind of Nazi. That the truth is in fact the other way around is a very
unwelcome message: both Islamic and Nazi ideologies not only have common
elements, but also have a common history. This continues today and by itself
provides enough reason to dig further.

Yes, we know that Mein Kampf is popular
in the Muslim world.
Yes, we know Amin el-Husseini, the
Jew-hating Jerusalem Mufti, who was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and who
hooked up with the Nazi empire. We know that one picture of his meeting with
Hitler. We know that after the war he was left unpunished and remained active
in the Middle East.
The popularity of Mein Kampf in the
Middle East is no coincidence.
Amin el-Husseini was not just a bizarre
The broad distribution of the
“Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in the Muslim world is part of a bigger
picture. In that picture, Hitler plays a leading role.
Do not expect Merkel to backtrack on her
policy of culturally annihilating her own country. To do that would require
that she contradict the Hegelian and altruist imperatives that she sacrifice
her country to the “neediest” – in this case hundreds of thousands of alleged
Syrian “refugees,” who are not going to assimilate into German culture except
to learn how to game the country’s welfare system.
Merkel said, soon after news of the Berlin terrorist attack reached
“We must assume at
the current time that it was a terrorist attack,” Merkel said on Tuesday, the New York Times reported. “I know that it would be
particularly difficult for all of us to bear if it would be confirmed that this
deed was carried out by a person who sought protection and asylum in Germany.”

A German
Won’t protect his

Bruce Bawer in his December 21st FrontPage
article, “2016:
A Turning Point for Europe?”
written a day after a Muslim driving a stolen
truck ploughed into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 and injuring
dozens, wrote,

….Europeans didn’t have to be familiar with Islamic theology to
understand that, like it or not, they were at war. And they didn’t need to know
the term dhimmi to recognize that their elites were kowtowing to
would-be conquerors. 
These elites
inhabited a bubble of privilege, protected from the consequences of their own
policies. Most Western Europeans did not. In the space of a few years, they’d
seen their neighborhoods dramatically transformed. Their once-safe streets were
dangerous. Their children were harassed at school. Jews, especially, were
terrorized. There was no sign of a reversal in this rapid process of
civilizational decline and destruction. And if they tried to discuss the issue
honestly, they risked being labeled bigots, losing their jobs, and even being put
on trial. Here and there, voters found, and supported, politicians who
articulated their concerns. But the political establishment erected cordons
around them, denying them power and, when possible, dragging
them, too, into court. Instead of heeding the voice of the people, officials
doubled down.
These elites
inhabited a bubble of privilege, protected from the consequences of their own
policies. Most Western Europeans did not. In the space of a few years, they’d
seen their neighborhoods dramatically transformed. Their once-safe streets were
dangerous. Their children were harassed at school. Jews, especially, were
terrorized. There was no sign of a reversal in this rapid process of
civilizational decline and destruction. And if they tried to discuss the issue
honestly, they risked being labeled bigots, losing their jobs, and even being
put on trial. Here and there, voters found, and supported, politicians who
articulated their concerns. But the political establishment erected cordons
around them, denying them power and, when possible, dragging
them, too, into court. Instead of heeding the voice of the people, officials
doubled down.
And then
came the final straw: in August 2015, Western Europe’s most powerful leader,
Angela Merkel, invited all Syrian refugees to come to Germany. The floodgates
opened even wider. Syrian refugees poured in – but most of them proved to be
neither Syrians nor refugees. [including Somalians, Afghanis, Nigerians, Pakistanis,
mostly men and very few women from the worst pestholes in the world] Naive
do-gooders who welcomed these monsters into their homes ended up being raped
and robbed. And the terrorist attacks became even more frequent. On November
13, 2015, jihadists slaughtered 130 people in and around the Bataclan Theater
in Paris. Then came the aforementioned New Year’s Eve carnage. Brussels was hit
in March, with 32 civilian deaths. On Bastille Day, a truck-driving terrorist
mowed down 86 pedestrians on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice. And these were
just a few of the jihadist offenses committed in Western Europe during this
period. As I write this, a Turkish cop shouting “Allahu akbar!” has just gunned
down Russia’s ambassador to Turkey, and – shades of Nice – a truck driven by a
Muslim has plowed into a busy Christmas market in the center of Berlin, killing
at least 12 and injuring dozens. (P.S. Apparently Merkel heard of the attack
shortly after attending a celebration of the “International Day of Migrants.”
This is not a joke.)[bracketed information is mine]
I am convinced that Merkel’s German establishment is on the side of
the “atrocious people,” not the German population. The same goes for
the rest of the EU establishment country by country. I must say the same about
the British establishment. For God’s sake, London has a Muslim mayor??? Sharia
courts blossom all over the place, and while declared illegal, are left to
operate? Muslims of all shades run riot over school girls? But Merkel sheds
crocodile tears over the victims of the Berlin truck attack. I don’t believe
there was a word of sincerity in her “Oh! How awful!”
But she is not going to do a damned substantial thing, no volte-face
against her immigration policies will be emanate from her, except for the
proposed pathetic burqa ban. She’s got too much invested in
“transforming” Germany into a “brown” nation (as Obama has
admitted is one of his goals for America), or into a non-Western country. In
virtually every instance of terrorism, “migrants” have been
responsible and they’re going to continue running trucks over infidels. She let
them in, welcomed them, and saddled German’s with the stupendous welfare bill.
Merkel is a kind of Mother Teresa, fully vested in a kind of nationalist
altruism; “We must take care of refugees, help to cure their sores and
give them chances in life, jobs, etc., it is the duty of every German to help
the government in that crusade, even if it kills them…..

Geert Wilders has some suggestions, in a Gatestone article, “Political
Revolution is Brewing in Europe

Let no-one tell you
that only the perpetrators of these crimes are to blame. The politicians, who
welcomed Islam into their country, are guilty as well. And it is not just Frau
Merkel in Germany, it is the entire political elite in Western Europe.
Out of
political-correctness, they have deliberately turned a blind eye to Islam. They
have refused to inform themselves about its true nature. They refuse to
acknowledge that is all in the Koran: the permission to kill Jews and
Christians (Surah 9:29), to terrorize non-Muslims (8:12), to rape young girls
(65:4), to enslave people for sex (4:3), to lie about one’s true goals (3:54),
and the command to make war on the infidels (9:123) and subjugate the entire
world to Allah (9:33)….
That is why there is
little doubt that 2017 will bring Germany and the entire West more violence,
more attacks on our women and daughters, more bloodshed, more tears, more
sorrow. The terrible truth is that, in all likelihood, we ain’t seen nothing
We have to drive
politicians, such as Angela Merkel, my own weak Dutch Prime Minister Mark
Rutte, and their like minded colleagues in other countries, from power. We must
liberate our countries.
And believe me, my
friends, that is exactly what we are going to do. Terrorists, who hope to break
our resolve with bloody atrocities will not succeed. We will choose new and
brave leaders, we will de-Islamize, we will win!
Then we will have leaders in possession of all their faculties. And Mad
Queen Angela and her hateful, mad policies will be consigned to the dustbin of

The Stockyards of Diversity

The murderous montage of Diversity

Daphne Patal, in her September Gatestone
article, “How
Diversity Came to Mean ‘Downgrade the West’
,” which discusses the degrading
of college education to conform to politically correct subject matters to be
studied, opens with
There was a time, within living memory, when the term multiculturalism
was hardly known.  More than twenty years ago, Peter Thiel, cofounder of
PayPal and in late July speaker at the Republican National Convention in
Cleveland, wrote a book with fellow Stanford alum David Sacks called The
Diversity Myth: ‘Multiculturalism’ and the Politics of Intolerance at Stanford

The book’s title refers to the pretense that embracing “diversity”
actually promotes diversity of all types, a claim commonly heard to this
day.  Thiel had been a student at Stanford when, in January 1987,
demonstrators defending “the Rainbow Agenda” chanted “Hey hey, ho ho, Western
Culture’s got to go!”  This protest led to the infamous “revision” (i.e.,
suppression) of the Western Culture requirement at Stanford, replaced with a
freshman sequence called Cultures, Ideas, and Values, mandating an emphasis on
race, gender, and class.
Later in her article, Patal notes that
Furthermore, “multiculturalism” did not involve greater emphasis on
mastering foreign languages or carefully studying cultures other than those of
the English-speaking world. Instead, work in literature and culture programs
was (and still is) done increasingly in English and focused on contemporary
writers.  Nor did multiculturalism, any more than the word diversity, mean
familiarizing students with a diversity of views. Rather, as  [Elizabeth] Fox-Genovese
summarized it, it meant requiring students “to agree with or even applaud views
and values that mock the values with which they have been reared.”  And
all this, she observed, was being accompanied by rampant grade inflation.
So, if anyone thought that “diversity” simply
meant several individuals of various ethnic or cultural backgrounds being by
happenstance squinched together into a group, or that “diversity” was similar
to a bird aviary in which dozens of different species flitted around in an
enclosed space, he would not be far off the mark. There have been dozens of TV
and movie series and films that flaunt not only their racial diversity, but
their cultural and sexual diversity, as well (i.e., the early and later
manifestations of Star Trek).

A diversity-rich cast, albeit no Muslims
For example, The Walking
, at several points in its seven-Season-old broadcast, has featured
blacks as well as whites, Koreans, Hispanics in leading and central roles, as
well as Indians (or perhaps Pakastanis, it was never explained),
“gender-breakers,” “mixed” couples, the disabled (in wheelchairs), and the
“under-aged” (e.g., pre-teen children shooting guns at zombies and the living).
The most recent Seasons of the series have introduced lesbian and gay couples,
as well as overweight characters.
The most conspicuously absent group are
Muslims; they appear neither as living survivors of the apocalypse nor as
zombies, neither as bearded imams nor as women in burqas or hijabs. I do not
think their absence is an oversight. I do not think it is a stretch of the
imagination to assume that the producers were warned off casting characters as
living or dead Muslims. Or perhaps, being so diversity-conscious, and sensitive
to the sensitivities of Muslims, the producers decided not to “defame” Muslims
or Islam with such risky casting, and warned themselves off the idea.  I contacted Scott Gimple, The Walking Dead’s
“show runner,” on his Facebook page, with the question, but have received no
One is left to hypothesize if the producers
of The Walking Dead are voluntarily or consciously casting the series as
“diverse” as possible (there is, after all, a finite number of under-represented
groups), or are they under an obligation to become diversity-obsessed by federal or state law, in
alliance with gender
and ethnic groups? The Walking Dead, as well as  House of Cards, another lavishly produced
and racially and gender-conscious TV series, , get tax-rebates in Georgia and
Maryland respectively, where they are filmed, and so “diversity” is too likely a
condition of the tax-breaks.

Another diversity-rich TV series. Most of its villains are “white”

One might object to the foregoing analysis with
the claim that these and many other TV and film productions reflect the true
diversity of Americans. But, do they? If they did, why the current
Marx-inspired campaign against “white privilege”? Why the vile, but also
hysterical campaign to “deconstruct” whites so that they feel “guilt” about
being white, and apologize profusely for having created Western Culture and civilization,
which somehow “oppress” non-whites of every race and creed?
The leftists have gone to great lengths to
connect racial “identity politics” with political “identity politics,”
contending that it was the “white” vote that got Donald Trump his presidential
victory, (when the evidence was clearly obvious when in numerous videos one saw
the racial composition of Trump’s rallies. While the attendance was mostly
“white,” large swathes of the audiences were black and “Asian.”)
The British Film Academy of Film and
Television Arts (BAFTA) has issued new diversity guidelines to be
eligible for nomination. Donna Edmunds  on  Breitbart  London exposes the farce.
2019 onwards, nominations for the awards of ‘outstanding British film’ and
‘outstanding debut by a British writer, director or producer’ will need to
conform to the BFI’s Diversity
, established two years ago to increase representation of
minorities within British film,” reports Breitbart London.
According to
the BBC, the nominated films must show they have improved diversity within at
least two of four categories to qualify. The categories are: “On-screen
characters and themes; senior roles and crew; industry training and career
progression; and audience access and appeal to under-represented
said the changes were “a flexible and achievable model, which the whole
industry can adopt as a shared language for understanding diversity.” Under
these new standards, the James Bond hit Skyfall could not have won the
BAFTA for “Best British Film” in 2012. 
Toni Morrison, a black
American poet and winner of
Pulitzer Prize and the American Book Award, in addition to the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the National Humanities Medal, and the Nobel Prize in Literature, and finally,
the PEN/Saul
Bellow Award for Achievement in American Fiction
, is vested in identity and
race politics. Were it not for the current campaign to denigrate whites, she
would have nothing of substance to say, except, perhaps, on the issue of police
having to shoot black men, “People keep saying, ‘We need to have a
conversation about race.’ This is the conversation. I want to see a cop shoot a
white unarmed teenager in the back. And I want to see a white man convicted for
raping a black woman. Then when you ask me, ‘Is it over?’, I will say yes.”
weighed down with all those awards (and by a modest amount of money), she has
nothing to say about blacks targeting whites for horrendous
. And while she insinuates that whites were at root somehow
responsible for all the violence against blacks, she conveniently forgets that
blacks, if anything, share that history. Among other convenient omissions, for
example, black gangs have established records in Chicago of the number
of blacks
, including children, who were killed during their internecine
warfare. There were black slave owners in America from the 17th century on up
through the Civil War; call it Antebellum “black privilege.”
Louis Gates Jr.
in a 2013 article in the Root,
reveals that
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows
that free black people have owned slaves “in each of the thirteen original
states and later in every state that countenanced slavery,” at least since
Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain
the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.
And for a time, free black people could even “own” the services of
white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in
Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland
owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat
Butler “regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade,”
Halliburton wrote.
Sheldon M. Stern, in “It’s Time to Face the Whole
Truth About the Atlantic Slave Trade
,” discusses how black African tribes
captured uncountable other blacks and sold them to European and American slave
traders.  His article does not even touch
on the Islamic
slave trade
Finally, Paul Joseph Watson, in his InfoWars
column of August 16, “Hillary’s
VP: Whites Must Become a ‘Minority’ to Atone for Racism
,” quotes Tim Kaine,
speaking to a black Baptist congregation,
“I’ve never been treated badly in life because of my skin color or my
gender,” Kaine told a group of black Baptists in New Orleans. “I think the
burden is on those of us who are in the majority — Caucasians. We have to put
ourselves in a place where we are the minority.”
The “burden” that Kaine mentions obviously means taking on “white
guilt,” despite the fact that – even at the height of slavery – only 1.4% of
whites in America owned slaves. White people were also victims of far more
brutal and longer lasting oppression under the Barbary slave trade….
According to Alicia
, Kaine’s comments emphasize how the left has employed “toxic identity
politics” to “perpetuate class warfare and the narrative of an unjust America,”
with whites demonized as the scapegoats.
It should also be emphasized that no living
black was ever a slave, and no living white was ever a slave owner, either
(except, metaphorically, the Democrats, who, as far back as Lyndon Johnson,
wished to imprison and maintain blacks in their welfare state “plantation”).
But, the issue is one of collectivism.
It is herding individuals, defined by their skin color, and now also by their
political affiliations (Trump supporters are “deplorable”), into warring power
blocs, to relegate individuals into amorphous conglomerations of races responsible
for individual achievements or crimes. To the Left’s agenda, “diversity” is a
value to be implemented, by force, harassment, and statute, if necessary, and
achieved regardless of reason, individual values, and innocence.
Diversity puts a premium on the act of
discrimination in social associations (such as on American
who, for religious reasons, are punished by Federal or state
regulatory laws for refusing to accept gays as customers, or who fire or refuse
to hire Muslims who insist on
wearing their “religious” garb
in their stores), by tar-brushing the act –
irrational or not – as a prohibitive offense to be punished, discriminated
against, and banned. All individuals who, rightly or wrongly, do not wish to
hire or associate with blacks or Muslims are automatically branded as “racists”
or “bigots.”
However, Muslims as a group may not be
targeted for discriminatory practices because their acts of
discrimination against infidels and women are allegedly religiously based and
therefore beyond moral judgment. Acts of discrimination based on Christian or
secular beliefs, however,  are
discouraged, vilified, or prohibited.
The phenomenon has now been expanded into the
subject of “white privilege,” which in essence, is a contrived but open assault
on Western values on college campuses,
and in Western achievements in general. Most Western advancements in
philosophy, technology, science, the arts, and the rule of law and politics
originated in Europe, which was mostly and incidentally “white.” Thus the
legacy of civilized life is an inherited instance of “white privilege.” Or are
we still waiting for the news of a Minnesota Somalian to claim that he and
his fellow collectivists perfected the probes of Ceres or Pluto?
 Or devised a new bypass surgery
technique by an Afghan or Syrian or Palestinian (other than in a machete or
knife attack)?
Just how many offended groups or groups
feeling “unsafe” from or “triggered” by words or someone’s freedom of
expression can there be, such as black and brown people, sexual assault
survivors, Muslims, LGBTQIA+ people, people with low incomes, people with
differing abilities, undocumented immigrants, and anyone that is systematically
targeted along identity
Then again, blacks who can be called “middle
or upper class income blacks,” or Asians who excel in science or technology in
school, do not consciously identify with such groups. They are automatically pigeon-holed
by their enemies, who wish to herd them into the stockyards of “diversity”
ready for the smearing or slaughter. Their goal is death.
Aristotle was “white.” But he promulgated
reason. Kepler and Copernicus were “white.” But they helped to define the solar
system. Isaac Newton was “white.” But he developed the laws of physics. Anna Hyatt
was “white.” But she created heroic statues. Each of these
achievers was a pursuer of and a product of Western values.
I am white, too. Lump me into a group with
these prominent, “white privileged” whites. But, I don’t claim their
achievements, nor would they claim mine. Don’t call me “white privileged.” My privilege
is my mind together with my values. The haters of “white
privilege” have no minds and no values. They are nihilists.

George Soros: “The Spawn of Satan”

To judge by the
frequency with which Super Billionaire and Super Villain George Soros’s name
appears in non-MSM news, you would not be far off the mark in concluding that
he would rather not be President of the United States. He definitely wants to be
the power behind the Oval Office throne. There he would be able to exercise the
same malevolent power by proxy, without having to submit to more public
scrutiny than he does now. He would not need to take responsibility for his
disastrous policies, but rely on a front man and patsy to take the heat. His appearance
in the press (or what is left of it that has not been compromised by bias and the
fabrication of “news”) is entirely involuntary; he certainly is not conducting
a campaign to make his influence visible.

Soros is a kind of Barkilphredo, the jester,
meddler, and malevolent schemer and manipulator in Victor Hugo’s 1869 novel, The
Man Who Laughs
L’homme qui rit) whose sole purpose is to make everyone
miserable and a vehicle for his own elevation as a power in the courts of James
II and Queen Anne.
In my 2007 five-part focus
on the rise of Barack Obama and role of George Soros in influencing American
politics, “Night of the Long Knives,” I wrote in its Postscript:
In the New York
Magazine article,
“Money Chooses Sides,” note the composition of the photograph that
accompanies it. I do not think it is accidental. I do not know if the photographer
(or even Obama himself) intended the tableau, but of all the pictures doubtless
taken of the event, this was the one selected by the magazine’s editors to
illustrate Obama’s influence. Their motive may have been mockery of the guests
or unintended adulation of Obama. That is irrelevant. The picture captures the
essence of Obama’s appeal.
Which is mindless,
insatiable envy of a person vying for political power, and an echo or their
elitist mindset.  “We are the superior
guides and molders of the hoi polloi.
That black fellow can certainly speak, the masses don’t dare not vote for him!”
The first four Parts
can be seen here,
and here.
Starting with his Open Society Foundation organization,
George Soros founded or funds four other Progressive and collectivist
movements: MoveOn, Center for American Progress, Media Matters, and America Coming Together
(now defunct, it targeted George Bush’s presidency in 2004, and promoted Barack
Obama’s career that year. 

Human Events published an article in 2011, “Top
10 Reasons George Soros is Dangerous
,” and remember that since 2011,
Soros’s “funding” has ballooned to include Hillary Clinton’s bid for the
presidency and Jill Stein’s campaign in the aftermath of Clinton’s defeat by
Trump for recounts in the three states that Trump won (Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania) .

Soros started the Open Society Institute (now
the Foundation) in 1993 as a way to spread his wealth to progressive
causes.  Using Open Society as a conduit, Soros has given more than $7
billion to a who’s who of left-wing groups.  This partial list of
recipients of Soros’ money says it all: ACORN,
, National Council of La
, Tides
, Huffington
, Southern Poverty Law Center, Soujourners, People for the
American Way, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization for Women.
Soros once said that removing President
George W. Bush from office in 2004 was the “central focus of my life.”  He
put his money where his mouth is, giving $23.58 million to various 527 groups
dedicated to defeating Bush.  His early financial support helped
jump-start Barack Obama’s political career.  Soros hosted a 2004
fund-raiser for Obama when he was running for the Illinois Senate and gave the
maximum-allowed contribution within hours of Obama’s announcement that he was
running for President.
George Soros has now added a domestic
terrorist organization that did not exist in 2011, Black
Lives Matter
. Breitbart reported in August in its “real news” column, “Hacked
Soros Memo: $650,000 to Black Lives
The documents further confirm that the Open
Society last year approved $650,000 to “invest in technical assistance and
support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter
The information was contained in a detailed
69-page Open Society report on the agenda of an Open Society U.S. Programs
board meeting held in New York October 1 to October 2, 2015.
The report directly states the Open Society
views the Baltimore unrest last year as a crisis that can be utilized to carry
out the organization’s agenda.
Same gesture, same lies

George Soros’s tentacles are everywhere. He
has not only supported Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but now is funding Jill Stein’s
campaign for recounts of general election votes to tilt the Electoral College
so that Clinton wins not only the popular vote but the College’s vote.

Baxter Dmitry’s Your News Wire
article of November 26th noted that,
Jill Stein’s fundraising campaign to pay for
re-counts in three key swing states has been exposed as a George Soros and
Hillary Clinton plot to steal the presidency from Donald Trump.
According to the official fundraising page, the “Stein/Baraka
Green Party Campaign launched an effort to ensure the integrity of our
” however it has been revealed that George Soros, the globalist
billionaire well known for his donations to Black Lives Matter and the tens of
millions he has given Hillary, is almost singlehandedly funding the campaign.
Investigators became
convinced Jill Stein’s fundraising operation was not the organic, grassroots
campaign it has been promoted as after they noticed that funding came in at an
absolutely perfect $160,000 per hour. That is odd enough, but the
donations continued full speed at the exact same rate through the middle of the
night while the country was asleep.
Jim Stone, the researcher who was tipped off
about the pre-shipped
Newsweek cover
featuring “Madam President” Hillary Clinton, reports on the fundraising
data that proves the Jill Stein campaign is not what the public has been told
it is:
A bot is pulling cash from a central
fund, and giving it out at a pre-determined rate.
‘This pattern was nailed with precision up
until noon CST, and then they shut it off right around 2:30 before it could hit
the next “waypoint” at 6:10 PM. Just back calculate. She hit 4,000,000 at noon.
She started it up at 1:30 the day before. That is 22.5 hours. Divide four
million by 22.5. It comes out to 177,000 dollars an hour. A few people chipped
in during the day, to add a little to the top of what the bot continuously ran
at – 160,000 an hour
‘Ok so she has so far raised almost 4.5
million on THANKSGIVING DAY and the night before. FIGURE THE ODDS when her
entire campaign did not hit 3 million. Yet she did THAT on THANKSGIVING??!!??
…. Jill Stein now has
the money she needs to initiate the recount. Where did the funds come from? Soros.
Despite spending the whole election season mocking Trump’s claim that the
election could be rigged, mainstream media is now pushing the narrative that
the votes were hacked – even in Pennsylvania where that’s not even possible.
What is about to
happen could possibly cause a civil war.
Jilted Jill is aiming high for that recount

The Alexander
site confirms Soros’s involvement as Jill Stein’s sugar daddy.

According to the post a donations to Jill
Stein’s election recount campaign are being made at a steady rate of $160,000
on the hour every hour of the day.
The constant rate of donation, 24 hours a
day, suggests that a computer program is being used to post the donations as
opposed to real people making grassroots donation.
However, the donations are being reported
as grassroots donations from a myriad of online supporters to help her verify
the integrity of the election.
However, if real individuals are in fact making
the actual donations the rate of the donations should drop over night when
internet traffic is low.
The rate should then steadily pick up during
the course of the day up and then culminate during the “internet rush hour”
when usage peaks, which is usually between 7 and 11 PM.
So, what is he after that is of paramount
importance to him, that George Soros is willing to invest multiple fortunes to
guarantee the triumph of politicians amenable to the emasculating of America?
Power? The monster is worse than any fictional character people may be familiar
with, such as Frank Underwood of The House
of Cards
, the long-running political series. While Underwood is a monster
who wants to achieve power in a Washington, D.C. we are of familiar with,
thanks to the MSM and their antithesis, “real news” sites
Soros is a worse monster who wants to reduce
America into a third-rate nation that would have no specific identity.
Progressivism would eradicate the individualistic character of the country,
would make everyone dependent on the state of sustenance, and would divide the
whole country into a “diversity” of ethnic and “cultural” satrapies governed by
Gauleiters. “White” satrapies would be at the bottom of the
While Frank Underwood
wants to rule over a country that still exists, George Soros wants a country
that no longer exists. He is especially hateful – a rather mild term to
describe his pathological state – of Israel, and wishes, together with Iran, to
see it destroyed. He is not afraid of Islam. It is a tool of conquest and
destruction that serves his purposes. He is happy to see Europe succumb to
Soros has funded the
invasion of Europe by savages and “migrants” in order to see Europe as we know
it destroyed and governed by savages. It is Soros who last year and the year
before paid for thousands of “migrants” to have cell phones, route maps to
countries to invade, money to spend, and clothes and shoes to wear.
Nick Hallett in his
November 2nd Breitbart article, “Soros
Admits Involvement in Migrant Crisis: ‘National Borders Are the Obstacle
Billionaire investor George Soros has
confirmed he wants to bring down Europe’s borders, following the accusation
made last week by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
Last week, Mr. Orban accused Mr. Soros – who
was born in Hungary – of deliberately encouraging the migrant crisis.
“This invasion is driven, on the one hand, by
people smugglers, and on the other by those (human rights) activists who
support everything that weakens the nation-state,” Mr. Orban said. “This
Western mindset and this activist network are perhaps best represented by
George Soros.”
Mr. Soros has now issued an email statement to Bloomberg Business, claiming
his foundations help “uphold European values”, while Mr. Oban’s actions in
strengthening the Hungarian border and stopping a huge migrant influx
“undermine those values.”
“His plan treats the protection of national
borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” Mr. Soros added.
“Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national
borders as the obstacle.”
George Soros is not particularly concerned
about the “refugees.” They are merely tools in the destruction of the West, in
Europe and in America. He would not have any of them living next door to him.
Nor is Soros particularly concerned about
facts and “fake news.” Soros has a reverse “Midas touch” by which anything he
pours money into begins a process of irreversible rot. If something comes to
his attention that he frowns upon, he will give it money. Lots of it. Now that
the “fake news” issue has arisen – chiefly after Hillary Clinton lost the election
because, as her supporters in and out of her campaign have alleged, her
conservative opponents spread damaging “fake news” about her and her political
record and congenital lying – George Soros has become involved in scouring the
Internet of “fake news” that the Internet’s left-wing doyens do not like.
Breitbart reported December 16th, in Aaron Klein’s article “George
Soros Finances Group Helping Facebook Flag ‘Disputed Stories
,” that
The International
Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) drafted a code of five principles for news
websites to accept, and Facebook yesterday announced it will work with
“third-party fact checking organizations” that are signatories to the code of
Facebook says that if the “fact checking organizations” determine
that a certain story is fake, it will get flagged as disputed and, according to
the Facebook announcement, “there will be a link to the corresponding article
explaining why. Stories that have been disputed may also appear lower in News
IFCN is hosted by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. A
cursory search of the Poynter Institute website finds that Poynter’s IFCN is
openly funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundations as well as the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
Poynter’s IFCN is
also funded by the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal
billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. The Omidyar Network has partnered with the Open Society on numerous projects and it
has given grants to third parties using the Soros-funded Tides
Foundation.  Tides is one of the largest donors to left-wing causes in the
Klein’s article describes what can only be
called an alliance of Soros-connected organizations poised to filter out and
report facts the leftists who populate these “charities.” They comprise a kind
of “super Snopes” cabal, when Snopes
itself has been discredited as a “fact checker” after having been caught in a
series of bias-loaded denials of facts and truths.
George Soros wishes to demolish European
values, not preserve them. He wishes to demolish ALL Western values, and to see
Europeans and Americans swamped by migrants and “refugees” who bring their
primitive “customs” and practices to civilized countries to see them elevated
to positions of “superiority” over Western values precisely because they are primitive. He wishes to
see Westerners defer to and bow to savages and thus enable their own
destruction. That would be with the assistance and encouragement of Western
cultural relativists and Marxists. The “refugees” and “migrants” – aka invaders
– would become a new protected class, while Westerners would not be protected,
because that would be “white privilege” or “cultural imperialism.”

What George Soros is
after, is not anything so innocent or banal a thing as power. The fictional Frank
Underwood is a mere villain. The very real George Soros is after the
satisfaction of destruction for destruction’s sake. That makes him a nihilist.
George Soros is, to borrow a biblical and literary reference, the spawn
of Satan

Standard villains
pursue material values. George Soros pursues the non-material value of nothingness, of
desolation, of the skeleton of a civilization he never contributed to, and is
dedicated to destroying.

Viva la difference? Islam vs. “Radical” Islam?

On December 12th,
Judith Bergman, in her Gatestone column, “Europe:
Illegal to Criticize Islam
,” wrote:
In Finland, since
the court’s decision, citizens are now required to make a distinction, entirely
fictitious, between “Islam” and “radical Islam,” or else
they may find themselves prosecuted and fined for “slandering and
insulting adherents of the Islamic faith.”
I would like some state-appointed or free, independent Islamic scholar
— Western or not — to explain with a straight face to me and to the world,
the essential, fundamental differences between Islam and “radical
Islam” or “extremist” Islam. If Islam is not just a bizarre, death-worshipping
“religion,” but basically a collectivist ideology bent on total
submission of its adherents and of the world, moved by a gnawing appetite for total
and universal domination, what are the salient, distinguishing differences? How
would one explain the differences, say, between “ordinary” Communism and
“radical” Communism, or between  “ordinary” Nazism and a benign “moderate”
You can’t list those distinguishing differences. They don’t exist. Islam
is a one-size-fits-all system, from your footwear to your hairstyle to your

Islam is “radical” because, as both a “religion” and as a political
ideology, it prescribes total submission of the individual – indeed, of society
– to the arbitrary and wholly irrational rules, permissions, prohibitions, and
punishments of its “creed,” otherwise known as Sharia Law. Just as Nazism and
Communism required the total submission of the individual to the state, Islam
requires the total submersion of the individual to the caliphate.

Islam is essentially, and readily admits, totalitarian – root branch,
and twig.
Bergman, writing about Terhi Kiemunki, a Finnish writer, was found
guilty of “slandering and insulting adherents of the Islamic faith,” and
noted that,
Finland is the
European country most recently to adopt the way that European authorities
sanction those who criticize Islam. According to the Finnish news outlet YLE, the Pirkanmaa
District Court found the Finns Party politician, Terhi Kiemunki, guilty of
“slandering and insulting adherents of the Islamic faith” in a blog
post of Uusi Suomi. In it, she claimed that all the terrorists in Europe
are Muslims. The Court found that when Kiemunki wrote of a “repressive,
intolerant and violent religion and culture,” she meant the Islamic faith.
During the trial,
Kiemunki was asked why she did not make a distinction between Islam and radical
Islam. She replied that she meant to refer to the spread of Islamic culture and
religion, and that she “probably should have” spoken of radicalized
elements of the religion instead of the faith as a whole. Kiemunki was fined
450 euros. Her lawyer has appealed the verdict.
That was Kiemunki’s
unfortunate omission. But, let us not forget late critic of Islam, OrianaFallaci. She excoriated Islam, setting fire to the whole tree. Srdja Trifkovic
in her Chronicles article of December 13, “Europe’s
,” wrote,.
The writing on
Europe’s wall was clear a decade ago, when the late Oriana Fallaci—for decades
Italy’s best-known journalist—was indicted in the Italian city of Bergamo for
“hate crimes” and “defaming Islam.” Fallaci, a self-described “Christian
atheist” and a leftist, in the aftermath of 9/11, had become an outspoken foe
of Europe’s Islamization. Her 2002 book The
Rage and the Pride
caused a sensation. It is not just the Western
culture and way of life that the jihadist hates, she wrote. Blinded as they are
by cultural myopia, the Westerners should understand that a war of religion was
in progress, a war that the enemy calls Jihad, which seeks the disappearance of
our freedom and our civilization
The late Oriana Fallaci

Quoting Fallaci,
Bergman writes that Islam wants to annihilate, she wrote,

“. . . our way of
living and dying, our way of praying or not praying, our way of eating and
drinking and dressing and entertaining and informing ourselves. You don’t
understand or don’t want to understand that if we don’t oppose them, if we
don’t defend ourselves, if we don’t fight, the Jihad will win . . . And with
that it will destroy our culture, our art, our science, our morals, our values,
our pleasures….”
A decade later, the
evidence that Fallaci’s grim forecast was correct is everywhere we look. In
France in 2013, Ivan
, a respected author and Le Figaro’s columnist for 30 years, faced criminal charges for insulting Islam. Renaud Camus,
one of France’s most prominent writers, was charged with “incitement to
racial hatred” in 2014, found guilty, and ordered to pay a 4000-euro fine for
warning of the danger of the “Great Replacement,” the colonization of France by
Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, which threatens to
“mutate” the country and its culture permanently. In Germany, Lutz Bachmann,
the founder of the Pegida anti-Islamization movement, is currently on
trial. So is Marine Le Pen of the National Front in France. The list goes on.
In Finland, and
practically everywhere else, to fail to distinguish in public statements
between Islam and “radical” Islam is to be tarred with the brush of
“Islamophobia,” surely a pejorative, meaning having an “irrational” fear of
Islam. It is in wide use in every Western country and is used by the MSM to slander
anyone critical of Islam. But, anyone who knows a smidgen about the origin and
practice of Islam is justifiably and rationally fearful of Islam, especially Discover
the Networks

he is an “infidel.” Where did the term come from?

The term
“Islamophobia” was invented
and promoted in the early 1990s
by the International
Institute for Islamic Thought
(IIIT), a front group of the Muslim
. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad — who was with that
organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected
IIIT’s ideology — now reveals
the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is
nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of
Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its
very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as
a weapon
to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing

This plan was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “General
Strategic Goal for North America
,” by which the organization aimed to
wage “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western
civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands
… so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other
“We have nothing to fear but Islam itself.”

Members of the
British press can be charged with “Islamophobia” or worse if a writer
identifies a terrorist or a criminal who has raped or murdered a Briton as a
Muslim (its current term is the euphemism“Asian”). Nevertheless, the European
Union has ordered the UK press to append blinders to its journalists (surely
not a precedent by now). Europe-Israël, in a column on November 18th, {“European
Union Orders British Press NOT to report when terrorists are Muslims
,” reported,

According the
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) — part of the Council
of Europe — the British press is to blame for increasing hate speech and racist
violence. On October 4, 2016, the ECRI released a report dedicated only to Britain. The report said:
Some traditional
media, particularly tabloids… are responsible for most of the offensive,
discriminatory and provocative terminology. The Sun, for instance,
published an article in April 2015 entitled “Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to
stop migrants”, in which the columnist likened migrants to “cockroaches”…
ECRI is basing its
report on a recent study from Matthew Feldman, Professor at Teesside
University. This study compiled anti-Muslim incidents before and after
terrorist’s attacks.
A whirlpool of bowed zombies

Politically Correct
writing acts as a privately or government mandated “governor” on
thinking, stopping writers and modern reporters from committing the “sin” of
“Islamophobia” or “hate speech.”  Giulio
Meotti in his Gatestone column of December 6th, “The
West’s Politically Correct Dictatorship
,” elaborated:

Under this politically
correct dictatorship, Western culture has established two principles. First,
freedom of speech can be restricted any time someone claims that an opinion is
an “insult.” Second, there is a vicious double standard: minorities,
especially Muslims, can freely say whatever they want against Jews and
There is no better
ally of Islamic extremism than this sanctimony of liberal censorship: both, in
fact, want to suppress any criticism of Islam, as well as any proud defense of
the Western Enlightenment or Judeo-Christian culture…..
correctness is also having a huge impact on big business: Kellogg’s withdrew advertising from Breitbart for being
“not aligned with our values” and Lego dropped advertising with Daily Mail, to mention
just two recent cases.
The Indonesian Iterates

Correctness has no bounds, no demarcation lines. Everything is fair game to warp,
subvert, and destroy, from wedding cake bakers to Halloween costumes to national
security. To date, there have been no Muslim walkers of zombies on The
Walking Dead
. The producers of that TV series do not dare show any. But
then, most Muslims are already “walking dead.” Perhaps the producers sense
that. The irony is something to relish.

Au contraire, Mr. Obama. Islam
is eminently slander worthy.

The Grateful Dead of Dhimmitude

Wilders:  “I
will never be silent.”

Geert Wilders, the larger-than-life Dutch politician who dared say
what was on his mind about the Islamist invasion of the Netherlands (“too many
Moroccans?”), has been convicted of the “crime” of “hate speech” by a Dutch

And what is “hate speech”? “Hate speech” is any criticism of a  member of a “minority” or the “minority”
itself that can range from an emotional tirade to an innocuous comment or
remark about Muslims or the race of a Muslim. Or even posing a question about
the minority. One can be found guilty of “hate speech” by uttering a truth,
such as: “Islam is not a race.”
Wilders asked a rhetorical question of his auditors about the presence
and behavior of Moroccans in the Netherlands.
As the Telegraph
case was based on almost 6,500 official complaints
after Wilders led a
party rally during a local election campaign in The Hague in March 2014, asking
whether there should be “more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.”
The crowd’s response
of “fewer, fewer”, was clearly organized, said a judge at the secure court at
Schiphol Judicial Complex, near Amsterdam, ruling that Wilders had breached the
boundaries of even a politician’s freedom of speech. 
The leading judge read out in court:
“It doesn’t matter
that Wilders gave another message afterwards [saying he was referring only to
criminal Moroccans and benefits claimants],” said the judge. “The message that
evening from the podium, via the media, was loud and proud and did its work…The
group was collectively dismissed as inferior to other Dutch people.”
Wilders is a member of the Party for Freedom (PVV). It was created in
2006, and campaigned to “limit the growth of Muslim numbers” in the
Netherlands, taking nine out of 150 seats. His party wants to ban the Koran,
shut all mosques and asylum centers, and take the Netherlands out of the EU. At
the moment it is leading in the polls for a general election in March 2017.
What brought the suit against Wilders on were the offended feelings of
Moroccan Muslims, who did not like being singled out for “discriminatory”
In court, the judge
called his behavior “unworthy” of a politician, and said there was no question
that the case was political, as Wilders claimed.
The case, which has
taken 20 months to reach a verdict, comes three months before Dutch general
elections and Wilders’ PVV is currently leading in some polls. 
Michiel Pestman,
lawyer for some of the complainants who helped bring the case, said: “There is
a debate in the Netherlands about whether this has given Wilders free
publicity, but he has to pay his lawyers. It’s a unique decision. This is the
first time that a court has said that minorities need special protection and
even a politician should be very careful about what he says.”

Dutch Judges of Geert Wilders
Elianne van Rens, Henry Stone House, and Sijbrand Wreath
Not Wilders’s Moral or Intellectual Peers
Hey, people, reality check here. If you keep sending someone to trial
because he exercised his freedom of speech, of course he’s going to get “free
publicity” – unless the government conducts a secret trial and suppresses any
information about it.
Emerson Vermaat of Pipeline
wrote in 2014:
January 22, 2014 –
San Francisco – – Violent and dangerous Moroccan youth gangs
are on the rise in multicultural Holland. The Dutch city of The Hague has a
reputation of being a decent city where embassies and prestigious international
courts such as the International Court of Justice and the International
Criminal Court are located. It is also the city where the King of the
Netherlands resides. Parliament is located here as well.
But organized crime
is rampant is this city, especially among second-generation Moroccan immigrants
and minors. It is costing the Dutch tax payer millions of euros every year,
apart from all those decent people who have been robbed and attacked by these
arrogant juvenile frequent offenders. Too often, lenient judges release the
offenders after a few days or weeks – and the untouchable youth gangsters are
quite aware of this. They are laughing at their many powerless victims,
rediculing them. The police are also quite unhappy about it.
It was on the early
morning of Tuesday, January 14, that about two hundred policemen forcefully
entered the homes of eleven members of a notorious
Moroccan-Antillean/Surinamese youth gang in suburbs of The Hague. The gang was
at least seventy-two members strong and those who were arrested – ten Moroccans
and one Antillean – were considered to be dangerous hardcore members. “We
allowed them to operate freely for about one year in order to gather more
evidence,” Jozias van Aartsen, mayor of The Hague, told a Dutch TV reporter.
“Otherwise, people will blame us when these youngsters will be released after a
reported  in 2023:
At the request of
the Freedom Party (PVV) led by Geert Wilders, a debate took place in the Dutch
Parliament plenary on the “Moroccan problem.” PVV parliamentarian Joram van
Klaveren began by stating that the Netherlands has a “Moroccan problem,” which
also touches on Islam.
He mentioned that
65% of Dutch Moroccan male youths have police files. Dutch Moroccans are 22
times more suspect of property crimes accompanied by violence than other
Dutchmen. He further stated that anti-Semitism and homophobia are widespread
among Moroccans.
Hillary Clinton and her MSM cohorts would classify any mention of
Moroccan (or Turkish, or Syrian, or Afghani crime statistics in Germany or
Sweden) as “fake news” intended to denigrate or defame various Muslim ethnic
groups, to be suppressed or banned altogether. Clinton does not cite the MSM as
a purveyor of “fake news,” but any independent blog spot exercising its freedom
of speech by reporting the news that the MSM ignores or refuses to report, that
is, any news that puts a dent into the elitists’, Progressive grip on the
political establishment and demotes the MSM’s credibility to zero.
reported on December 8th:
Hillary Clinton on
Thursday decried the spread of fake news online, calling it an “epidemic” that
Congress should take action against.
“The epidemic of malicious
fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year —
it’s now clear the so-called fake news can have real-world consequences,”
Clinton said during a speech on Capitol Hill.
Some Democrats have argued
the spread of anti-Clinton fake news online contributed to her electoral loss
to Donald Trump….
“Lives are at risk — lives of
ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs,
contribute to their communities.”
“It’s a danger that must be
addressed and addressed quickly,” she said.
of course, was a practitioner of “fake news” when she blamed the Benghazi
incident and the murder of four Americans on a video which mocked Mohammad and
had the video maker jailed. It later came out that the video had nothing to do
with the attack on the compound. It was just Muslim killers doing what comes
naturally to them. She,
with the likes of Brian
, is responsible for many instances of “fake news” that later had fatal
consequences for thousands.
news” is any news or observation that is not couched in politically correct
hard to even convince the dhimmified of the fatal consequences of their
policies. One of the most shocking instances is the German/European Union
bureaucrat (a legal advisor to the European Commission) whose daughter,
19-year-old Maria
, was raped and murdered in October on her way home from a party.
This was not “fake news.” What was the reaction of the grieving family? To ask
sympathizers to donate funeral money to an organization that aids invading
migrants at the invitation of Angela Merkel.
The Daily
Her family, in an obituary
notice after her cruel death, asked for people to donate money to charities,
including those which work with migrants.

The killing is the biggest jolt to Mrs. Merkel’s plans for integration
since the frenzied sexual assaults of New Year’s Eve in Cologne when mobs of
immigrant men sexually molested and robbed hundreds of defenceless women.
The anti-immigrant
Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has been quick to piggyback on Hussein K.’s
arrest to highlight what it says are the dangers of unregulated immigration. It
calls Maria a ‘victim of Merkel’s welcome culture.’
Hussein K. was born in Ghazni
in Afghanistan and came to Germany as an illegal unaccompanied minor in
November 2015. [He was 16 when he committed the crime.]
In numerous posts on the
Internet he liked to present himself in the guise of a gangsta rapper: hair
slicked back with gel, jogging pants and training shoes.
Maria Ladenburger, an expendable daughter

The poisonous
effects of politically correct thinking are so evident here in the girl’s
parents’ reaction in the form submitting to Islam in the way of virtually apologizing for their
daughter’s murder. The obituary notice clamors for attention because it mixes
grief with submission. It as much as says: “The
horrendous murder of our daughter by a criminal migrant will not deter us from our duty to aid and console all
criminal migrants
.” This is how altruism leads to abject selflessness. Duty
trumps value.
Geert Wilders
is under no obligation to be kind to Moroccans or to utter anything civil to or
about them. It is they who wish to see him defeated and destroyed. It is they
who sued to try him for “hate speech.” Muslims in every country employ “hate
speech” against the West and against non-believers, but politically correct
mores protects their “right” to defame and insult non-believers and secular
society. As Giulio Meotti points out in his Gatestone article of December 6th,
West’s Politically Correct Dictatorship
There is no better ally of
Islamic extremism than this sanctimony of liberal censorship: both, in fact,
want to suppress any criticism of Islam, as well as any proud defense of the
Western Enlightenment or Judeo-Christian culture.
correct speech has as its nefarious partners now the prohibition of  speech and actions in public discourse critical
of homosexuals and LGBTs, as well as Muslims and Islam as politically protected
classes and political powers. The rot began as early as 1995 (see my “The
Ghouls of Grammatical Egalitarianism
from 2013 (originally
published in 1997, about how academia has sanctioned and propagated the
shackling of thought and speech, also known as censorship).
Geert Wilders
will not surrender to politically correct speech. He has made that clear. He
will not become one of the “Gratefully Dead Dhimmies of Europe” – meaning that
a person would rather submit to Sharia Law than stand up for Western values of
liberty and freedom of speech, meaning that a European (and many an American)
would rather go through life with their heads bowed and their eyes downcast,
afraid to defy and fight the savages who rape their daughters, defecate
in their churches
as they do in Sweden, beat up anyone who looks like he is
a non-believer, harass Westerners in their own country, and even kick
down subway stairs. “I’m grateful to be alive,” say the dhimmies. But
for how long his judges, not his peers, may ask themselves? And their children?

Wilders will have the last laugh come the elections.

long will they be able to live? Such as Maria Ladenburger

The Netherlands have
become a sick country. And I have a message for the judges who convicted me:
You have restricted the freedom of speech of millions of Dutch and hence
convicted everyone. No one trusts you anymore. But fortunately, truth and
liberty are stronger than you. And so am I….
And to people at
home I say: Freedom of speech is our pride. And this will remain so. For
centuries, we Dutch have been speaking the unvarnished truth. Free speech is
our most important possession. We will never let them take away our freedom of
speech. Because the flame of freedom burns within us and cannot be extinguished….
Millions of Dutch
are sick and tired of political correctness. Sick and tired of the elite which
only cares about itself and ignores the ordinary Dutchman. And sells out our
country. People no longer feel represented by all these disconnected
politicians, judges and journalists, who have been harming our people for so
long, and make our country weaker instead of stronger….
Today, I was
convicted in a political trial, which, shortly before the elections, attempts
to neutralize the leader of the largest and most popular opposition party. But
they will not succeed. Not even with this verdict. Because I speak on behalf of
millions of Dutch. And the Netherlands are entitled to politicians who speak
the truth, and honestly address the problems with Moroccans. Politicians who
will not let themselves be silenced. Not even by the judges. And you can count
on it: I will never be silent….

Follow My Leader

Negan, a post-apocalyptic
Cult figure

With all apologies to Terence Rattigan, I have appropriated the title
of one of his earliest and unpublished plays. This is a post I’ve been wanting
to write for a long while, but other writing priorities kept cropping up.
In the anarchic apocalyptic milieu of The Walking Dead,
the hit TV-AMC series, which I have ceased watching regularly, the few heroes
who dominated the series for a few years and who were the main attraction (for
me, at least) have been demoted from taking life-preserving actions and moral
certitude to mere “guest appearances.” I have also stopped viewing it because a
new element has been introduced, one that violates my own story-telling
premises. Namely, giving evil center stage as the prime mover of the action.
The prime mover is Negan, in this instance, a kind of warlord who runs
an army of thugs and killers out of his Sanctuary, raids peaceful communities
of survivors, and demands half of what they have as the price of not
slaughtering them. Negan brandishes a baseball bat wreathed in barbed wire.  In effect, those who submit – literally, Islam
style – to Negan become his slaves. Beginning with the last episode of Season 6
and the brutal, raw beginning of Season 7, the glib malevolence of Negan is
repulsive to me.
I won’t recap the story line up to this point. What has fascinated me
has been how Negan’s army – the “Saviors,” obeys his every command and whim.
And most of his army is armed, variously with spears (manufactured by a subject
agricultural community), pistols, and automatic rifles. I often asked myself: Negan wields a mere baseball bat and maybe a pistol under his belt, and wields
psychological hegemony over his followers. But his followers are armed and
could kill him in a second. Why do they tolerate his head-bashing tyranny, when
they could easily free themselves of his dictatorship?
I made this point but did not pursue it in another column, “Hillary
and Negan: Parallels in Evil
,” from October 2nd. I noted in it, and also in
the continuation of that same column, “Parallels
in Evil: Part II
Negan is a vile, evil character
who debuted in April at the end of Season Six of The
Walking Dead.
Negan is a brutal tyrant who lords over an enclave of plague
survivors and likes to smash victims’ heads with a baseball bat sheathed in
barbed wire. He has a policy of extortion that requires other, productive
enclaves to give him half of what they have in exchange for his not raiding,
raping, enslaving, and killing their inhabitants and trashing their communities….
And here is…an uncensored
version of how he terrorizes, humiliates, and taunts his captured victims.
Please excuse the language. This version was recorded from a TV. I do not know
its source. It is compelling because Negan expresses Hillary’s malevolence, and
Negan’s foul language has also been captured elsewhere as Hillary’s.  Negan is the real Hillary Clinton’s fantasy
surrogate. It is what she is at the core. Negan is artfully glib, almost
poetic, as Hillary is consistently plastic and artificial.
What might mystify people reading a history of Nazi Germany or Red
China is why uncountable millions would bow voluntarily and without hesitation
to a single allegedly charismatic person such as Negan, Hitler, and Stalin,
when a simple revolution would overpower the creature.
The answer is that these millions, once they have gotten over their
fear and doubts, become comfortable
with tyranny. Or they become so amenable to it that they remain clueless and
ignorant of what else might be possible to them. Memory of their previous lives,
as relatively free men, fades and vanishes. All that is left to them is to obey
Negan because his looters policy allows them to continue living.
In one episode, Negan gives a hubristic speech to the mob claiming
that his “Saviors” are saving civilization. His mob swallows that line with a
collective straight face.

The Walking Dead Hitler
in action

Of course, The Walking Dead
(TWD) is, on the surface, a dramatization of emergency
. Emergency ethics is a temporary set of moral rules that can govern
one’s decisions and actions. A nickname or metaphor for emergency ethics is “lifeboat ethics.”
Unfortunately, the subject has been monopolized by left-wing environmentalists
and other confusing writers. In this instance, the circumstances are the collapse
of civilized society because most people become flesh-eating zombies while they
are alive or after they die.
wrote 1974 about the concept of “Spaceship Earth”:
No generation has viewed
the problem of the survival of the human species as seriously as we have.
Inevitably, we have entered this world of concern through the door of metaphor.
Environmentalists have emphasized the image of the earth as a spaceship
-Spaceship Earth. Kenneth Boulding (1966) is the principal architect of this
metaphor. It is time, he says, that we replace the wasteful “cowboy
economy” of the past with the frugal “spaceship economy”
required for continued survival in the limited world we now see ours to be. The
metaphor is notably useful in justifying pollution control measures.
Unfortunately, the
image of a spaceship is also used to promote measures that are suicidal. One of
these is a generous immigration policy, which is only a particular instance of
a class of policies that are in error because they lead to the tragedy of the
commons (Hardin 1968). These suicidal policies are attractive because they mesh
with what we unthinkingly take to be the ideals of “the best people”.
What is missing in the idealistic view is an insistence that rights and
responsibilities must go together. The “generous” attitude of all too
many people results in asserting inalienable rights while ignoring or denying
matching responsibilities.
For the metaphor of
a spaceship to be correct, the aggregate of people on board would have to be
under unitary sovereign control (Ophuls 1974). A true ship always has a
captain. It is conceivable that a ship could be run by a committee. But it
could not possibly survive if its course were determined by bickering tribes
that claimed rights without responsibilities.

Bowing to Satan or to Negan or to Allah
Does it matter which to a cultist?

See what I mean? Go ahead and parse the passage. I won’t.
Aside from fighting off “zombies” or “the walking dead,” the core
group of survivors in TWD must also deal with marauding looters and killers and
the irrational foibles of members of its group.
Ayn Rand wrote about emergency ethics
in The Virtue of Selfishness that:
An emergency is an
unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under
which human survival is impossible — such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a
shipwreck. In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the
disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions (to reach dry land,
to put out the fire, etc.). [Currently, the unlimited immigration of illegals
and Muslims into the U.S., which certainly qualifies as an “emergency” because
on the one hand, Muslims adhere to an ideology hostile to American values,
which ideology requires the subornation and overthrow of the Constitution and
the institutionized violation of individual rights, and on the other hand
illegals who come to attach themselves to the welfare state and who have no
allegiance to America as a free, unbalkandized 
By “normal”
conditions I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things,
and appropriate to human existence. Men can live on land, but not in water or
in a raging fire. Since men are not omnipotent, it is metaphysically possible
for unforeseeable disasters to strike them, in which case their only task is to
return to those conditions under which their lives can continue. By its nature,
an emergency situation is temporary; if it were to last, men would perish.
It is only in
emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power. For instance, a man who
values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow
passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). But this does not mean
that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his
fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles
they might have. Nor does it mean that he should spend his life sailing the
seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save . . . .[Italics
Emergency ethics are not normal ethics by which to live.
The U.S. has no moral duty to help strangers of whatever character, be
they refugees from the Mideast or from south of the border. But our government,
and that of many European nations, has inversed the altruist ethics vis-à-vis
emergency ethics to invite the ethically lame, the barbarously halt, and the
primitively savage to engulf their civilized societies with the consequence that
the “immigrants” not only imperil indigenous citizens, but form political blocs
to alter the political structures of those countries. Taking the suicidal
altruistic inversion further (altruism, straight up, shaken not stirred), the
code commands the governments to protect the invaders based on their “needs,”
and not its own citizens and to punish or penalize citizens who resist or criticize
the destruction of their values and societies. To become “Islamophobic” or “illegalphobic”
is deemed a wrong not to be countenanced or tolerated.
Why do whole populations – or armies of “Saviors” – submit to the
commands of their dictators? The answers
– and there have been numerous answers – are various. One student of the
phenomenon, Geotz Aly, a lecturer at the University of Frankfurt, posited that
Germans warmed up to Hitler because he was a “good provider”:
To do so, he gave
them (Germans) huge tax breaks and introduced social benefits that even today
anchor the society. He also ensured that even in the last days of the war not a
single German went hungry. Despite near-constant warfare, never once during his
12 years in power did Hitler raise taxes for working class people. He also — in
great contrast to World War I — particularly pampered soldiers and their
families, offering them more than double the salaries and benefits that
American and British families received. As such, most Germans saw Nazism as a
“warm-hearted” protector, says Aly, author of the new book
“Hitler’s People’s State: Robbery, Racial War and National Socialism”
[TC: I cannot find it on U.S. Amazon, try this
German link
] and currently a guest lecturer at the University of Frankfurt.
They were only too happy to overlook the Third Reich’s unsavory, murderous
Financing such home
front “happiness” was not simple and Hitler essentially achieved it
by robbing and murdering others, Aly claims. Jews. Slave laborers. Conquered
lands. All offered tremendous opportunities for plunder, and the Nazis
exploited it fully, he says.
Negan – like Hitler – had to ensure the loyalty and obedience of his
Saviors by distributing the loot from others to sustain their relatively above-bare
sustenance existence (safe places to sleep, food, other “necessities,” and
diversions). Ian
, the prominent historian, on the other hand, noted that submission
to Hitler was not by all means universal.,
 The referendum that followed on 19 August
1934, to legitimize the power-political change that had occurred, aimed at
demonstrating this identity. “Hitler for Germany — all of Germany of
Hitler” ran the slogan. As the result showed, however, reality lagged
behind propaganda. According to the official figures, over a sixth of voters
defied the intense pressure to conform and did not vote “yes.” In
some big working-class areas of Germany, up to a third had not given Hitler
their vote. Even so, there were one or two tantalizing hints that Hitler’s
personal appeal outstripped that of the Nazi regime itself, and even more so of
the Party. “For Adolf Hitler yes, but a thousand times no to the brown
big-wigs” was scribbled on one ballot-paper in Potsdam. The same sentiment
could be heard elsewhere.
Beneath the veneer
of Führer adulation constantly trumpeted by the uniform propaganda of the mass
media, there are numerous indicators that Hitler’s appeal remained far less
than total, even in what later memory often recalled as the “good
years” of the mid-1930s. One example of strong criticism leveled at Hitler
can be seen in a report from the Gestapo in Berlin in March 1936. Hitler’s
toleration of the corruption and luxury life-style of the Party big-wigs at a
time when poor living standards still afflicted most ordinary Germans was, the
report noted, heavily criticized. “Why does the Führer put up with
that?” was a question on many people’s lips, noted the report, and it was
evident “the trust of the people in the personality of the Führer is
currently undergoing a crisis.”
The wholesale surrender of Germans (and of Italians to Mussolini, and
of Argentines to Peron, of the Chinese to Mao, etc.) to Hitler can be ascribed
in part to a pathological absence of individualism among the masses, and a dire
absence of any kind of self-esteem among them as volitional men, that is, of
the view that individuals were responsible for their own beliefs and actions,
and not a dictator or a strongman like Negan.
Mass submission to a “leader” also incorporates the psychological
phenomenon of a cult, in which individuals see their salvation and mental and
material contentment in the form of an irrational obsession with a “leader,”
who can solve all problems and work astounding miracles. It would be easy to
picture Hitler or Negan as infallible, and not to be questioned or criticized, and
not just from fear of him. Islam treats Mohammad that way; Mohammad is seen by Muslims
as infallible, and their relative mental and material well-being depends on
their dependence on that infallibility. As many Germans became psychologically
dependent on Hitler, and would resist or refuse to question his actions even
when they were disastrous, so the Saviors refuse to question the “practicality”
of looting or destroying the productive who made it possible for them to eat
and thrive.
The mass surrender of Americans to Hillary Clinton during the 2016
election is another case in point. Even though it is virtually common knowledge
that she is corrupt and is a congenital liar and that her policies would, like Obama’s,
leave them impoverished, and also in danger from ISIS, they’re obsessed with
her, and won’t let her go. Their identities have substance only in reference to
her image, to her icon. The fruitless and pointless Jill
recount effort is demonstrable of that obsession. Clinton is a kind
of cult figure, as well. The violent Social Justice Warriors and her meeker
followers are not so much for her as against everything she isn’t.
They wish to follow their leader into oblivion like a million lemmings.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén