The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: February 2017

The Wages of Altruistic “Virtue”

Taltruism as the basis of their foreign policy vis-à-vis
immigration. Angela
Merkel
of Germany especially has implemented  the Stoic philosophy of Epictetus (c. 50  – 135 AD) and Marcus Aurelius
of enduring without complaint the evils of an invasion by Third and Fourth
World Islamic savages, because it is their Kantian “duty” or decreed categorical imperative
for Germans to surrender their country, their lives, and happiness to the
welfare and contentment of the contemptuous poor, the “oppressed” and the
“needy.”

       It is said that Mother
Teresa hated
     anyone who became independent
         and not dependent on her
selflessness.

he governments of Europe have chosen

One of Epictetus’s Stoical “Golden
Rules,” loosely translated, was: Be
prepared to be self-sufficient unto oneself
.  Which is ancient but good advice, except that
in Merkel’s “new” Germany, an individual should also flourish enough to support
his enemies, the “refugees.” He is prohibited from deciding what is “sufficient.”
Kant’s “Golden
Rule
” of the categorical imperative is:
Act only according
to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will
that it should become a universal law. (1785 – Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals)
Act only on that maxim
whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law of
nature.
The etymological and ethical root of altruism is:
“unselfishness,
devotion to the welfare of others, opposite of egoism,” from French altruisme, coined or popularized 1830 by French
philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857), with -ism
+ autrui (Old French altrui)
“of or to others,” from Latin alteri,
dative of alter “other” (see alter).
The -l- is perhaps an etymological reinsertion from
the Latin word.
The word was coined by the
French philosopher Auguste Comte in French, as altruisme, for an antonym of
egoism.

Harold
Laski – Rand based her description of
Ellsworth
Toohey, the chief villain
 and primary altruist in her novel, on him as
the
practicing destroyer in The
Fountainhead

So much for this
brief lesson in philosophy. What have Europeans (and to a lesser extent,
Americans) gained by their experiment in unlimited immigration altruism? The
wages are high – in death, destruction, rape, crime, and parasitism by the
invading savages as a “right” or “entitlement.” Let’s take a look of the
benefits of personal and national selflessness as a virtue.
Keep in mind, selflessness is also a paramount Christian virtue even among
atheists and agnostics. Also, the “refugees welcome” crowd, at least in Europe,
is shrinking:

Rapes
in Sweden have skyrocketed by a shocking 1,472%
since the mid-70’s, with
6,620 sexual assaults being reported to police in 2014 compared to just 421 in
1975. The country is now known as the rape capital of the west.
 “77.6 percent of the country’s rapists are
identified as “foreigners” (and that’s significant because in Sweden,
“foreigner” is generally synonymous with “immigrant from Muslim country”), writes
Selwyn Duke
. “And even this likely understates the issue, since the Swedish
government — in an effort to obscure the problem — records second-generation
Muslim perpetrators simply as “Swedes.”
Rapes occurring in
and around migrant camps are now so prevalent, that authorities in Germany
are covering up details
of incidents
so as not to “legitimize” critics of mass immigration.
On the other hand, Swedes
are awakening
to their dilemma.
Wennerlund didn’t
mind Christian immigrants, but he believes it’s not working with the Muslims,
even though Sweden has had a Muslim population for decades. “Often they
don’t want to come here and change,” he says. “They want to change
us. And we don’t want to be changed. So that’s a conflict.”
To Sweden Democrats
and their supporters, immigrants are distorting Swedish society beyond
recognition.
“Immigrants are
in general a little bit more criminal than Swedes born in Sweden, and that’s a
fact,” party leader Jimmie Akesson recently told the BBC.
“You can see it especially in violence, rape and so on.”
Of course others
dispute that claim. Nonetheless, the Sweden Democrats want to cut immigration
by 90 percent. And they are willing to take dramatic steps to make it happen.
Across Sweden, three
mosques were firebombed in the span of a month.
“Every time I
wake up, I’m very afraid to check my telephone to see that something happened
during the night,” says Omar Mustafa, president of the Islamic Association
of Sweden.
At an interview in
his Stockholm office, he says that although Sweden has a history of racism,
“this year, and this time especially, it’s the most scary time actually.
People are really afraid, and people are actually talking about moving from
Sweden.”

Sweden:
Woman raped, left for dead

But the Mainstream
Media, so obviously and justifiably despised by President Trump, refuses to
report much about how especially Sweden has become the “rape capital” of the West.
Allen
West
reports:

The Gatestone
Institute says, “Forty years after the Swedish parliament
unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a
multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300 percent and rapes by
1,472 percent.
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.”
Here’s another
“interesting” fact. Not only does it appear that the Swedish government may be
trying to prevent its citizens from
knowing the truth
by not collecting data and calling all rapists “Swedish
men,” it passed a law in December of 2014 making it a CRIME for
citizens to criticize the government’s immigration policies and/or “insulting”
immigrants. If that doesn’t convince you that “progressive” politicians will go
to any length to protect their insane ideologies and PC dogma I don’t know what
will.
This suppression of
vital information and the introduction of punishment for “defaming” Muslims is
also a government policy in Germany. The Washington
Post
reported in January 2016:
German authorities,
meanwhile, have reached a deal with Facebook, Google and Twitter to get tougher
on offensive content, with the outlets agreeing to apply domestic laws, rather
than their own corporate policies, to reviews of posts.
As Western Europe’s
most populous nation grapples with a historic wave of mostly-Muslim migrants, politicians
and activists are decrying a rash of incendiary speech bubbling to the surface
of German society. In a country whose Nazi past led to some of the strictest
laws in the West protecting minorities from people inciting hatred, prosecutors
are launching investigations into inflammatory comments as judges dole out
fines, even probation time, to the worst offenders.
Critics call it the
enforcement of political correctness, raising the question of what constitutes
hate speech and sparking a national debate over free expression. Germans have
been outraged, for instance, by reports of more than 100 sexual assaults and
robberies in the city of Cologne
allegedly committed by gangs of young Arab and North African men on New Year’s
Eve. Some Germans are questioning whether their online comments could be taken
down, or whether they could be charged with incitement, for publicly pondering
whether refugees could have been among the assailants.
“It’s not
politically correct to say anything against migrants. We don’t have freedom of
opinion anymore. #Cologne,” Tweeted a German user from Hanover going by the
handle Pulvermann.
on Gatestone
reported in September 2015
Although the rape
took place in June, police kept silent about it for nearly three months, until
local media published a story about the crime. According to an editorial
comment in the newspaper Westfalen-Blatt, police are refusing to go
public about crimes involving refugees and migrants because they do not want to
give legitimacy to critics of mass migration.
Police in the
Bavarian town of Mering, where a 16-year-old-girl was raped on September 11,
have issued a warning to parents not to allow their children to go outside
unaccompanied. In the Bavarian town of Pocking, administrators of the
Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium have warned parents not to let their daughter’s wear
revealing clothing in order to avoid “misunderstandings.”
Meanwhile, the
raping of German women by asylum seekers is becoming commonplace.
At the same time,
growing numbers of German women in towns and cities across the country are
being raped by asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Many of
the crimes are being downplayed by German authorities and the national media,
apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.

The
Wages of Altruism:

Danish
Muslims Girl Beat with chains

dailykenn.blogspot.ca

I think that is
enough about how the European welfare states sustain the attacks on indiginous
populations. One practice in Islam, however, does not get enough or any media coverage: honor killings. A DW
report from 2004 discusses the “problem” or crime in “Europe
Grapples with ‘Honor Killings’
“:

Police
officials from EU countries met at Europol headquarters on Tuesday to discuss
“honor killings,” a disturbing problem on the rise in Europe’s mainly
Middle Eastern, Arabic and Asian immigrant communities.
Fadime Sahindal, a 26-year-old Turkish
university student with a Swedish boyfriend, was murdered by her father in
Sweden in 2002. He insisted she marry a man from Turkey.
In Britain last year, Abdalla Yones, a Kurdish
Muslim who stabbed his 16-year-old daughter, Heshu, 11 times and slit her
throat after she started a relationship with a Christian boyfriend, was jailed
for life.
“Honor killings,” as the phenomenon
is known, usually involve women being murdered, usually by brothers and
fathers, for having sex outside marriage, dating, refusing an arranged
marriage, wanting to go to university or even having been raped. The practice
is not uncommon in traditional, male-dominated Arab societies.
Though experts say
that honor killings are on the rise in Europe, the problem is hobbled by a lack
of awareness, mainly because the issue remains largely hidden from public view.  In 2000, the United Nations estimated that
around 5,000 girls and women in at least 14 countries, among them Pakistan,
Jordan and Turkey, were killed yearly because their families felt they brought
dishonor on them.
But statistics in
Europe are hard to come by given the fact that some honor-related crimes are
recorded as simple murders or domestic violence.
But with the mass
immigration of Muslim “refugees” to the U.S. and Canada, “honor killings” are
becoming standard news fare – or not. Farhana Qazi in The
Islamic Monthly revealed in America’s
Honor Killings A Growing Reality
”:

2009:
Noor Almaleki is Dead
Run over by her
 Muslim father  for being too “westernized”, she lingered.
One
of over a dozen women  “honor killed”
 by family members in America and Canada .

June 2014 in “

For the past five
years, there has been at least one case of honor killing each year in a
different U.S. city. In 2008, teen sisters in Texas had allegedly been shot
dead by their father because they had boyfriends. In Georgia, Sandeela Kanwal
was strangled by her father because she wanted to leave an arranged marriage.
The pizza-shop-owner father, Chaudry Rashid, told the police, “She [my
daughter] wasn’t being true to her religion or to her husband.” She was 25
years old. A year later, twenty-year old Noor Almaleki was run over by her
father in Arizona for falling in love with Marwan. In New York, Aasiya Hassan
was beheaded by her husband for allegedly seeking a divorce. She was 37. And
this past week, Amina Ajmal testified in a New York courtroom against her
father for killing her boyfriend’s relatives in Pakistan. The cases involving
girls from Pakistan is a chilling reminder of the New York Times front
page photograph in May 2014 of a girl brutally beaten outside a courtroom in
Lahore (my birth city) for marrying a man of her choice.

A British play

Billy Hallowell in The
Blaze
in November 2015 reported:

A report
commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice and released earlier this year
found that there are an estimated 23-27 honor killings annually in America,
though the numbers are not “completely reliable” due to a variety of
challenges, according to a Fox News report.
The document,
titled, “Report on Exploratory Study into Honor Violence Measurement
Methods
,” was commissioned by Westat, a research group.
It found that there
are essentially four types of honor violence that are frequently discussed and
perpetuated: “forced marriage, honor-based domestic violence, honor killing,
and female genital mutilation.”
While not strictly an
“honor killing,” but rather a plain and gruesome murder.
There was also the
2009 case in which Muzzammil Hassan, a Muslim TV executive, beheaded his wife in Buffalo, New York, after she allegedly
requested a divorce.
In the meantime, WND’s
Leo Hohmann
reported in October 2015:
The U.S. government
has resettled more than 110,000
Somali refugees
since the early 1990s and shipped in another 8,858 during
the most recent fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, according to U.S. State
Department data.
Ann Corcoran of Resettlement
Watch
discussed the U.S. government’s deliberate plan to salt the country
with mostly Muslims hostile to American culture and its political structure:
As the United States plans
to take in about 2,000 Syrian refugees
this year — out of the nearly 4
million who have fled the country’s civil war — Ann Corcoran of Refugee
Resettlement Watch is warning that resettlement efforts are merely attempts to
create Democratic voters out of Muslim refugees who are using migration as “a
form of jihad.”
Corcoran told
Iowa talk radio host Jan Mickelson
on Friday about her resistance to
refugees from Muslim countries being resettled in her western Maryland
community and throughout the country, saying that resettlement programs are a
Democratic effort to gin up votes while pushing “the whole multicultural meme”
on communities like hers.
“I think that it is partly driven by progressives looking for
reliable left-wing Democrat voters, that’s a driving force,” she said, “I think
there’s a certain amount of just wanting to rub diversity in the noses of conservative
communities and places where there isn’t a lot of diversity and just bringing
them in and push the whole multicultural meme on us.”
She warned that the
refugees themselves have even more sinister motivations: “I can say from the
standpoint of the Islamic reason for doing this, is that Mohammed told his
followers to migrate to create an Islamic state throughout the world, and
that’s exactly what they’re doing. Migration [hijra] is a form of jihad.” [brackets mine]
The U.S. government’s
deliberate dumping of unassimilable Muslims into the U.S. is not driven by
altruism (though it may claim humanitarian motives), but rather by policy decisions
made by especially former Obama appurtenances moved more by malice for America than
by any “benign” manifestation of “doing good” because moral categorical
imperatives impelled them to. Their “self-esteem” is dependent on how much they
can sacrifice and “transform.”
Untouched by the consequences
of their malevolent policies, these “virtue signaling” creatures are the only
real collectors of the wages of altruism – together with Islam.

Western Fascism vs. Islamofascism?

“The
fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.”
Differently
worded, it is attributed to

First, let’s clarify the meaning of fascism, as it has become a word that’s tossed reflexively like a
grenade at Donald Trump or at anyone who supports him or who challenges,
Progressivism, or the morality of the welfare state. It sounds scary and
package-deals so many political and social realms that have little or nothing
to do with fascism. Brendan O’Neill of Spiked wrote in a much needed analysis “What
Fascism Is, and What It Isn’t
”:

The f-word has been
destroyed through overuse, its original sense and power diluted by a million
op-eds branding unpleasant politicians ‘fascists’ and by radical marchers
hollering ‘fascist scum’ at anyone who irritates them: President Donald Trump,
UKIP leader Nigel Farage, the cops. On the right, too, the accusation of
fascism has become a Tourette’s-style cry. It’s the left who are the real
fascists, they say. Ugly alt-right barbs like ‘feminazi’ and ‘eco-fascist’
confirm that right-wingers are now as likely to scream ‘fascist’ as they are to
have it screamed at them.
O’Neill is a tad off-track concerning how and why “right-wingers” use
the term fascism. They are a bit more perceptive of the Left’s assertions,
ends, and methods (whereas leftists are blind to the consequences of their
beliefs), and there’s no reason why they should refrain from calling
face-masked goons fascists. Rampaging leftists walk like ducks, and so are
ducks. They’re just as not nattily garbed as Nazi Brown Shirts or Fascist Black Shirts.
However, I
left this comment on O’Neill’s column:
Ask a true
contemporary “fascist” – i.e., one of the Berkeley rioters and window
smashers, or one of the Women’s March pussy hat wearers – what fascism is, and
all you’ll get for an answer is a rapid blinking of the eyes, a careening,
stuttering search for words, or some hackneyed warbling about Hitler; it would
do you no good to remind the person that “Fascism” was not the same
as Hitler’s Nazism, and that the only true or original Fascist was Benito
Mussolini, and that the term is derived from the Roman fasces, a bundle of elm or birch rods with an ax head protruding
from them, carried by servants of the Roman Senate. Today’s
“activists” – violent or otherwise – are woefully ignorant of the
meaning of the words they use or throw at their enemies, and don’t care.
Let’s look at some definitions of fascism.
The Merriam-Webster
definition:
….a
political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts
nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic
government headed by a dictatorial
leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of
opposition [e.g., censorship or punishment; my addition]

Adolf Hitler
addressing a rally in Germany, c.
1933.
(Holton Archive/Getty Images)
Political ideology that imposes strict social
and economical measures as a method of empowering the government and stripping
citizens of rights. This authoritative system of government is usually headed
by an absolute dictator who keeps citizens suppressed via acts of violence and
strict laws that govern the people. The most noted form of Fascism was
implemented under Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, who both stripped citizens
of their rights and maintained strict regimes that resulted in the deaths of
thousands of humans. Some of the defining characteristics of fascism are: (1)
racism, (2) militarism, (3) dictatorship, and (4) destructive nationalistic
policies.
Auburn University definition:
A class of
political ideologies
(and historical political regimes) that takes its name from the movement led by
Benito Mussolini that took power in Italy in 1922. Mussolini’s ideas and
practices directly and indirectly influenced political movements in Germany
(especially the Nazi Party), Spain (Franco’s Falange Party), France, Argentina,
and many other European and non-European countries right up to the present day.
The
different “fascist” movements and regimes have varied considerably in
their specific goals and practices, but they are usually said to be
characterized by several common features:
1.      
Militant nationalism,
proclaiming the racial and cultural superiority of the dominant ethnic group
and asserting that group’s inherent right to a special dominant position over
other peoples in both the domestic and the international order
2.      
The
adulation of a single charismatic national leader said to possess near
superhuman abilities and to be the truest representation of the ideals of the
national culture, whose will should therefore literally be law
3.      
Emphasis on
the absolute necessity of complete national unity, which is said to require a
very powerful and disciplined state organization
(especially an extensive secret police and censorship apparatus), unlimited by
constitutional restrictions or legal requirements and under the absolute
domination of the leader and his political movement or party
4.      
Militant
anti-Communism
coupled with the belief in an extreme and imminent threat to national security
from powerful and determined Communist forces
both inside and outside the country
5.      
Contempt for
democratic socialism,
democratic capitalism, liberalism, and
all forms of individualism as weak, degenerate, divisive and ineffective
ideologies leading only to mediocrity or national suicide
6.      
Glorification
of physical strength, fanatical personal loyalty to the leader, and general
combat-readiness as the ultimate personal virtues
7.      
A
sophisticated apparatus for systematically propagandizing the
population into accepting these values and ideas through skilled manipulation
of the mass media, which are totally monopolized by the regime once the
movement comes to power
8.      
A propensity
toward pursuing a militaristic and aggressive foreign policy
9.      
Strict
regulation and control of the economy by the regime through some form of
corporatist economic planning in which the legal forms of private ownership of
industry are nominally preserved but in which both workers and capitalists are
obliged to submit their plans and objectives to the most detailed state
regulation and extensive wage and price controls, which are designed to insure
the priority of the political leadership’s objectives over the private economic
interests of the citizenry. Therefore under fascism most of the more important
markets are allowed to operate only in a non-competitive, cartelized, and
governmentally “rigged” fashion.

Mussolini had hypnotic “charisma”
The
Encyclopedia Britannica
begins its definition with:
There has been considerable
disagreement among historians and political scientists about the nature of
fascism. Some scholars, for example, regard it as a socially radical movement
with ideological ties to the Jacobins of the French Revolution,
whereas others see it as an extreme form of conservatism inspired
by a 19th-century backlash against the ideals of the Enlightenment.
Some find fascism deeply irrational, whereas others are impressed with the
rationality with which it served the material interests of its supporters.
Similarly, some attempt to explain fascist demonologies as the expression of
irrationally misdirected anger and frustration, whereas others emphasize the
rational ways in which these demonologies were used to perpetuate professional
or class advantages. Finally, whereas some consider fascism to be motivated
primarily by its aspirations—by a desire for cultural “regeneration” and the
creation of a “new man”—others place greater weight on fascism’s “anxieties”—on
its fear of communist revolution and
even of left-centrist electoral victories.
One reason for these
disagreements is that the two historical regimes that are today regarded as
paradigmatically fascist—Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany—were different in
important respects. In Italy, for example, anti-Semitism was
officially rejected before 1934, and it was not until 1938 that Mussolini
enacted a series of anti-Semitic measures in order to solidify his new military
alliance with Hitler.
Another reason is the fascists’ well-known opportunism—i.e., their willingness
to make changes in official party positions in order to win elections or
consolidate power. Finally, scholars of fascism themselves bring to their
studies different political and cultural attitudes, which often have a bearing
on the importance they assign to one or another aspect of fascist ideology or
practice. Secular
liberals, for example, have stressed fascism’s religious roots; Roman Catholic
and Protestant scholars have emphasized its secular origins; social
conservatives have pointed to its “socialist” and “populist” aspects; and
social radicals have noted its defense of “capitalism” and “elitism.”
For these and other reasons,
there is no universally accepted definition of fascism. Nevertheless, it is
possible to identify a number of general characteristics that fascist movements
between 1922 and 1945 tended to have in common.

Bosnian (Muslim) Nazi soldiers boning up on Islam


Hezbollah’s Nazi salute evokes memories of
Hitler’s support for Arab
agitators
Mein Kampf is popular in the Mideast
Britannica expands its discussion
of fascism:
Neofascism, political
philosophy and movement that arose in Europe in the decades
following World War II.
Like earlier fascist movements, neofascism advocated extreme nationalism, opposed
liberal individualism,
attacked Marxist and other left-wing ideologies,
indulged in racist and xenophobic scapegoating, and promoted populist
right-wing economic programs. Unlike the fascists, however, neofascists placed
more blame for their countries’ problems on non-European immigrants than on
leftists and Jews, displayed little interest in taking lebensraum (German:
“living space”) through the military conquest of other states, and made
concerted efforts to portray themselves as democratic and “mainstream.” The National
Front
in France, led by Jean-Marie Le Pen,
and the Liberal-Democratic
Party in Russia
, led by Vladimir
Zhirinovsky
, are often cited as neofascist.
In the broadest sense,
totalitarianism is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to
control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and
repression. Examples of such centralized totalitarian rule include the Maurya dynasty of India
(c. 321–c. 185 bc), the Ch’in dynasty of China (221–206
bc), and the reign of Zulu chief Shaka (c. 1816–28). The totalitarian
states of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler
(1933–45) and the Soviet
Union
under Joseph
Stalin
(1924–53) were the first examples of decentralized or popular
totalitarianism, in which the state achieved overwhelming popular support for
its leadership. This support was not spontaneous; its genesis depended on a charismatic
leader; and it was made possible only by modern developments in communication
and transportation.
Totalitarianism is often
distinguished from dictatorship,
despotism, or tyranny
by its supplanting of all political institutions with new ones and its sweeping
away of all legal, social, and political traditions. The totalitarian state
pursues some special goal, such as industrialization or conquest, to the
exclusion of all others. All resources are directed toward its attainment
regardless of the cost. Whatever might further the goal is supported; whatever
might foil the goal is rejected. This obsession
spawns an ideology
that explains everything in terms of the goal, rationalizing all obstacles that
may arise and all forces that may contend with the state. The resulting popular
support permits the state the widest latitude of action of any form of
government. Any dissent is branded evil, and internal political differences are
not permitted. Because pursuit of the goal is the only ideological foundation
for the totalitarian state, achievement of the goal can never be acknowledged.
Under totalitarian rule, traditional social institutions and
organizations are discouraged and suppressed; thus the social fabric is
weakened and people become more amenable to
absorption into a single, unified movement. Participation in approved public
organizations is at first encouraged and then required. Old religious and
social ties are supplanted by artificial ties to the state and its ideology. As pluralism and individualism
diminish, most of the people embrace the totalitarian state’s ideology. The infinite diversity among
individuals blurs, replaced by a mass conformity (or at least acquiescence) to
the beliefs and behavior

Italian Fascist Symbol


sanctioned by the state.

Large-scale, organized violence becomes
permissible and sometimes necessary under totalitarian rule, justified by the
overriding commitment to the state ideology and pursuit of the state’s goal. In
Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, whole classes of people, such as the
Jews and the kulaks (wealthy peasant farmers) respectively, were singled out
for persecution and extinction. In each case the persecuted were linked with
some external enemy and blamed for the state’s troubles, and thereby public opinion was
aroused against them and their fate at the hands of the military and the police
was condoned.
Police operations within a
totalitarian state often appear similar to those within a police state, but one
important difference distinguishes them. In a police state the police operate
according to known, consistent procedures. In a totalitarian state the police operate
without the constraints of laws and regulations. Their actions are
unpredictable and directed by the whim of their rulers. Under Hitler and Stalin
uncertainty was interwoven into the affairs of the state.
The German constitution of the Weimar Republic was
never abrogated
under Hitler, but an enabling act passed by the Reichstag in 1933 permitted him
to amend the
constitution at will, in effect nullifying it. The role of lawmaker became
vested in one man. Similarly, Stalin provided a constitution for the Soviet
Union in 1936 but never permitted it to become the framework of Soviet law. Instead, he
was the final arbiter in the interpretation of Marxism–Leninism–Stalinism and
changed his interpretations at will. Neither Hitler nor Stalin permitted change
to become predictable, thus increasing the sense of terror among the people and
repressing any dissent.
It is the “total” in totalitarianism that gives the best
clue to its meaning. The term refers to the type of government that attempts to
assert total control over the lives of its citizens. This form of tyranny was a
20th-century development that was instituted to serve the goal of transforming
society according to socialist principles. Totalitarian governments first
appeared shortly after World War I.

The ever-present
swastika – a Hindu good luck symbol –
beneath the
German eagle
The core, essential attributes of fascism are an unreserved,
manipulated, mass personality-cult of the movement’s “leader”, substituting the
group for the individual, the suppression of dissent in any form (in word and
action), and fiat force, or its threat, to compel unreserved obedience.
Now, about Islamofascism:
I must have said it two dozen or more times in my columns
over the years: Islam can’t be “reformed” without destroying it as an
ideology or even as a “religion,” it can’t be tamed without killing
it. Which part of Islam would need to be made “moderate,” or amenable
with Western values, to render it tolerable? The misogynist element? Kill the
Jews? Attack and enslave the infidel? Not one aspect of it can undergo a
“make-over” without robbing Islam of its essential identity and
purpose, and if that could be done, what, then, would be the attraction to
Islam? You’d need to turn its “ideal man,” Mohammad,
into Santa Claus. All the evil — that is, the anti-human — aspects of Islam,
that is, the most blatantly evil ones, are linked together. Remove one link and
the chain of totalitarianism in Islam falls apart. There are no weak links in
Islam, if that is what a “reformer” is looking for. In that sense,
Islam can be said to reflect a paraphrase of Mussolini’s dictum about Fascism:
“Everything inside Islam, nothing outside it, nothing against the
caliphate.” For example, I wrote about the futility of “reforming” Islam, “The
Muslim’s Conundrum
” in January 2015:
….Except that Islam can’t be reformed without
killing it. The violent
verses
in the Koran are the principal sources of any power it might have.
Remove them, or concoct pretzel-like explanations of what they do or don’t
mean, and what you’d have left is an unstructured mishmash of banal homilies
and exhortations to be a “good” Muslim, whatever that might mean. “Kill
the Jew hiding behind a tree
” doesn’t mean “make him die laughing with
Seinfeld jokes,” and “by
your right hand possess
” doesn’t mean embracing a woman’s waist during a
ballroom dance….
The violent verses in Islam’s sacred texts,
whether they’re read in Arabic or in English or any other translation, are
quite clear and unambiguous.  Because
they are supposedly Allah’s own words, one must take those verses literally,
and not attempt to “interpret” them or quote them out of the context, as
Allah’s words as supposedly whispered into Mohammad’s ear are unalterable and
exempt from correction, emendation, and line-editing. They mean what they mean.
Period. For example, in the Shi’ite view of the rape of women captured by jihadists, goes, Koran 4.24 says:

An Al Qaeda-ISIS
flag
Given the base nature of Islam, how could it not be
fascist, as well? Its core essentials mesh perfectly with Western style fascism:
The core, essential attributes of fascism are an unreserved, manipulated, mass personality
worship of the movement’s “leader”, substituting the group for the individual, the
suppression of dissent in any form (in word and action), and fiat force. The chief
attributes of Western fascism and Islamofascism The chief ingredients of
fascism are enforced collectivism of an entire population and arbitrary, fiat
force, or its threat, to compel unquestioning obedience.
A note: The term “Radical Islam” is an oxymoron,
just as the term “free inquiry” is a redundant term. It implies that there is
just plain, ordinary Islam which wouldn’t hurt a fly and wants to coexist in
peace, while “Radical Islam” suggests that it’s the flyswatter designed to
exterminate all flies. “Radical Islam” is just as ludicrous and confusing a
term as is “Radical Nazism” or “Radical Communism.”  Islam is already “radical” in its
fundamentals, and is “extremist” in that it commands a literal acceptance of
its Koranic diktats. Instead of a living “leader” the object of a personality
cult, Islam furnishes dual icons:  Allah
as an omnipotent/omniscient deity, and Mohammad as his “Prophet.” 
By the same token, the term “Radical Islamic Terrorism” is a conceptual mare’s nest and a straw man.

Western fascism and Islamofascism are copasetic,
and share commonalities too obvious to dispute or to ignore. Islam is as totalitarian as were Nazism and Communism.

Lights Dim on Reality in the Cinema: Part II

This is Part II of “Lights
Dim on Reality in the Cinema
” from February 22, about the reviews of
several movies in Movies
and the Meaning of Life
, edited by Kimberly A. Blessing and Paul Tudico
(302 pp., including the Index). I chose not to create a longish column about all
19 essays by the university professors about these films.  In this column I will cite just a handful of
those movies and touch on their contents and what the writers said about them.
To iterate, all the essays (written by college
professors) are written from a Marxist, Critical Theory or Deconstructionist
standpoint. As I noted in Part I, these essays, if they are Marxist – and
Marxist interpretations of any realm of art, in the printed word, in the visual
arts or sculpture, or in film are written from a “sociological” point of view,
as opposed to an objective, rational one – they’re automatically suspect
because they are root, branch, and twig divorced from an objective, rational
perspective. In short, reality is a creation of the mind, and reality can be
anything one wishes to make of it, governed by one’s own personal experiences
and subjective prejudices. Critical Theory and Deconstruction both work to
unplug one’s mind from reality, and lure one into a critic’s universe via the hypnotic
appeal of a degree holder’s “authority.”
The essays in Movies
attempt to answer the questions:
What
is reality and how can I know it? (Contact,
The
Truman Show
, Waking Life)
How
can I find my true identity? (Boys Don’t Cry, Being John Mallkovich,
Fight Club, Memento)
What’s
the significance of my interactions with others? (Chasing Amy, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Shadowlands)
How
ought I to live my life? (Groundhog Day, Minority Report, Pleasantville, Pulp Fiction, Spider-Man 1 & 2)
I say attempt
to answer the questions, but instead they crash into rational epistemology and
metaphysics, or rather create the disastrous centrifugal force of the out-of-control the
merry-go-round
at the end of “Strangers
on a Train
.”
The professors
provide brief teasers of concrete actions in each film, and then extrapolate
them into their own exercises in creating (not recreating; art being the selective recreation of reality as
defined by Ayn Rand;
Art is a selective
re-creation
of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical
value-judgments. Man’s profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive
faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of
abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions
into his immediate, perceptual awareness . .
 .) the reality of each film’s philosophical or
moral meaning. The essayists’ exercises in interpreting the “meaning of life”
in any of the discussed films typically go beyond any definition of rational
observation; we are only presented with their unsupportable assertions.
In Contact (1997), a science fiction film about an
alleged alien message that enables Jodie Foster’s character to travel to
another galaxy, we are not sure if she actually took the trip or if the alien
signals were fabricated by the multi-billionaire character played by John Hurt
(and what would his purpose be in staging a large scale hoax? This issue is
never raised in the essay). In the end she is not sure what happened, or saw,
or did, and neither are we. Everything she experienced is dubious. She winds up
doubting what she saw and felt, and becomes as  skeptical as her Congressional interrogators.
Though Ellie [Jodie Foster] has faith in her
own experience, she tempers it with a healthy dose of doubt. [p. 29]
The authors
of the essay “Our Place in the Cosmos: Faith and Belief in Contact,” write
approvingly – nay, ecstatically – of this species of agnosticism.
This film,
as well as the other films discussed by the professors, is not one that would
inspire one to fight for one’s values, it would never serve as relief from contemporary
vulgarity and cultural relativism, or cause one to go through life with confidence
and an upraised head.
About art, Rand wrote:
[Man] acquires
knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest
metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness.  Art fulfills this need: by means of a
selective re-creation, it concretizes man’s fundamental view of himself and of
existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be
regarded as essential, significant, important. In this sense, art teaches man
how to use his consciousness. It conditions or stylizes man’s consciousness by
conveying to him a certain way of looking at existence.
Clearly, the producers and directors of Contact did not consciously subscribe to this or any other
philosophy; Hollywood directors are not intellectuals but practitioners of received
wisdom. This is my own conclusion from having seen the film; it is not derived from
the conclusions of the essay’s authors. And I doubt it was the film’s makers’
purpose to consciously legitimatize skepticism or to hove to Kant’s poisonous philosophy
that one can’t know anything because one’s senses are haywire or inherently
flawed. They are merely the rudderless products of the culture that elevates
the notions of subjectivism and the relativity of knowledge and moral
certainty.
Next up for discussion is The Truman Show, which I’ve
seen, about a man whose whole life is an elaborate live action reality TV/soap
opera focused on a mediocrity who finally realizes that he’s been the dupe of a
particularly cruel joke. His town, wife, friends and so  on are all “fake” or counterfeit.
The most interesting thing about the professor’s review of the film is
information she reveals about René Descartes,
the French philosopher who predated Immanuel Kant and his
philosophy of phenomenal and noumenal worlds, and that our senses are
not trustworthy (in fact, says Kant, your senses are invalid; if you can see,
you are blind; only a higher form of “reason” can let you gaze upon “pure”
forms of things). Kimberly Blessing writes:
Almost four
hundred years before the making of The
Truman Show
, French Philosopher and mathematician René Descartes (1596-1650)
locks himself away in a poêl (that’s French
for a stove-heated room) and begins to think. Instead of constructing the world’s
largest television studio….Descartes 
imagines that the entire world external to him is a grand illusion
cooked up by some clever and malicious demon. “I will suppose…some malicious
demon of the upmost power and cunning has employed all of his energies in order
to deceive me.” Should such a demon exist, even the most simple and universal
truths like ‘2+3=  5’ and ‘squares have
four sides’ would have to be called into question. By the end of the first six
of his six Meditations on First Philosphy, Descartes is forced to conclude that
The sky, the
air, the earth, colors, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the
delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgment. I shall
consider myself as not having hands or eyes, or flesh, or blood or senses, but
as falsely believing that I have all those things. [p. 5]
Instead of Kant’s categorical
imperatives
and transcendental
idealism
, Descartes got the ball rolling in the attack on man’s mind about
the illusionary nature of reality with…a prank-playing demon. Blessing hasn’t
much to say about the relationship of these two insane systems of philosophy.
American Beauty is about Lester
Burnham, played by Kevin Spacey, a suburban father of one, who realizes that
his life and soul are empty. What seems to kick-start this realization is his
lusting after a high school cheerleader, a friend of his daughter’s. It is an
otherwise slow-moving, episodic dreary slice of naturalisms. But the author of
the essay, George T. Hole, “magically” turns an essay about cinematic
banalities into numerous references to Plato and his Cave Guardians. You
shouldn’t wonder where Descartes and Kant got their blinkered ideas. History Guide
presents an encapsulated discussion of Plato’s The Allegory of the Cave:
The Allegory
presents, in brief form, most of Plato’s major philosophical assumptions: his
belief that the world revealed by our senses is not the real world but only a
poor copy of it, and that the real world can only be apprehended
intellectually; his idea that knowledge cannot be transferred from teacher to
student, but rather that education consists in directing student’s minds toward
what is real and important and allowing them to apprehend it for themselves;
his faith that the universe ultimately is good; his conviction that enlightened
individuals have an obligation to the rest of society, and that a good society
must be one in which the truly wise (the Philosopher-King) are the rulers.
One final observation about all the films discussed in Movies: they are all presented as dense
allegories which only the college professors can construe and untangle for the
uninitiated, except that all one is left with are mare’s nests of “close
readings” and unnamed “signifiers.”. Almost all of the professors have
published papers of a similar nature in terms of Critical Theory,
Deconstruction, or a combination of them. You end up asking yourself: Where are
they getting this stuff?
From the rubbish dump that is contemporary Literary Criticism. To underscore
this point, here is an excerpt from Kimberly Blessing’s end of book career
synopsis:
Kimberly A.
Blessing is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Buffalo State College….Her
areas of interest began with Descartes and his “missing ethical theory.” Early in
her career, she ambitiously set out to become the expert on all subjects about which Descartes had nothing to
say. Unfortunately, nobody seemed interested in anything she had to say about that
about which Descartes said nothing. [p. 290]
See what I mean?

Lights Dim on Reality in the Cinema: Part I

A friend sent me a book about movies published in
2005, Movies
and the Meaning of Life
, edited by Kimberly A. Blessing and Paul Tudico
(302 pp., including the Index). After discharging myriad other writing chores,
I finally made time to read it, taking a break from my “Islamophobia,” with a
tentative eye to reviewing it. It is a collection of essays by college
professors on the “meaning of life” as they interpret some nineteen recent –
that is, modern – movies. All of the movies were produced and released in the
1990’s or later.
Modern movies that purport to dramatize the
“meaning of life” – unless it’s a comedy (such as Monty
Python and the Meaning of Life
) — whether or not the directors or casts
have a conscious, fixed idée about
it, leave me cold. Many of the movies featured in Blessing’s collection I have
seen. Others I have not because their subject matter repelled me or produced
body-shaking yawns. Some of them I’d never heard of until now.
The nineteen movies are arranged under such topics
as:
What
is reality and how can I know it? (Contact,
The
Truman Show
, Waking Life)
How
can I find my true identity? (Boys Don’t Cry, Being John Mallkovich,
Fight Club, Memento)
What’s
the significance of my interactions with others? (Chasing Amy, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Shadowlands)
How
ought I to live my life? (Groundhog Day, Minority Report, Pleasantville, Pulp Fiction, Spider-Man 1 & 2)
In large part, the essays are written from a
Critical Theory standpoint, or as Post-Deconstructionist
textual jigsaw puzzles. These terms have “traditionally” been applied to
examining the printed word in fiction and nonfiction, but branched out into
“film theory,” and their presence in these essays demonstrates that they can be
applied to cinema, as well. Critical Theory, notes Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
:
Critical Theory has a narrow and a
broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences.
“Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German
philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition
known as the Frankfurt School…. Critical Theory when capitalized refers only to
the Frankfurt School….
Deconstruction,
form of philosophical and literary analysis, derived mainly from work begun
in the 1960s by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida,
that questions the fundamental conceptual
distinctions, or “oppositions,” in Western philosophy
through a close examination of the language and logic of philosophical and
literary texts. In the 1970s the term was applied to work by Derrida, Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller,
and Barbara Johnson, among other scholars. In the 1980s it designated more
loosely a range of radical theoretical enterprises in diverse areas of
the humanities and
social sciences, including—in addition to philosophy and
literature—law, psychoanalysis, architecture, anthropology, theology, feminism,
gay and lesbian studies, political theory, historiography, and film theory. In polemical
discussions about intellectual
trends of the late 20th-century, deconstruction was sometimes used
pejoratively to suggest nihilism
and frivolous
skepticism.
In popular usage the term has come to mean a critical dismantling of tradition
and traditional modes of thought.
PBS discusses deconstructionism
as  applied to “postmodernism.”

Deconstructionism


A term tied very closely to postmodernism,
deconstructionism is a challenge to the
attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text
. Basing
itself in language analysis, it seeks to “deconstruct” the
ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and
traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and
religious “truths.” Deconstructionism
is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand,
and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination – of nature, of
people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc.
Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete
experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the
multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring
knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to
centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted
or obeyed by all. [Bold mine]
A
general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy,
architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others.
Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or
objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition
that reality is not simply mirrored in
human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to
understand its own particular and personal reality
. For this reason,
postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for
all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative
truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is
everything; reality only comes into
being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually.

Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing
always that the outcome of one’s own experience will necessarily be fallible
and relative, rather than certain and universal
. [Bold,mine]

 

Postmodernism

 Postmodernism is “post” because it denies the existence of any ultimate
principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a scientific,
philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody

– a characteristic of the so-called “modern” mind. The paradox of the
postmodern position is that, in placing all principles under the scrutiny of
its skepticism, it must realize that even its own principles are not beyond
questioning. As the philosopher Richard Tarnas states, postmodernism
“cannot on its own principles ultimately justify itself any more than can
the various metaphysical
overviews against which the postmodern mind has defined itself.” [Bold,mine]
Enough said, for the purposes of this article. If
it’s Marxist – and Marxist interpretations of any realm of art, in the printed
word, in the visual arts or sculpture, or in film – it’s automatically suspect
because it is root, branch, and twig divorced from an objective, rational
perspective. In short, reality is a creation of the mind, and reality can be
anything one wishes to make of it, governed by one’s own personal experiences
and subjective prejudices. Critical Theory and Deconstruction both work to
unplug one’s mind from reality, and lure one into a critic’s universe via the hypnotic
appeal of a degree holder’s “authority.”
My own idea of “critical theory” has been limited
to showing how filmmakers can alter, falsify, or misrepresent historical fact, by
divorcing their productions from reality and recorded history, as in “Amadeus: A Pinnacle of Cultural Corruption
from 2010. That essay focuses on
the characterization of Mozart, Antonio Salieri, and the chief figures in their
lives in the 18th century, and also how the whole period has been reduced to glossy
National Enquirer status,
discouraging in the viewer any attempt at critical analysis, skepticism, any doubt
beyond facile gullibility, or any suggestion that the viewer should question the
accuracy concerning the truth. So that article, and others I’ve written in the
past (such as “Lawrence
of Arabia”: A Reappraisal
,” from 2014), are not so much instances of
“critical theory” as they are exposés.
In most
instances, in Blessing’s Movies, the
essayists provide brief teasers of concrete actions in a film, and then
extrapolate them into their own exercises in creating (not recreating; art
being the selective recreation of reality as defined by Ayn Rand;
Art is a selective
re-creation
of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical
value-judgments. Man’s profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive
faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of
abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions
into his immediate, perceptual awareness . .
 .) the reality of each film’s philosophical or
moral meaning. The essayists’ exercises in interpreting the “meaning of life”
in any film typically go beyond any definition of rational observation; we are
only presented with their unsupportable assertions.
Indeed, the
chief aim of Critical Theory and Deconstruction (and of their subsidiary
schools) is to inculcate a disbelief in objectivity, in reality, in values.
Based essentially on Immanuel Kant’s theory of reality and his denial of man’s
capacity to know it, to infect his mind with a tenacious almost religious doubt
or denigration of the evidence of his senses. In his 2009 posting, “Kant
and the Creation of Reality
,”Jeff Carreira writes:
The
American Philosophers
from the Transcendentalists
to the Pragmatists
were all following in the footsteps of the great German Idealist Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804). This isn’t too surprising because all
of Western Philosophy follows in the footsteps of Kant. In 1781 Kant published The Critique of
Pure Reason
and rocked the world of philosophy. What Kant
articulated and what later generations of philosophers picked up on was that
reality as we perceive it is not purely objective – it is at least partly
subjective….
We can’t know reality directly. We don’t
perceive of things in themselves. What we perceive as reality is in part created
by our minds. And this creation of reality isn’t only the unconscious work of
the mind as a machine, as some before Kant had believed, the creative process
that constructs reality as we see it is also influenced by us. Of all of the
infinite sensations, physical, emotional and conceptual that we experience at
any given time we are only aware of a small percentage. The rest we ignore, but
those that we attend to are compiled into reality as we see it….

What Kant did for Western
Philosophy
was make human beings part of the creative process of reality as
we see it. In this he dealt a blow to both religion and science. To religion he insisted that we can’t perceive of God
directly because our perception of God will also be partly of our own
construction. To science likewise he takes away the ruse of objectivity because
everything we observe will always be influenced by us.
So, it’s deuces wild. Reality, or films, can be
anything you wish, can mean anything you wish, and the essayists prove their
Kantian roots and predilections paragraph after paragraph. If reality can’t be
known, then one’s true identity (whatever that might mean) can’t be known,
there is no significance in one’s interactions with others, there is no point
to one’s life, and one’s life should be lived according to one’s subjective creative
process, and if you reach a conclusion, such as identifying a pencil on one’s
desk, Kant says you can’t validate it, because even logic is subjective and
your senses are naturally haywire and untrustworthy.
I won’t examine each essay or film discussed by the
professors in Part I because it would require a book-length treatment. I’ll try
to sample a few essays in the next post.

Fake News: Islam Is Blameless!

The Amish Strike Blow for Freedom of
Movement!
Lancaster, Penna. Feb. 22 – We are still reeling from the news of Christian
terrorism when a fast-moving Amish buggy deliberately side-swiped a tractor-trailer
hauling steel plates to go into the new border wall with Mexico, sending the
trailer into a ditch, injuring the driver and his companion, and scattering the
fifty one-ton plates in the the highway divide on State Route 30. The driver
and his co-driver were taken to Lancaster General Hospital.

An Amish Weapon of Terror


The “road rage” snarled traffic for hours, backing traffic up for
several miles from as far away as East Petersburg. Arrested at the scene was
Amos Yoder of Lancaster, a farmer and the driver of the buggy, and his son,
Elmer, age 17.
In a statement, Mr. Yoder said they took the perilous action to protest
the “Mexican Trump wall” and President Trump’s immigration ban of Muslims. Mr.
Yoder said he would like to see more illegals and Muslims settle in the region.
“We have always opened our hearts to the dispossessed and the oppressed
in this country. We are not worried about the government settling Muslims in
our midst or allowing Mexican illegals to flourish here. We are a peaceful
people and are not concerned about Muslims or wayward Mexicans raping our
daughters and women, or invading our homes to rob us, even though we could not
protect ourselves, for we do not believe in violence. They would never cause us
harm. They know this.”
When asked how he and his family could know anything about Muslim rapes
and murders and how Islam is a religion of peace, when they have no electric
conveniences at home such as a  television,
he said that he and his family watch a lot of news on TV in a local Wal-Mart
store.
  Lancaster Police and the state Highway Patrol
have deemed the incident an “unmistakable act of terrorism.” The incident puts
paid and contradicts the recent statements by Pope Francis that there is no
Christian terrorism, or Jewish terrorism, or Islamic terrorism, and statements
made by German leader Angela Merkel that Germany needs more Muslims. Mr. Yoder
and his son have been remanded to the custody of the local office of the State
Police and the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas to await arraignment,
This, of course, is a “fake news” report that could have easily have
been broadcast by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the BBC, or MSNBC. They are all fake news
outlets. It’s fake except for these quotations from Angela Merkel and Pope
Francis. Those are very real. Also very real is the government’s
concerted campaign
to salt the Lancaster region with especially Muslim “refugees”
so that the largely “white” communities there are upended with populations of
different colors and creeds and non-peaceful outlooks on the world. Angela
Merkel
claims that the European Union still has a “responsibility” to take
in more so-called refugees, and pleaded to Islamic governments to help convince
people that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.
Angela Merkel can’t seem to make up her mind.
Amid the
tragedy
there’s the horrible irony that just some three months ago German
national daily Die
Welt here
published a piece with the title:
Truck drivers wanted’ – Merkel
gives refugees tips”
Die Welt reported that Merkel was working hard to “rapidly integrate the refugees
and called on industry to get involved. Merkel said that refugees would be able
to trade in their driver’s licenses for a German one for 500 euros, but that of
course loans need to be offered to help them finance it. Paying back the loan
should be no problem, Merkel said:
When one earns, he can then pay this 500 euros back. Everywhere
truck drivers are being sought.”
This was said in the immediate aftermath of the Berlin
festival truck attack
on Germans.
Germany is in
shock after yesterday’s terrorist attack on a Berlin Christmas market, which is
a stark symbol of German culture. The latest figures show 12 dead and 48
injured – some seriously. Also the Polish driver of the hijacked truck
allegedly was killed.
The
Daily Star
reported on February 19th:
The embattled
leader says Europe has an obligation to take displaced people from Syria and
Iraq. She also said Islam “is not the cause of terrorism” and
that combating extremism needs the cooperation of Muslim countries.

A reelectable revanchist?
But previously, in October 2016, she sort of panicked and said that
some migrants must be deported from Germany.
Breitbart
reported:
After an influx of
almost 900,000 migrants last year, some Germans fear their country is being
overrun by foreigners. Merkel has attracted criticism for her migrant policy
and her conservatives have lost some support to the anti-immigrant Alternative
for Germany (AfD).
An understatement
with a red Magic Marker, to be sure.
In the past, when
smaller numbers of asylum seekers arrived, those who were not granted the right
to stay were not deported rigorously enough and that needs to change now, given
the high number of refugees and migrants, Merkel said.
“We need a national
push to deport those who are rejected. That’s indisputable and we’re working
hard on that at the moment,” Merkel told a conference of the youth wing of her
conservatives in Paderborn.
That’s not going to happen. If she tried it, there
would be “peaceful” rioting and camp-burnings by Muslims. So, it’s unlikely she
will be doing much “pushing.”
Deporting
those migrants was only one element of Germany’s refugee policy, Merkel said,
adding that the integration of those who are granted protection must be
expedited.
Unless I’m consulting the wrong thesaurus, integration is not the same thing as assimilation. And assimilation is not what most Muslims in Germany have in mind,
unless it’s into the German welfare state. And Merkel’s policy is that it’s the
Germans who must integrate into Islamic “culture,” if there is such a thing.
A Breitbart
article of February
18th
reports Merkel’s oscillating position on Islam:
“So
co-operation with the United States of America is most important for us, but
what’s also very important to me is that Islamist, Muslim states have been
incorporated in this coalition, because I think those countries, first and
foremost, have to give a contribution.”
According
to Chancellor Merkel, however, working with such states is the only way “we
will be able to convince people that it
is not Islam that is the problem, but a falsely understood Islam
, and the
religious authorities of Islam have to find strong language in order to
delineate themselves and distance themselves from this fundamentalist and
terrorist [version of] Islam.”
Was the Pope “channeling” Mohammad? Was Merkel? The planets must have
been in magical alignment for them both to deny the existence of Islamic terrorism
within 48 hours of each other. Did they have a conference call to coordinate
their statements?
In an impassioned address Friday, Pope
Francis denied the existence of Islamic terrorism, while simultaneously asserting
that “the ecological crisis is real.”
“Christian
terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism
does not exist. They do not exist,” Francis said in his speech to a world meeting of populist movements.
What
he apparently meant is that not all Christians are terrorists and not all
Muslims are terrorists—a fact evident to all—yet his words also seemed to
suggest that no specifically Islamic form of terrorism exists in the world, an
assertion that stands in stark contradiction to established fact.
In keeping with the Marxist notion
that men’s characters are formed by their economic and material conditions and
circumstances, Francis added:
“No
people is criminal or drug-trafficking or violent,” Francis said, while also
suggesting—as he has on other occasions—that terrorism is primarily a result of
economic inequalities rather than religious beliefs. “The poor and the poorer
peoples are accused of violence yet, without equal opportunities, the different
forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and
will eventually explode.”

Pope Francis: “Upon this staff I will
nonviolently build a caliphate,
depending on the environment.”
At brief glance at his statement, reveals that Francis
seems to be denying the role of economic determinism, a core tenet of his
politics. He also, in the same breath, conceded that terrorism – specifically Islamic
terrorism – does indeed exist, but failed to cite examples of Christian or
Jewish terrorism.
On that note, I am unable to recall the number of
Christians or Jews (whom Francis did not mention) who are terrorists and who
have made headlines in my lifetime.
They are as imaginary and fake as the Amish
terrorist.

Muslim Mania and Other Insanities

The world is having a conniption fit seizure, “triggered” by Donald
Trump.  The main victim of this ongoing
seizure is the MSM. Call it cultural and political epilepsy, it’s not pretty to look at.  I am reminded of a childhood experience with witnessing
these seizures.

The Bridges to Islam, or Interfaith Dialogue.

Muslims know that Islam is not negotiable.

In grade school, for a reason never explained to me
or to anyone else, my class for years was burdened with a boy (Robert) who was
not only mentally ill and deficient in how to perform every day actions (such
as reading or tying his shoe laces), but was subject to unarticulated fits in
class when he drooled, frothed at the mouth, and became violent, so violent
that it would require all the strength of a nun (and the nuns in my school were
mostly burly and hefty; one of them, the gargantuan Sister Barbarossa, could
beat up a school foot ball player) to subdue him – Robert was as strong as a
bull – but also need the help of the bigger boys to literally hold him down in
his seat-desk until an ambulance showed up to take him away.
 The episode
that sticks in my mind now, however, is when he stood at the top of a small
cliff that overlooked the neighboring school playground and began to throw
rocks at us. Big rocks.
It was never revealed why Robert was even in the
school and not in a facility that could treat and handle his condition. It was
a Catholic, private school (Nativity Parish School) and cost money to send a
child there; so doubtless he was enrolled there by state mandate, or because of
some dangerous physician’s recommendation, and so someone else was paying the
bill.
The behavior of the MSM towards President Trump and
his surprising, “shock –to-the-system” election in November are so similar to
Robert’s frequent and frightening outbursts that I couldn’t help but dwell on
the parallels. In fact, it has been the MSM’s behavior that caused me to recall
Robert.
Wikipedia writes:
Epileptic seizures are the result of
excessive and abnormal nerve cell activity in the cortex
of the brain
…. The word epilepsy is from Ancient Greek:
ἐπιλαμβάνειν ” to seize, possess, or afflict.”
Daniel Greenfield’s article “If
We Don’t Let In Muslims To America They’ll Kill Us
” of February 10th
highlights the madness that has gripped the MSM and many politicians. His
column title was taken directly from a statement by Connecticut Senator  Chris Murphy:
Trump’s
executive order is “going
to get Americans killed
,” Senator Murphy declared.

The Connecticut Democrat was joining a chorus of the clueless warning us that
if we don’t let Muslims into America, they’ll join ISIS and kill us.


Singing their brains out in the same stupid chorus were Senator McCain and
Senator Graham (“a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism”),
Senator Ben Sasse (“the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America
is banning Muslims”) and Senator Heitkamp (“confirms the lie terrorists tell
their recruits: that America is waging a
war on Islam.
”)….
Senator
Cardin went one better by whining that keeping potential Islamic terrorists
out, “promises to make the U.S. less safe and places our courageous servicemen
and women in even greater danger as they fight against terrorism.” Just tell it
to the Marines shot and killed by a Muslim immigrant at a Chattanooga
recruiting station and Naval reserve center.

There’s only one problem with this hostage crisis theory of immigration. It’s
insane.

The
“masculine” David by Michelangelo
(1501-04)
Galleria
dell’Accademia, Florence
The
manly way to confront Islam
Greenfield asks the logical question,
“If keeping
Muslim migrants out of America will make them kill us, why would we let them
in?”
But logic and reason are not buffered into the minds of anti-immigrant
activists and fascists. You may as well prescribe Xanex to a raving berserker
and expect him to count backwards from 100.
I remarked in a comment on Greenfield’s column:
But
do politicians like Senator Murphy really hate this country so much that they’d
want to expose it and its citizens to harm? I don’t know. Examining the
contents of insane men’s heads is not a wholesome or inspiring profession. But
the fundamental problem with him and his ilk in the whole anti-immigration ban
movement from Capitol Hill to the Women’s
March
to the rioting Antifa
ninja goons of Berkeley
and the immigrant riots that are
reducing Paris, France to a shell of it former self to the 9th Federal District
Court and Judge
Robart’s
bench to
Angela Merkel’s policies
, is that their hold on causo-connections in
reality, in their thinking, and in their actions is tenuous, if not
non-existent. That deficiency does not sire logic, but instead advances the
fulfillment of a tenacious Marxist fantasy that imperils nations and civilized
society. If they wish it to be true, then it will become true.
 I’ve always said that when you tell the “needy”
and the “oppressed to  “come and get it,”
your pockets will soon be empty: Altruism
kills
. It kills nations and cultures. Look at France, Sweden, and
Germany.  Doing the “right thing” – the
altruist thing – to atone for past real or alleged crimes against groups, by
allowing millions of savages entry into a civilized nation, is costing those
countries untold millions in damages and countless crimes committed again the
indigenous citizens. It was a longish comment but there were relevant points to
make. There have been no rebuttals that count for anything, except for
emotionalist rants.
Unswerving fealty to
the Progressive/Marxist philosophy that currently governs economics, political
principles, social relationships, education, freedom of speech and the First
Amendment, et. al, has no basis in
reality but is rooted in the death grips of fantasy worship and wishful
thinking and a desire to bring the great down to the level of the mediocre.
That agenda has always failed and will always fail, no matter how many times
it’s advocated and imposed and regardless of the evidence of the consequent and
incalculable death and misery it’s caused. They say, “Drink the poison,
it’s nutritious! Eat your spinach, never mind that it’s laced with
arsenic!”
More insanity has emanated from our holier- than-thou Social Justice
Warrior in the Vatican “Islamic
terrorism doesn’t exist.”
  Pope
Francis announces and chooses to not let anyone off the hook of his
self-righteousness:
In an impassioned address Friday, Pope Francis
denied the existence of Islamic terrorism, while simultaneously asserting that
“the ecological crisis is real.”
On an
“ecological” note, he did not condemn the Paris rioters for burning cars and
tires in the street, releasing clouds of poisonous black smoke into the sky. I
guess the smoke was irrelevant. After all, Pope Francis will not be coated with
it.
“Christian
terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism
does not exist. They do not exist,” Francis said in his speech to a world meeting of populist movements.
What
he apparently meant is that not all Christians are terrorists and not all
Muslims are terrorists—a fact evident to all—yet his words also seemed to
suggest that no specifically Islamic form of terrorism exists in the world, an
assertion that stands in stark contradiction to established fact.
Au contraire, Francis, afraid of “offending” the
most sensitive members of the most belligerent religion in modern history, Christian
and Jewish terrorism doesn’t exist. Only Islamic. Like any politically correct
halfwit, he chooses not to acknowledge facts and Islamic terrorism.
Still, Pope Francis, the Argentine communist, like
senorita Nina, will
not dance with reality, and absolutely refuses to engage with it.
Speaking of immigration to the U.S., Ann Corcoran of The Center for Security
Policy
, details the ongoing influx of Muslims into the U.S. in her Refugee
Resettlement and the Hijra to America
(Center for Security Policy, 2015),
an influx that is deliberate and, for all practical purposes, “on time” and
growing per Islamic doctrine and per the American government’s skewered immigration
policy, that favors “refugees” from “war-torn” regions and from most Islamic
pest holes. She writes:
Islamic doctrine
holds that Mohammed is the perfect Muslim and, therefore, that emulation of his
life is evidence of the highest level of devotion for the faithful. According
to the sacred texts and traditions of Islam , Mohammed left his home town of
Mecca in the 7th century and traveled 
with a small band of followers  to
the city of Yatrib (now Medina) , in what has become known as the hijra (migration). He did so with the
intent of establishing a new base of operations from which to conquer and rule.
Hijra remains the
model to this day for jihadists who seek to populate and dominate new
lands.  Their migrations are not for the
purpose of assimilating peacefully in a new host nation, adopting as their own
its traditions and legal systems. Rather, Mohammed’s followers, in keeping with
the example established by their prophet , are driven first to colonize and
then to transform non-Muslim target societies – whether through violent means
or via stealthy, pre-violent ones favored by the Muslim Brotherhood when it is
not powerful enough to use violence decisively. (p. 7)

The
“girly” David by Andrea
del Verrocchio
(1473-1475)
Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence
Corcoran quotes
the unstoppable Geert
Wilders
, the Dutch politician who stands a good chance of upending the
Dutch government come the next elections later this year.
After
citing former Libyan leader Moammar
Quadafi
’s famous observation that Europe would be conquered without guns
and swords, but with Muslim migrants over-running the Continent, Dutch
Parliamentarian and leader of the Party for Freedom
Geert Wilders….said in his endorsement of [Sam Solomon’s] Modern
Day Trojan Horse
:
*[O]ne
can see that the threat from Islam doesn’t just come in the form of Islamic terrorism
by suicide bombers trying to wreak havoc in our cities. More often, it comes in
the form of gradual and incremental transformation of our societies and legal
systems, or what is termed ‘Islamisation of our democratic societies by the
vast growing numbers of Muslim immigrants who are importing Islam into Western
way of life.
Many
in the West do not see the dangers  that
Islamisation poses to our civilisation. Especially he ruling elite, who refuse
to take action to counter  Islamisation
by prohibiting  Sharia Law, or to take measures to regulate mass immigration. (emphasis added)
Wilders
says it more clearly and with more authority than I can muster from having
observed only a small but significant wedge of the Muslim immigration process
taking place in America over the last seven years. [p. 13-14]
Corcoran clarifies some issues that have been largely lost in the vociferous
hullabaloo about the “evil” of President Trump’s alleged
“Muslim ban,”
issues lost, forgotten, or papered over by the government and
its open-borders, pro-immigration fence gossipers.
The Refugee Act of 1980 expanded the
migration from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, but was aimed at anther
immigrant population – largely low-skilled and poorly educated “refugees,”
supposedly all fleeing persecution, who are in need of government [i.e.,
taxpayer] support. In the early days of the program, most were escaping
Communism….The most attractive legal avenue to enter the U.S. is as a “refugee”
or successful asylum seeker, because, in such cases, one is given a case worker
to help secure employment and is immediately eligible for all forms of welfare.
(brackets mine)
It
should be further noted that there is often confusion about the definition of a
refugee and someone granted political asylum (an asylee). A refugee or asylum
seeker must prove that he or she is persecuted for one of several reasons  — political persecution, religion,
nationality, or race – and cannot return safely to one’s country of origin.
The
difference between the two is how they reach America. A refugee is selected and
screened abroad and flown here (at taxpayer expense), while an asylum seeker
reaches our borders on his or her own steam and then asks for asylum to be
granted. (p. 15)

The
androgynous David by Donatello
(1440s?)

Museo Nazionale del
Bargello

I should mention at this point Ted Kennedy’s Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1965
, or the Hart-Celler Act, as vile and malicious
a piece of legislation as was ever conceived vis-à-vis immigration issues.
The
Hart–Celler Act of 1965 marked a radical break from the immigration policies of
the past. Previous laws restricted immigration from Asia and Africa, and gave
preference to northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern
Europeans.[2]
In the 1960s, the United States faced both foreign and domestic pressures to
change its nation-based formula, which was regarded as a system that
discriminated based on an individual’s place of birth.
Doubtless, the Hart-Celler Act fueled the passage
of the Refugee
Resettlement Act of 1980
, which is the central focus of Corcoran’s book.
The Hart-Celler
Act
purports to fight “racism” by being racist to its roots. In practice
this is not how it works out. Christians and other non-Muslim refugees and
asylum seekers, even though they have been demonstrably persecuted or the
object of literal genocide (such as the Yazids
and Christians
) have been given short shrift, while the government, working
with so-called “charities,” bestow overwhelming preference to Muslims of all hues
, most of them assimilation-resistant and often overtly hostile to assimilation.
Indeed, these Muslim groups expect Americans to
assimilate in deference and in submission to Islam. Assimilation to a host
culture (and obeisance to its legal structure) has never been the goal of Muslim
“resettlement,” but rather conquest by demographics. This is in conformance to
the Muslim
Brotherhood explanatory memorandum of 1991
, not only in terms of
demographics, but also in “civilizational jihad” against a country’s core
institutions, such as its legal foundations
(to elevate Sharia
law over
Western law) .
The federal government is the taxpayer-filled
trough from which many “private” so-called charities dip their snouts to enable
especially Muslim resettlement in the U.S.  Corcoran identifies the culprits (although I would
call them swine, also because their administrators profit personally from the
gratuities to be had from the refugee dole). The following are the main “charities”
listed by Corcoran together with their federal tax returns per their total
revenues:
The Church World
Service (CWS):  total revenue – $76,185,774
Ethiopian Community
Development Council (ECDC) secular: total revenue –  $15,244,802
Hebrew Migration
Ministries (EMM) (Officially The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA: total revenue – $17,365,325
Under the name of
the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS): total revenue — $25,418,714
International Rescue
Committee (IRC) secular: total revenue – $456,122,865
US Committee for
Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) secular: total revenue – $39,205,548
Lutheran Immigration
and Refugee Services (LIRS): total revenue – $43,563,804
United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB): total revenue – approx. $70,975,237
(according to its Annual Report 2014
World Relief
Corporation (WR): total revenue – and $56,842,649
(pp.  51-56)
No chump change here. The top salaries of many of the
administrators are uniformly over $200,000 a year. While they are eager to
bring in countless “poor,” the administrators enrich themselves, beyond the
dreams of actual wage-earners and people who do productive work. You can bet
that they do not live anywhere close to a Muslim “community.”
 Corcoran
further notes:
The
USCCB, by the way, resettles the largest number of refugees in the US with the
help of Catholic Charities located throughout America. They make no effort to
single out Christians for resettlement and in fact, in 2013…were requesting
that the U.S. State Department bring more Rohingya Muslims from Burma (Mynmar)
to America. (p. 55)

Alruism is where the
money is.
….As
we learned earlier in this report, the US resettles more refugees than all
other nations combined. (p. 57)
Corcoran’s book is an invaluable, revealing study, which
among other things, sheds unflattering light on the “big business” of refugee
resettlement. It is a kind of police “rap sheet.”
These well-compensated refugee “resettlers” all suffer from
moral epilepsy. They are willing to throw rocks at America as long as there’s money in it.

Philosophical Fakery


I present a guest column by Lindsay Perigo of New Zealand. He
exposes the fake philosophizing of Yaron Brook, head of the Ayn Rand Institute,
about Donald Trump, whom he accuses of being a fascist, among other unjust and
wholly ludicrous appellations. There are many people who have imbibed Brook’s
Kool-Aid. 
Here is his preface and a significant addendum:

November 4, 1962:  For decades, the ‘liberals’ have regarded
‘nationalism’ as an arch-evil of capitalism. They denounced national
self-interest—they permitted no distinction between intelligent patriotism and
blind, racist chauvinism, deliberately lumping them together—they smeared all
opponents of internationalist doctrines as ‘reactionaries,’ ‘fascists’ or
‘isolationists’—and they brought this country to a stage where expressions such
as ‘America First’ became terms of opprobrium.


From The Ayn Rand Column, column no.
20, “Nationalism and Internationalism,” pp. 59-61.

http://www.fornewintellectual.com/2017/02/ayn-rands-view-of-nationalism-and.html


___________________________________________________________________________________


[This is an expanded version of
the opening statement I had prepared for my aborted debate with Yaron Brook on
Amy Peikoff’s BlogTalkRadio show, “Don’t Let It Go.” I withdrew from
the debate when I realized I could not in all conscience comply with her last-minute
request that I refrain from making “sweeping statements” critical of
Yaron. Warning: the following contains a number of sweeping statements critical
of Yaron.]

Bunker Hill: June 1775

In Yaron Brook’s BlogTalkRadio
show of November 12 last year, the Ayn Rand Institute head said he was
“horrified” at what 57 million Americans had just done. Yaron called
Trump “the villain of our time,” “this creature, this vulgar
creature,” an “authoritarian,” more anti-American than Obama, someone who might
well abolish freedom of speech, someone whose proposal to build a wall on the
Southern border was “stupid,” someone whose election was far more
dangerous than that of Hillary Clinton, who would have been merely “an
extension of the Obama status quo.” Yaron’s sentiments were echoed by his ARI
colleague, Canadian Onkar Ghate, who wrote, “On November 8, 2016, the
United States took its first step towards dictatorship.” Further on, Ghate
said: “ … the Republican control of the presidency, the House and the Senate
should give anyone pause who is concerned about, say, the campaign’s
demonization of immigrants and of trade or the attempt to impose a Christian
variant of Sharia law.” On his BlogTalkRadio show just finished as I write (the
morning of Feb 6, NZ time) Yaron asserted that Trump is “paving the way to
fascism.”
This, we are told, is the voice
of reason. I contend it is the voice of Trump Derangement Syndrome. More than
that, it is the resurgent voice of Leonard Peikoff’s 2006 fatwa to the
effect that Objectivists should vote Democrat across the board, even in the
presence of “good Republicans,” because the Republicans were about to usher in
a Christian theocracy. Sheer lunacy. Leonard briefly came right in 2013 …
I am against the immigration bill a hundred percent, not just one
clause or another, for one very simple reason. It happens to be the case that
we are teetering on the edge of dictatorship. It happens to be the case that if
the Democrats continue to have or grow their political power we will be over
that edge. And it happens to be the case, whether you like it or not, that of
all Hispanics in America, whether they are rich or poor, self-made men or
anything else, 80% are reliably and continually Democratic. So if you are
talking about a bill, I don’t care whether it’s fair / unfair in any other
respects, you are talking about a bill that will infuse into this country a
massive amount of Democratic supporters and thereby guarantee the destruction
of this country. That is what immigration means today. And there’s no use
asking me in theory what do I think, there is no theory now, we’re on the end.
So it’s a question of buying time.
… before reverting to form.
I contend the current Trump
Derangement Syndrome within OrgOism (Organised Objectivism), most prominently
displayed by Yaron Brook, is a manifestation of what I call Obleftivism,
i.e., Objectivism hijacked by Islamo-Marxism. In what follows, “Yaron” and
“Obleftivism” should be treated as interchangeable.
Yaron implies “the Obama
status quo” that Hillary would have preserved is somehow innocuous and
tolerable, to be preferred over a President who has promised to lower taxes
hugely, to lessen regulations by 75% and who has already moved to roll back
Dodd-Frank; over a President who will allow the energy sector to function and flourish
again and has already green-lighted the Dakota and Keystone pipeline projects
blocked by Comrade Obama (“no big deal,” said Yaron this morning); over a
President whose appointments to the Supreme Court will be based on adherence to
the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench; over a President who
will stop the inflow of terrorist savages and other Third World low-lifes in
its tracks; over a President who can bring himself not just to say
“Radical Islamic terrorism” (in my view, “Islam” would suffice) but also to go
after it.
Obleftivism seems blind to the
cultural ravages of unfettered immigration by ideological aliens; indifferent
to, possibly even unaware of (from the smug safety of walled, white,
well-guarded gated communities) the robberies, assaults, rapes and beheadings
perpetrated by them. (MS13: more prolific beheaders than ISIS!) Obleftivism
says “Let ’em in, let ‘em in, let ‘em in”; the more the merrier; they’ll soon
get the hang of freedom and become like us—and anyone who opposes this
suicidal, sacrifistic policy is a racist, a xenophobe, a bigot and all the rest
of the standard leftist epithets. Trump’s wall is “stupid,” says Yaron—from
behind a wall. I say, build a wall along the Northern border as well. Someone
has to keep Onkar Ghate and Justin Trudeau out, not to mention all the Muslims
Trudeau is letting in to Canada. I say, relocate the Somalis who have wrought
havoc in Minnesota to tents pitched on the golf courses inside Yaron’s gated
community; assuredly he’ll give them a warm welcome?!
Obleftivism refuses to
acknowledge, let alone proudly proclaim, that Western Culture is The Best;
that it’s entitled to protect and preserve itself qua Western culture,
manifested in a plenitude of ways in specific Western nations; to say such
a thing, according to Obleftivists, is “nationalism,” or even worse,
“patriotism”—both odious signs of [gasp] “collectivism.” Obleftivism seems not
to have absorbed the significance of Ayn Rand’s appropriately negative
appraisal of pre-humans elsewhere in the world:
It is to the Mohammedans, the Buddhists, and the cannibals—to the
underdeveloped, the undeveloped, and the not-to-be-developed cultures—that the
Capitalist United States of America is asked to apologize for her skyscrapers,
her automobiles, her plumbing, and her smiling, confident, untortured,
un-skinned-alive, un-eaten young men!
Obleftivists claim that attacking
the Clinton News Network, National Putin Radio and other mainstream media for
their stinking dishonesty, Fake News and bias is an assault on freedom of
speech, when in fact the real assaults on free speech are coming from
academia—students and staff—the media, moronnials, Social Justice Warriors,
Ugly Wimmin, Black Lives Matter, Hollywood, and sundry other garbage, under the
rubric of Political Correctness—to whose vicious depravity Obleftivists seem
oblivious or indifferent. How about a call to arms on behalf of Milo
Yiannopoulis, whom Yaron Brook derides (oh, to have one Objectivist with
Milo’s star quality!!); on behalf of Gavin McInnes, pepper-sprayed by
Islamo-Marxist filth at New York University?! How about a call to arms against
one of the principal organisers of the Ugly Wimmin’s March, Linda Sarsour, who
once tweeted of Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “I wish I could take
their vaginas away—they don’t deserve to be women”?! (Ms Ali, of course, is one
of hundreds of millions of genitally mutilated Muslim women. She is now a
prominent, heroic former Muslim.)

Eugène Delacroix: Liberty Leading the People
(1831)

All the while, in fact, Yaron
minimises the enormity of the Muslim threat within America, saying, “The United
States has zero potential to end up like Europe,” and, “Everyday Muslims are no
threat.” How exactly does this “useful idiot” propose to
differentiate the perpetrators of the killings of 145 Americans by Muslims in
the United States since 9/11 from “everyday” Muslims? Blankout!
“Everyday Muslims” are required
to believe in Jihad, Sharia Law and a worldwide caliphate. They are stiffened
in their resolve by such jolly verses from the Koran as, “I will cast terror into
the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike
off every fingertip of them.” They’re also enjoined to lie (Taqiyya)
about their agenda. So again, how does Useful Yaron propose to distinguish everyday
Muslims from actual Muslims: i.e., Muslims who take their religion
seriously? (Agenda alert: Yaron makes the exact same argument minimising the
threat from Muslims as did a Cato Institute representative on the Martha
McCallum Fox News Special a few days ago: the chances of being struck down by a
Muslim terrorist are three trillion times lower than of being mugged or struck
by lightning or a car, or some such. Hmmmmm. Cato. ARI. Pro-open borders Koch
Bros. Funding.)
Then again, from the smug
security of a gated community, what difference does it make whether it’s
Muslims or Mexicans doing the beheadings?
Yaron said this morning that
Trump’s description of the activist judge in Seattle who up-ended his temporary
travel ban as a “so-called judge” was “despicable.” I’d say it’s the
judge—a Black Lives Matter cheerleader—who’s despicable. I say, may the ban be
quickly reinstated; may it revert to the President’s original proposal: Not One
Muslim!
I’d like to offer a helpful
philosophical observation to Obleftivists at this point. Objectivism does not
contend that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.” Objectivism views that as an intrinsicist view of
rights. Objectivists, if asked, would eschew such a view.
Yet when a prominent Objectivist
(Binswanger) ends up saying, “Freedom of travel is a right. It is a right
possessed by every human being, not just by Americans. The Mexican government
or the French government has no right to stop you from entering Mexico or
France, and our government has no right to stop a Mexican or Frenchman from
entering America”; or, “The border between the U.S. and Mexico (and between the
U.S. and Canada) should be exactly like the border between Connecticut and
Massachusetts: you see ‘Welcome to Massachusetts’ and otherwise you are unaware
of the difference”; or, “The principle of individual rights demands open
immigration. Implementing that would mean phasing out all limitations on immigration.
Entry into the United States
should ultimately be free for any foreigner, absent objective evidence of
criminal intent or infectious disease”; or, “Amnesty for illegal immigrants is
not enough, they deserve an apology” … then you know you’re dealing with
intrinsicism on steroids, and that the good ol’-time “rationalism” so well
exposed by Leonard Peikoff has still not been weeded out. There are no
“intrinsic” rights implanted in us by a mystical creator or nature; “rights” is
a concept arrived at after tortuous millennia of excruciating cogitation
by advanced human beings at the forefront of Western thought. Those whom Ayn
Rand called “dinky little savages” do not have an automatic, inbuilt right,
just because they look like humans, to travel to, much less remain in, Western
countries. Civilised countries have the right to be selective as to whom they
admit—as selective as Galt’s Gulch if necessary.
Obleftivists think that the type
of people to whom Ayn Rand pleaded, “Don’t let it go,” have, in
electing Donald Trump, let it go: “it” being the uniquely
American sense of life of which she wrote so eloquently. I contend that in
electing Donald Trump, they, in the nick of time, reaffirmed it, and
reassured us that they are still around. (Beyond miraculous, when you think
about it, given all the professors and Obleftivist “intellectuals” like
Binswanger who have held sway since Rand wrote that. Makes you think that
“sense of life” must be in Americans’ DNA! Horreurs! Determinism!!)
Ayn Rand said, of judging
political candidates, “A voter’s choice does not commit him to a total
agreement with a candidate—and certainly cannot commit a candidate to an
agreement with every voter who supports him. Under a two-party system, a
voter’s choice is and has to be merely an approximation—a choice of the
candidate whom he regards as closer to his own views; often, particularly in
recent times, a voter chooses merely between the lesser of two evils.”
Yaron Brook would have you
believe that Rand, who chose Nixon over McGovern, would have preferred Hillary
over Trump. Hillary is easily more evil than McGovern, and arguably the most
evil person ever to have run for the presidency. Yaron proudly says he doesn’t
care!
Trump is not the lesser of two
evils, however; he is outrageously good—even though he is not the card-carrying
Objectivist Obleftivists seem to demand! The very words “President Trump” are
music to my ears, equal to Rachmaninoff. President Trump, President Trump,
President Trump! This is even better than hearing (and as a broadcaster,
reading) the words “President Reagan,” to whom OrgOists were equally asininely
opposed (except for one of their leaders who voted for Reagan without telling
anyone, Ayn Rand included).

Molly Pitcher (or Mary Ludwig Hays)
 taking her husband’s
place at the
Battle of Monmouth (June 1778)

I am ecstatic at the spectacle of
America’s ascension back to greatness. Every day, President Trump, in full view
of the world he defies, relentlessly advances his audacious agenda; every week,
Obleftivist Brook, in full view of a few lemming-like acolytes on Faecesbook
and in parochial parts of the world, trashes it, because it might
include tariffs and does include Twitter attacks on the smelly
Islamo-Marxists at CNN and NPR, Yaron’s favourite sources of Fake News and
Politically Correct commentary.

I am a Deplorable, irredeemably.
And I deplore Obleftivism.
Obleftivism is Fake Objectivism!
It’s party time in America! Yaron
Brook is a party-pooper!
Make Objectivism Great Again!

Drunken Sailors

What
will we do with a drunken sailor?
   (Irish Rovers, with lyrics)
There are two sets of drunken sailors who are the subjects here:
Angela Merkel
and her cronies and her soused
immigration policies
that are destroying Europe; and the Democratic
National Committee
(DNC), which not only is seriously considering
appointing a rabid, recalcitrant
Muslim
as its next
chairman
, but has also pledged as a party to scuttle or block President
Trump’s whole agenda and his cabinet nominees.
Both sets presume to lead
their countries to an era of peace and “tolerance” and multicultural “harmony.”
There is a third set of
drunken sailors, with which Merkel and the DNC have collaborated in their
inebriated binges, the Mainstream Media (MSM).
Merkel is determined to
continue her nation-destroying open-immigration policies which have saturated
Germany with Muslim welfare parasites, criminals, and jihadis posing as
“refugees,” and faces
stiff opposition
from newly invigorated “right wing” parties. Even her
immigration allies are having second thoughts about the practical political
consequences.  The Democratic National
Committee, on the other hand, is still reeling drunkenly over Trump’s election
and its having lost the 2016 presidential contest, which, if it had managed to
get Hillary Clinton elected, would have foisted on the country an America hater
arguably worse than Barack Obama. Looking favorably at Keith Ellison, this is a desperate attempt to
elevate the DNC to a position of influence, to become “relevant.”
Shave their bellies with a
rusty razor? Put them in bed with the captain’s daughter (the cat o’ nine tails)?
Put them in an asylum
seeker’s longboat
until they’re sober, or drowned? Way hay and up she
rises!

The DNC and Merkel: Binge partners.
The MSM has an open bar.
Merkel has put her foot down. She
is not back-pedaling on her destructive immigration policy. Germans be damned. They’ve
just got to get used to the rapes, the spiraling crime rate, and shouldering additional
welfare state burdens. It’s their altruist duty, don’t you know? Breitbart
London
reported on February 29th:

German Chancellor Angela
Merkel has refused to back down over her open borders migration policy, saying
in a televised interview that there is “no point in believing that I can solve
the problem through the unilateral closure of borders.”

“I have no
plan B,” she added.
According to Focus,
Mrs Merkel said she was convinced she was doing the right thing, despite well
over a million people entering Germany last year thanks to her migration
policies. She said she was trying to redistribute as many of them as possible
to other European countries – through the compulsory migrant quotas system –
and claimed to be addressing the problems causing them to enter Europe in the
first place.
But, wait! There’s more!
Last week, the German government also
admitted
it had lost some 130,000 migrants after they failed to show
up at the reception centers to which they had been sent. The Interior Ministry
admitted that some of the migrants may have “slipped into illegality”, while
others may have registered multiple times in different districts to increase
their chances of being accepted.
Across the pond, the DNC is
not only digging in its heels but has already spiked the democratic process
with poison. It faked a Craig’s List placed by Trump that solicited women for
sexual favors. The Independent Sentinel reported in October in S. Noble’s “Sleazy
Plot: DNC Planned a Fake Trump “Assault” Scandal in May
”:
disgusting, sleazy
plot
was planned by the DNC in May and it was approved by DNC
Communications Director Louis Miranda. The DNC planned to put a fake craigslist
jobs post up for women that would be laced with heavy sexual innuendo. It
was a precursor to the current tactic with hoax women and hoax lawyer Gloria Allred.
Christina
Freundlich
, the DNC operative responsible for the fake ad,
had previously made headlines when she infamously took a smiling
selfie
 in front of a deadly New York City apartment fire that claimed
multiple lives. She’s a piece of work.
The DNC has formed a “War Room” to battle
Trump. According to the Washington Post on January 3rd, all
the usual suspects
have been recruited to come up with ideas on how to foil
Trump wherever he turns:

MSM-Merkel-DNC: You will submit to Sharia
or we’ll bash your faces in!
The Democratic National Committee is building
a “war room” to battle President-elect Donald Trump, pressure the new
Republican administration on a variety of policy matters and train a spotlight
on Russia’s alleged cyberattacks to influence the 2016 election.
The DNC’s new communications and
research operation, to be staffed by former aides to Hillary Clinton’s
presidential campaign, will be one of several efforts from across the
Democratic firmament to take on Trump, including the office of Senate Minority
Leader Charles E. Schumer
(D-N.Y.), the Center for American
Progress
and American
Bridge
.
The DNC has hired John Neffinger, a longtime
operative who runs the Franklin Forum,
to serve as interim communications director and oversee the national party’s
operation. He will be joined by two Clinton veterans who spent the campaign
focused on Trump — researching his background, monitoring his statements
and trying to drive negative media coverage of his candidacy. Zac
Petkanas
, the Clinton campaign’s rapid-response director, will serve as a
senior adviser to the DNC and direct the Trump war room, while Adrienne Watson,
a Clinton campaign spokeswoman, will serve as the DNC’s national press
secretary. [The links here are mine, not the original articles.]
On Fox, Milo Yiannopoulos
sheds important light on the MSM’s role in trying to shut down freedom of
speech and Donald Trump. The MSM, he says, legitimizes not only the squelching
of freedom of speech and is addicted to “fake news” about Trump and about Yiannopouos
(that he’s a fascist, alt-righter, a light-weight “provocateur, etc.),” that he’s
not to be taken seriously. But the Left does
take him seriously
, seriously enough to sanction the kind of riot and mob
rule and which assaults people that occurred on February 2 at the University
of California-Berkeley
. CBS downplayed the violence, citing only that windows
were broken and some fires were set. There was no mention of the people
attacked and beaten the crazed mob. This is how the MSM sanctions, sugar-coats,
and encourages the violence of the New Fascist Left.
The Democrats are planning a kind
of vaudeville show
for Trump by having as their guests
House Democrats are rallying behind a plan to
make President Trump’s first speech to Congress as uncomfortable as possible by
inviting guests they say will suffer under new White House policies. 
The strategy means Trump will likely face a
crowd including ethnic minorities, LGBT people, undocumented immigrants, the
disabled and others when he addresses a joint session on Feb. 28.
It’s a shift in tactics for Democrats, some
of whom skipped Trump’s inauguration last month in protest.
Democrats say there are no plans to stage a
similar boycott of Trump’s speech, but they want to put him face-to-face with
people who feel alienated and targeted by his controversial executive
orders. 
In a letter circulating on Capitol Hill, a
group of liberals is urging fellow Democrats to bring guests who have made “a
positive impact” on the community “despite discrimination or marginalization.”
 A less dignified drunkenness
“We want to send a
strong message to the [president] that he cannot push these communities aside,
and he cannot change the fabric of this country,” they wrote.
If the props in the gallery “feel”
alienated, they won’t be alone. There are all those drunk, alienated Democrats.
Guess they didn’t take kindly to having their bellies shaved with Trump’s rusty
razor.
What would I do with such a drunken sailor? Toss
him in the briny.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén