The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: April 2017

The Three Monkeys of Censorship


I
have become almost inured to news of the latest cancelled
address
on a college
campus
because the school’s administration will not only make it physically
or financially impossible for a sponsored speaker to appear to address
non-violent listeners, but essentially agree with the SJWs and with Antifa that a speaker may not
appear or they will work to “shut it down.”

Shutting down freedom of speech

Antifa (from anti-fascism) is a term commonly
used to describe often criminal and violent groups which attack organizations
and individuals claimed to be “fascist” or “racist“. Many
openly admit that the goal is to deny their opponents freedom of expression and
organization by using intimidation and violence.
Their targets may not even be race
realists
or nationalists but simply be critical of the mass
immigration
or have other less politically correct views. They only attack
Whites, never non-Whites, even non-Whites supporting non-White nationalism.
Groups such as Muslims wanting to implement sharia laws are
ignored.
The
last sentence is significant. The stealth jihad of Muslims is ignored by Antifa
and the MSM; indeed, it’s almost common knowledge that the Left is allied with Islam;
the goals of Islam, include Islamic political supremacy, or totalitarian rule.
Antifa is the visceral expression of totalitarianism in action. Many
governments in Europe
punish their own citizens for speaking out against Muslims
and immigration on the
Internet
and in public. They are allies of Antifa. They prohibit and
penalize freedom of speech. And they’re willing to put a sock in your mouth or
their fists.
But
when I read this threat from Antifa – and, in particular this assertion, “We
will not allow” – my blood pressure went through the roof. I had a nightmare of
my ripping an Antifa mask off of the thug’s face and smashing his nose to a
pulp. I had a yearning to give these and their student thugs-in-training the Rick
Grimes/The Walking Dead treatment (a knife or a bullet in the temple). Essentially,
Antifa is a gang of nihilistic zombies, dead in mind, dead in values, and its
members boast of it. “We’re not for anything,
except for your absence or silence.”

The New Brown Shirts:  
 Ready to crack your skull

I
have written so
often
about the government’s moves to nullify the First Amendment – and Islam’s,
too – that I have lost count, but this was such a naked expression of the
“supremacy” of force, I could not let it pass. Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit
reported on April 26th in his column, “Portland
[Oregon] Cancels Avenue of Roses Parade After Antifa Terrorists Promise to Rush
Parade and Beat Republicans
”:
The
“Antifa” far left Communist group has managed to get an entire parade and
carnival canceled in Portland because the Multnomah County Republicans were
going to be in the parade.
The communists
threatened to riot, loot, and assault people at the parade. The festival people
decided to cancel the entire weekend of activities, which was going to be this
weekend due to the threats of violence by the leftist group.
The Antifa group
promised to rush the parade and drag away the Republicans.
“We will have two
hundred or more people rush into the parade into the middle and drag and push
those people out as we will not give one inch to groups who espouse hatred
toward lgbt, immigrants, people of color or others. In case the message was not
clear to you this is a sanctuary city and state and we will not allow these
people to spread their views in East Portland. You have seen how much power we
have downtown and that the police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so
please consider your decision wisely.”
The
Oregon Republican Party released this statement after the festival was
cancelled.
Sessions-Wheeler-Currier-Sanctuary-Victims
The Multnomah County Republican Party (MCRP) has for many years participated in
the Parade, and calls upon the Mayor, the Police Chief, and the District
Attorney to take action against this criminal conspiracy to commit crimes of
riot and disorderly conduct in violation of Oregon law. “Under former Mayor
Charlie Hales,” said James Buchal, MCRP Chair, “the City allowed this cancer of
lawlessness to grow to the point where its leaders are now bragging, like some
sort of comic book characters, that ‘the police cannot stop us’. But this is no
laughing matter. The participation of political parties in public events like
the Parade is not only an American tradition, but also reflects the most
fundamental constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of assembly.”
We will not allow….” That brazen hubris
should make anyone’s skin crawl, or raise his hackles until they’re porcupine quills.
Antifa groups claim they are part of the Liberal “resistance” to any regime or
law that calls for or endorses a civil, rights-protecting society. Most
Democrats boast they are with the “resistance” against President Trump. Few
readers would not see the irony of “Refuse
Fascism
,” an Antifa byword, when Antifa stands for nothing but fascism. It
should be “We Accept and Practice Fascim.” Bill
Ayers
, the aging revolutionary and Weatherman, is affiliated with Antifa.
He helped to launch Barack Obama’s political career. Antifa is a grandchild of
Saul Alinsky’s “community organizing” philosophy of activism, except that
picketing and sit-down strikes and noisy, televised interviews with sympathetic
“journalists” are not in its playbook.

Will Not Allow Islam to be Defamed

Protesting
Muslims also say that “We will not allow,” too. We will not allow visual
depictions of Mohammad, we will not allow the defamation of Islam, etc. Given Antifa’s
continued obstruction and destruction in the U.S. and in Europe, it ought to be
declared a terrorist organization, at least here in America. It has an agenda,
which is to overthrow civil society.
V for Vendetta
may be the inspiration for Antifa’s masked methods.
V for Vendetta has been seen
by many political groups as an allegory of oppression by government; libertarians
and anarchists
have used it to promote their beliefs. David Lloyd stated: “The Guy
Fawkes mask
has now become a common brand and a convenient placard to use
in protest against tyranny – and I’m happy with people using it, it seems quite
unique, an icon of popular culture being used this way

The Ultimate Nihilist: 
the original Antifa

Although it is a
well-made film, V is intellectually
vacuous. One really doesn’t learn what “V,” the masked and verbally adept
protagonist, believes in or holds dear and important. He is a nihilist with
flair opposing the heavy-handed nihilism of a one-man dictatorship. The climax
of the film is when one of his loopy followers blows up the abandoned Houses of
Parliament to the acclaim of a mob of unarmed Londoners, many of whom reappear
as the resurrected individuals who were murdered in the course of the story.
One is left with the question: “What now?” Guy Faukes masks have been seen
among Antifa’s ranks during their purposeful turmoil.
 But I think it can be argued that V for Vendetta is as much instructive in
causing terror and chaos as has Alinsky’s Rules
for Radicals
.
Rule No.13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it,
and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from
sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than
institutions.
 The First Amendment is
the targeted, personalized, and polarized object. Speakers are the prey, not
the institutions.
Rule No. 9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

So, if college administrators don’t already sympathize with Antifa’s goals and
ban speakers they don’t like, they can face the prospect of seeing their
campuses as staging areas for destructive riots and cave-in preemptively.

The New Student Bodies:
Not allowed to have inquiring minds

“We
will not allow” – Think of the three monkeys: Monkey not see, Monkey not hear, Monkey
not speak. Empty, closed minds are what the masked thugs on the street and in administrators’
offices seek to make plentiful but hardly fruitful, at least not in the
productive sense. The Millennials the schools are turning out, ready to help
enforce the three-monkey rule with bricks, Molotov cocktails, sticks, fists, and
pepper spray, are intended to be the next big voting bloc for the Progressives
and Totalitarians. We will not allow you
to speak, hear, or see
. No university or college that I know of has this as
its motto inscribed in its seal: Liberæ mentis quam Non est
tributis serviet
. Free minds will not be enslaved.

And
if they will not be enslaved, they must be terrorized into submission, or physically
extinguished. That is what Antifa and
its allies are all about.

Linda Sarsour, the Stealth Jihadist


And
from Brooklyn, yet, with an exaggerated Brooklyn accent, making a career of
selling America her Islamic version of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Fresh from the beauty parlor, giving us the finger

Everyone
with half a brain has fallen for Linda
Sarsour
’s stealth jihad in a hijab. But not me. Never me. Virtually every
time I see her photo flashing the ISIS
symbol
of a finger pointed in the air (to Allah, he’s the greatest, don’t
you know?), I want to reciprocate with a middle finger. And I do, even if it’s
to a picture of her carefully made-up mug.
Nathaniel Zelinsky writes in Foreign Affairs that the
gesture refers to the tawhid, “the belief in the oneness of God and
a key component of the Muslim religion.” More specifically, though, it
refers to their fundamentalist interpretation of the tawhid, which rejects any
other view, including other Islamic interpretations, as idolatry. Zelinsky
writes that when ISIS uses the gesture, it is affirming an ideology that
demands the destruction of the West, as well as any form of pluralism. For
potential recruits around the globe, it also shows their belief that they will
dominate the world.
Sarsour to say the
least, is not a nice person. Daniel
Pipes
published a long list of Sarsour’s publicity stunts and consummate
narcissism and alleged achievements in a long post in March 2010.
Mar. 8, 2011
update
: Sarsour has tweeted a stunningly crude and vicious attack on two
anti-Islamist leaders: “Brigitte Gabriel= Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4
an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to
be women.”
Feb. 8, 2015
update
: Sarsour just can’t get enough of her alleged beauty. Her remarks
(ignorant typo left as is) on this Instagram picture:
“Blue is a power color. Maybe your born with it, Maybe it’s Maybelline, I
praise the lord that I am born with it. #media #womenarebetterateverything
#women.” Oh, and what to make of the infantile feminism, “women are
better at everything”?
Sep. 9, 2014 update: Sarsour
squealed “hate crime” when a street person in Brooklyn accosted her
on Sep. 3, winning national attention for her plight and the alleged problem of
anti-Muslim bias. For example, the mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, wrote her
a tweet: “New Yorkers stand with you, @lsarsour. Our city will never
condone such glaring acts of bigotry and intolerance.”
But Christine Sisto writes today at
Hate Crime? Not
So, Says Brooklyn Community. A hate crime making national headlines is debunked
by the locals
” that Sarsour has transformed the local drunk into a
bigot for her own purposes. Brian Doherty, a retired police officer, speculates
that she hopes to succeed Bay Ridge’s term-limited councilman in 2016:
“She’s attempting to make it political because she has her eye on
[Vincent] Gentile’s seat.”
Aug. 29, 2014
update
: How charming. Sarsour entered a CAIR raffle,
won a Koran, and now proclaims her good fortune to the world. We had no doubt
that she supported CAIR, the illegitimate step-child of Hamas and therefore of
the Muslim Brotherhood, but now we have proof.
Pipes’s
column is a good half-hour read to absorb the life and lies of Linda Sarsour.
Pamela Geller
has an appropriate take on Sarsour in her January 21 column, “Women’s March Organizer is a vicious
Jew-hater with ties to Islamic Terror”:
Notorious
Islamic Jew-hater Linda Sarsour is one of organizers of Saturday’s Women’s
March. Ironic, of course, we have never seen Sarsour stand against the gender
apartheid, honor violence, or the oppression and subjugation under Islamic law.
No, what Sarsour agitates and incites against is the Jewish state and its
people.
Born in 1980
in Brooklyn, New York, Linda Sarsour is a Palestinian-American community
activist who has served as executive
director
of the Arab
American Association of New York
 (AAANY) since 2005.
She is also a board member of
the Muslim
Democratic Club of New York
 (MDCNY), and a member of the Justice
League NYC
.
An outspoken critic
of Israel, Sarsour supports the
Boycott,
Divestment & Sanctions
 (BDS) movement, a Hamas-inspired
initiative that uses various forms
of public protest, economic pressure, and court rulings to advance the Hamas
agenda of permanently destroying Israel as a Jewish nation-state.
Falsely maintaining that “Palestine
existed before the State of Israel,” Sarsour seeks to help “bring
back
 a Palestinian State for the Palestinian people.” To advance this
agenda, Sarsour has tweeted images
of fraudulent maps claiming
to depict the “Palestinian loss of land” that supposedly occurred between 1946
and 2000.
As the head of AAANY, Sarsour has
played a central role
in pressuring
the New York Police Department to terminate its secret surveillance of Muslim
mosques and organizations suspected of promoting extremism or terrorism, and to
curtail its use of “stop-and-frisk
anti-crime measures. In 2011 she worked
in conjunction with Communities
United for Police Reform
, a coalition to advance the passage of
the Community Safety Act (which expanded the definition of
bias-based profiling and created an independent inspector general to review
police policy in New York City). Sarsour also succeeded in pressuring City Hall
to close New York’s public schools for the observance of the
Islamic holidays Eid al-Fitr
and Eid al-Adha.

The company she
keeps: 
Deserves one’s middle finger

Her
jihad is of the stealth kind, effective only if politicians accommodate her
demands and agenda. But what must stick in her craw is the British government
refusing to apologize for the Balfour
Declaration
of 1917, which is the best news, aside from Brexit, to come out
of Britain recently.
The British Foreign Office said on
Tuesday that it does not plan to apologize for issuing the Balfour Declaration,
as the 100th anniversary of the document, which helped pave the way for the
establishment of the State of Israel, nears.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has called on Britain
to apologize for issuing
the declaration and cancel celebrations of its
centenary.
“The Balfour Declaration is an
historic statement for which Her Majesty’s Government does not intend to
apologize. We are proud of our role in creating the State of Israel. The task
now is to encourage moves toward peace,” the British Foreign Office said in a
statement on Tuesday.
However,
“peace” will not be attained unless Hamas is decimated and Sarsour is compelled
to eat worms. Sarsour, a “Palestinian,” hopes with ferver that Israel is
eradicated and replaced with “Palestine,” and all Jews the “occupied” lands
sent to the ovens. “Peace,” however, in Islamic terms, is when Muslims no
longer have to fight Jews (and other non-believers) until they are extinct.
John
Guandolo,
author of “Raising
a Jihadi Generation
,” joined Tomi [Lahren] Monday night to discuss
the Women’s March on Washington organizer, Linda Sarsour. By her own
admission, Sarsour has numerous family members who are in prison in Israel
because of their ties to Hamas,
which has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United
States government.
“They celebrate her, they clap for
her, she’s the face of a movement, they’re proud of her — they raise her
up like she’s some kind of an idol,” Tomi said. “I had a little Twitter
exchange with her because I saw she liked a tweet I was mentioned in so I
tweeted her back.”
Hey @lsarsour
you don’t intimidate me. See right through you.
It bothers Tomi that there are women
who joined the marches because they truly believed that the marches were about
equality for women, when in fact they mainly end up promoting and empowering
women like Sarsour.
Sarsour
is photogenic once she’s emerged from the beauty salon with her eyebrows
plucked, the right eye shadow applied, and her hijab perfectly placed, and
is wearing the right colors. And she is
photo-hungry. And obsessed with promoting herself. On the Arab American Association of
New York
site she writes:
Linda Sarsour is a
working woman, racial justice and civil rights activist, every Islamophobe’s
worst nightmare, and mother of three.  Ambitious, outspoken and
independent, Linda shatters stereotypes of Muslim women while also treasuring
her religious and ethnic heritage. She is a Palestinian Muslim American and a
self-proclaimed “pure New Yorker, born and raised in Brooklyn!” She is the
Executive Director of the Arab American Association of New York and co-founder
of the first Muslim online organizing platform, MPOWER Change. Linda has
been at the forefront of major civil rights campaigns including calling for an end
to unwarranted surveillance of New York’s Muslim communities…..
Sarsour
came to the national limelight as a co-chair/organizer of the Women’s
March
in Washington a day after Donald Trump’s inauguration.
A Women’s March on Washington was
held on January 21, 2017 in response to the presidential election and
inauguration of Donald J. Trump. On Friday, January 20th, Trump was sworn in as
the nation’s 45th president in Washington DC.  The Women’s March aims to
bring people together the following day in the nation’s capital to make a
strong statement in opposition of Trump’s values.  The rhetoric of the
election insulted and threatened women, immigrants, those with diverse religious
faiths, people who identify as LGBT, people with disabilities, and others.
 The March is a grassroots event meant to highlight women’s issues and
empower all individuals across the nation.
But not in Saudi
Arabia or in any other Muslim country in which women are hanged, whipped,
beaten, honor-killed by tribalist relatives (as they have been in the U.S.),
imprisoned, and enslaved. The
Secular Brownie
wrote how she is relatively quiet about Islamic outrages:
Linda Sarsour was the
head of the Women’s March in the
United States.  There is a great irony and contradiction in letting
someone who deflects criticism from the misogynistic Saudi Arabia lead the
Women’s March.  Let’s examine some tweets: the first one is about how
Saudi women get ten weeks of paid maternity leave, and so they shouldn’t be
concerned about not being allowed to drive.
In another tweet
she writes that the mandatory wearing of head scarves and burqas in Saudi
Arabia and other Muslim countries is the least of women’s worries. However, should
Sarsour ever set foot in Saudi Arabia, a trip to the beauty parlor would be
futile. If she went there and tried to appear in public as she appears in the
U.S., she would be immediately and none to gently collared by the Saudi
religious police
. It’s doubtful that she has much to say about Saudi caning
punishments. The reality of living under Wahhabist
or even Sunni norms is
not real to her, or is repressed and relegated to the darkest corners of her
mind.
Of
course, Sarsour shot
her mouth
off during the Women’s March:
At the Women’s March, Sarsour described
herself
as “unapologetically Muslim American, unapologetically
Palestinian American, unapologetically from Brooklyn, New York,” and spoke
about the need to include communities of color in conversations about justice
and change.
“If you have come here today as
your first time at a march, I welcome you,” Sarsour said in her speech.
“I ask you to stand and continue to keep your voices loud for black women,
for Native women, for undocumented women, for our LGBTQIA communities, for
people with disabilities. You can count on me, your Palestinian Muslim sister,
to keep her voice loud, keep her feet on the streets, keep my head held high,
because I am not afraid.”
She
forgot to mention the LGBTQIA community of undocumented Martian transgenders.

Sarsour before her ideological
conversion to the death cult of Islam.

Linda
Sarsour is not what Muslim Brotherhood
founder had in mind to advance Islam, especially  in America, but she is a symbol of Islamic stealth jihad. As William Kirkpatrick
explained in his September 2016 FrontPage
article
:
The term “stealth jihad” is a bit
misleading.  The stealth jihad groups may be stealthy, but they don’t
operate underground.  They have offices, spokesmen, PR people, legal
teams, and impressive websites.  They present themselves as moderate
mainstream groups, and for the most part the media and administration officials
accept them as such.
How do they operate?  In
general, they advertise themselves as civil rights advocates working to protect
the rights of the “Muslim community.”  Using the cover of civil rights
activism, the stealth jihadists have been able to score some spectacular
successes. 
In 2012, for example, more than 1,000
documents and presentations were purged from counterterror training programs
for the FBI and other security agencies.  This was done in response to
pressure from Islamic advocacy groups who complained that the training policies
were biased and offensive to Muslims.  In effect, these Muslim
Brotherhood-linked groups were given veto power over national security policy,
and, as a result, investigative agencies were forced to limit themselves to
politically correct policing.
America’s commitment to the dogma of
political correctness is, in fact, the chief factor that accounts for the
success of stealth jihad.  The stealth jihadists are well-versed in the
rules of political correctness, and they know how to use them to their own
advantage.  And if they can bend the federal government to their will by
using these methods, they can certainly do the same to average citizens.
And
Linda Sarsour certainly knows how to advertise herself. But there’s not much
stealth in her methods.

The Teleology of Triggered Minds


Unless
you are scheduled to appear on a college campus, that is, for example, at
Berkeley, to deliver a culinary-themed lecture on the best way to prepare an egg
and ham quiche, Antifa thugs and
Social Justice Warriors (thugs-in-training) are not likely to appear to riot,
destroy or damage property, and physically assault anyone in protest of your
presence. But then who knows what mildewed nihilism, undigested grunge, and
ideological sewage pass for thought in the minds of “activists” anymore?
Also,
remember that the original “triggered minds” also include Muslim minds, who are
the paramount “victims” of micro-aggressions by Western culture, such as
freedom of speech, imaginative images of Mohammad, hijab-less women and women
in alluring garb, and blasphemous talk about Islam and Allah. Jihadists and Islamic
activists are also nihilists, whether they wear $1,000 suits or jeans and
T-shirts and flash knives or machetes.

The poster boy victims of
micro-aggression:
Triggered Muslims, brothers in
Spirit of Antifa

Heather
McDonald of the Manhattan
Insitute
, in her Wall
Street Journal
article of April, wrote:
Student thuggery
against non-leftist viewpoints is in the news again. Agitators at Claremont
McKenna College, Middlebury College, and the University of California’s
Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses have used threats, brute force and sometimes
criminal violence over the past two months in efforts to prevent Milo
Yiannopoulos, Charles Murray, Ann Coulter and me
from speaking. As commencement season approaches, expect “traumatized” students
to try to disinvite any remotely conservative speaker, an effort already under
way at Notre Dame with regard to Vice President Mike Pence.
And then there
is Pomana
College
, whose sociology students are demanding the firing of a white professor
who teaches “black communities.” Addressed to the school’s sociology department,
the dean, and the college president, it complained – nay – demanded the immediate firing (or not hiring) of Alice Goffman. The brave
students ended their demand:
(128 names redacted for individual safety
in recognition of the violence inflicted on communities of color by various
publications, namely [and apparently solely] by the Claremont Independent)
(square brackets mine)
Reviewing
her subject of “black communities,” one is at a loss to understand why the
students would object to her Pomana appointment. She is of the Left, as “her
PhD dissertation on the impact of mass incarceration and policing on low-income
African-American urban communities… when she immersed herself in a
disadvantaged neighborhood of Philadelphia with African-American young men who
were subject to a high level of surveillance and police activity….” She is a
product of that bastion of Progressive causes, the University of Wisconsin.
Jonathan
Marks agrees with my assessment of Goffman his Commentary article of April 24th,
New Rule: White Women Should Not
Study Black Communities
.”
Alice Goffman, assistant professor of
sociology at the University of Wisconsin, is a controversial scholar. Her book,
On the Run:
Fugitive Life in an American City
is based on Goffman’s
six year immersion in a black neighborhood in West Philadelphia.
The book was published in 2014 to
wide acclaim. But it soon attracted critics, including the estimable Steven
Lubet
, who thinks
that Goffman embellished her experiences, repeated as fact things she had heard
from her subjects though they were unlikely to have been true, and, most
sensationally, became so caught up in the lives of the people she was writing
about that she could have been charged with conspiracy to commit murder under
Pennsylvania law. Goffman replies here,
and Lubet takes up part of Goffman’s reply here.
Suffice it to say that there is enough to the controversy to make it
unsurprising that when Goffman’s hire as McConnell Visiting Professor of
Sociology at Pomona College was announced, some people were disappointed.
But the “collective of Sociology
students, alumni, and allies at Pomona College” who have stepped forward to
complain in an open
letter
were not disappointed about the kinds of issues Lubet raised. They
seem troubled mainly by the fact that Professor Goffman is a white researcher
who had the effrontery to study a black community. The hire “boasts the
framework that white women can theorize about and profit from Black lives while
giving no room for Black academics to claim scholarship regarding their own
lived experiences.” We are given to understand that one should not boast such a
framework.
Let’s be clear: Goffman is not a
right winger. Cornel West,
who blurbed the book, called it “the best treatment I know of the wretched
underside of neo-liberal capitalist America…”
So, one truly does not know anymore what the
disintegrated, whirligigish minds of contemporary students will object to and
vociferously protest against. Here they object because the subject and the ethnicity
of the professor do not match. The fact that she got her degree from the
University of Wisconsin, is irrelevant. Go figure.
Heather McDonald writes:
Campus intolerance is at root not a psychological phenomenon but an
ideological one.
At its center is a worldview that sees Western culture as
endemically racist and sexist. The overriding goal of the educational
establishment is to teach young people within the ever-growing list of official
victim classifications to view themselves as existentially oppressed. One
outcome of that teaching is the forceful silencing of contrarian speech. [Italics
mine]
Offending “rhetoric” frequently
includes the greatest works of Western civilization. In November 2015, a
Columbia sophomore announced on Facebook
that his “health and life” were threatened by a Core Curriculum course taught
by a white professor. The comment thread exploded with sympathetic rage: “The
majority of why?te [sic] students taking [Contemporary Civilization] and on
this campus never have to be consistently aware of their identities as white
ppl while sitting in CC reading racist, patriarchal texts taught by white
professors who most likely are unaware of the various forms of impact that CC
texts have on people of color.”
And most of the
authors of the Core Curriculum are “dead white males.” Automatically all
racists, you see.
Another sophomore fulminated: “Many
of these texts INSPIRED THE RACISM THAT I’M FORCED TO LIVE WITH DAILY, and to
expect, or even suggest, that that doesn’t matter, is [obscenity] belittling,
insulting, and WAY OUT OF [obscenity] LINE.” Those “racist” texts include works
by Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Rousseau and Mill.
His
progressive education has embedded misanthropy,
a hatred of men, into his unformed, untested, unexposed mind, in addition to misology, or a hatred or fear of philosophy
or reasoning, or the rational discourse of ideas. His mind will never be tested
by reason, because he has been told that reason is a product of the Enlightenment
(emerging from the Dark Ages, the the Age of Enlightenment
promoted a confidence in reason or intellectual enquiry)
, which was
wholly “racist.” He must “live with the” offending texts daily! Does that mean
he is reading them daily, and gnashing his teeth over every page and sweating
bullets? Doubtful. Somehow Immanuel Kant, Aristotle, Plato and the others all
inspired “racism.”

Trigger-free: hermetically
sealed
against all bothersome and
disturbing ideas

Do
the offending texts explicitly say something to the effect, “This is white
philosophy, and is intended to be imbibed by white men only”? Sorry, snowflake,
regardless of whether or not you agree with the texts and the authors – and the
implication is that you would not be able to comprehend a single of them, at
all, to even be able to agree or disagree with them, because your animus is so
Pavlovian, deep-seated and thoroughgoing – that is not what they say or insinuate,
not in the least.
Oxford
dons
may find themselves hanged in effigy if they ignore the latest triggering
offense. Of course, if your professor is of the old school who doesn’t think it
is necessary to engage with you facially, you can accuse him of racism.
Staff at Britain’s Oxford University
have been told that avoiding eye contact with students could constitute
“everyday racism”.
The BBC
reports
, it is included in a list of “racial micro-aggressions”
published in a newsletter by Oxford’s equality and diversity unit.
The newsletter claims racial
micro aggressions might include: “Not making eye contact or speaking
directly to people.”
And
if your professor finds your physiognomy dull or repellent, that is a double
offense. If you catch him looking askance while speaking to you, that’s a
triple offense of micro-aggression, and it might even suggest “beautyism” or
esthetic bias.
Claims
of micro-aggression are instances of intolerance.
As
McDonald explains, “Campus intolerance is at root not a psychological phenomenon but an ideological one.” A student
can claim a micro-aggression over a piddly, or, in reality, the most
inconsequential behavior, statement, or thing, especially if he has been raised
in a family or pedagogical environment that inculcates fear and loathing of
himself and of others and of the culture he inhabits.
Academic intolerance is the product of ideological aggression, not a
psychological disorder.

Antifa,
colleagues in spirit
with the Muslim Brotherhood

In
today’s schools, the “ideological aggression” conforms to a kind of Progressive
jihad against the individual’s mind
and values.
The
chief focus is emotion – “that hurts my feelings, I don’t know why, it just
does, don’t ask me to figure it out, that’s asking me to think, to use reason –
and we’ve been taught that thinking and reasoning are tools of a patriarchy, of
capitalism, of racism, of transgender oppression, and of a million different bogeymen,
so why shouldn’t I hate the American flag and individual responsibility and
anyone who disagrees with how I feel about things?” They’ve been taught that
there is such as thing as “emotional
reasoning
” and that it trumps reasoning from facts. “Emotional reasoning
is a cognitive
process by which a person concludes that his/her emotional reaction proves
something is true, regardless of the observed evidence.”
Anyone
found guilty of “micro-aggression” may
not
be intolerant; but the victim can be as intolerant as he pleases.
If
one’s teachers continually harp on the “evil” of America and of certain
freedom-associated ideas – and if that is all one hears without abeyance, and if
one’s cognitive abilities are have been sabotaged, derogated and dismissed by
those charged with developing one’s mind to deal with reality – all one can do
in response is rely on one’s emotions. That is sure to lead to one’s death.
The
“snowflake” generation will not produce a single Sherlock Holmes.
A
“trigger-happy” mind is capable of two aggressions: a “micro” verbal assault,
or a physical one. They are the only forms of “discourse” such a mind knows.
Beware, but speak, write, or act according to your lights and your values.

Groveling in the Dust Before Islam


as Cyrano
de Bergerac (film, 1950)

Seek the patronage of some great man,
And like a creeping vine on a tall tree
Crawl upward, where I cannot stand alone?
No thank you!  Dedicate, as others do,
Poems to pawnbrokers?  Be a buffoon
In the vile hope of teasing out a smile
On some cold face? No thank you!  Eat a toad
For breakfast every morning? Make my
knees
Callous, and cultivate a supple spine,

Seek the patronage of some great man,
And like a creeping vine on a tall tree
Crawl upward, where I cannot stand alone?
No thank you!  Dedicate, as others do,
Poems to pawnbrokers?  Be a buffoon
In the vile hope of teasing out a smile
On some cold face? No thank you!  Eat a toad
For breakfast every morning? Make my
knees
Callous, and cultivate a supple spine,
– Wear out my belly
Groveling in the dust?…”
No thank you! No, thank you! And again
I thank you!  No! 
  But ….
To sing, to laugh, to dream,
To walk in my own way and be alone.
Second Act, Cyrano
de Bergerac
, 1897, the Brian Hooker
translation (1923)
Europe is not
“groveling in the dust” before any “great men,” but rather retreating from its
culture at the noisy and often violent behest and demands of….mere Muslims, and
at the insistence of Islam. But the quotation from Cyrano’s “No Thank You!”
speech from the Rostand’s play represents the moral antithesis of politically
correct thinking, speech, and action. No pride, no white plumes have been
evident in Europe for a long time, except for the exceptional individuals who
are denigrated and crushed by the elite.
Can you imagine a
modern European fighting for European culture with the same verve and skill as
Cyrano de Bergerac? And
winning
?
Giulio
Meotti
’s
article on Gatestone,
Europe:
Making Itself into the New Afghanistan
?” underscores and details how even
Europe’s culture, in tandem with its politics, defers to Islamic anti-values in
pursuit of Islam’s supremacy.
European museums, instead, are
rapidly submitting to Islamic correctness. The exhibition “Passion for
Freedom,” at the Mall Gallery in London, censored the light box tableaux
of a family of toy animals living in an enchanted valley. Entitled, “ISIS Threaten Sylvania“, it was eliminated after the
British police referred to its “inflammatory” content. Previously,
the Tate Gallery in London banned a work by John Latham that
displayed a Koran embedded in glass….
The Museum of Cultures of the World
in Gothenburg, Sweden, opened with an exhibition entitled “AIDS in the Era
of Globalization”. In it, the artist Louzla Darabi
exhibited a work, “Scène d’amour”, that depicts a woman having sex
with a man whose face cannot be seen. A verse from the Koran is written on it
in Arabic. Less than three weeks after the inauguration of the exhibition, the
museum removed the painting. The Hergé Museum in Louvain, Belgium, was planning an
exhibition to pay tribute to Charlie Hebdo‘s cartoonists; that event,
too, was cancelled.
French President François Hollande
eliminated a section of the Louvre Museum dedicated to the Eastern Christians, who in
the last two years have been decimated by the Islamic State. “The Louvre
will be dedicating a new section to the artistic heritage of Eastern
Christians”, then President Nicholas Sarkozy announced in 2010. But the
project was scrapped by the museum’s new management, with the approval of
Hollande’s culture ministry.
Years ago, I asked a
young French exchange student staying in the U.S. with an American family, if
he’d ever read Cyrano de Bergerac. What?
Had he ever heard of Edmund Rostand?
Voltaire? Victor Hugo? Who?
The fellow looked perplexed. No, never heard of them. Presumably the student
was one of the best and the brightest of French students, which was why he was
in an exchange program. Apparently he knows little of his country’s literary
history, thanks to his state education, which has embarked on down-playing, if
not eradicating, his country’s cultural heritage in schools, lest the latter
offend or enrage Muslim students.
That same phenomenon
is occurring in Britain and the U.S.   It indicates why France is declining and groveling.
If you are afraid of standing up for the good, or are unaware that there is a
good to defend and uphold, it will remain undiscovered, or it will simply
disappear. All you’ll learn is how important it is for “peace” and “diversity”
to defer to and “respect” all things Islam.
Aiding Islam in the groveling is the
Left in the West, ever as always to accommodate Islam.

Walter Hampden, as Cyrano
 in 1925 (Broadway stage)

Meotti writes:
The officials of the fair presumably
did not want to offend Islam and possible Muslim buyers with Pignatelli’s
combination of the mat (used by Muslims for prayer) with the woman’s face.
“We are shocked, this is the first time this has happened and I think it
is legitimate to talk about it”, Pignatelli said. “If in Rome it can happen that you
decide to veil art works to avoid offending foreign visitors, well, I do not
agree”. The reference is at the Italian government decision to veil the antique Roman statues to avoid offending Iran’s
visiting President Hassan Rouhani.
If Europe wants a future, it should
be less ideological about Maastricht’s treaty and more against Maastricht’s
capitulation to fear. The brave Algerian writer Kamel Daoud said:
“Those (migrants) who come to
seek freedom in France must participate in freedom. Migrants did not come to
seek asylum in Saudi Arabia, but in Germany. Why? For security, freedom and
prosperity. So they must not come to create a new Afghanistan”.
Right. But it is the European
mainstream that is letting them turn our cultural landscape into another
Afghanistan. The Taliban have killed artists and destroyed
art works
. The West used to be proud of being the land of the free.
The main problem is that that
“modern” art is dominated by the “mainstream” Left, which
for decades has professed there are no objective measures of what is worth
contemplating as art or even as literature (the Frankfurt School introduced this
Marxist idea from Germany, and was imported to the U.S.). It is the Left which
recognizes acceptable  “art”
and rewards it. It is the clueless, timorous wealthy who buy
(“invest” in) modern art at spectacular prices. It has been
government-subsidized museums that have made room for trash, which they mix
with genuine art, so that the trash is elevated with the authentic (the Tate in London is the most
notorious practitioner). It is largely the Left with political power which
subsidizes modern art via private foundations established over a century ago
but which were taken over the Left. The modern cultural landscape is worse than
that of Afghanistan;
it is a combination sewer, swamp, and mad house.
The best solution is to get the
government out of all cultural endeavors, regardless of their venue or audience,
just as it should get out of education.
From denigrating Western cultural
achievements, the Left has progressed to charging the West with racism and
bigotry for having promoted the superiority of Western art (adding the charge
of cultural “imperialism”) over the art of primitive cultures and this policy
is now rife in academia and is being inculcated in the minds of students.
There is a sign of hope that President Trump has given the National Endowment of the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities pink slips,
but it will take more than a cancelation of funding to counter destruction
wrought by the Left. It is the Left that wishes to destroy the West.
In academia, as a result of their
exposure to subjectivist esthetics and “cultural diversity,” Stanford
University students voted against a renewal of the Core Curriculum. Stanford
Students Reject “Racist” Western Civilization Course
. Dennis Prager on
Townhall wrote:
This month, Stanford University
students voted on a campus resolution that would have their college require a
course on Western civilization, as it did until the 1980s. Stanford
students rejected the proposal 1,992 to 347. A columnist at the Stanford Daily
explained why: Teaching Western civilization means “upholding white supremacy,
capitalism and colonialism, and all other oppressive systems that flow from
Western civilizations.” The vote — and the column — encapsulated the
left’s view: In Europe, Latin America and America, it loathes Western
civilization).
This month, Stanford University students voted on a
campus resolution that would have their college require a course on Western
civilization, as it did until the 1980s.
Stanford students rejected the proposal 1,992 to 347.
A columnist at the Stanford Daily explained why: Teaching Western civilization means
“upholding white supremacy, capitalism and colonialism, and all other
oppressive systems that flow from Western civilizations.”
Thus, Michelangelo is no better than
any contemporary artist, and Rembrandt is no greater than any non-Western
artist. So, too, street graffiti — which is essentially the defacing of public
and private property, and thus serves to undermine civilization — is “art.”
Melody-free, harmony-free, atonal
sounds are just as good as Beethoven’s music. And Western classical music is no
better than the music of any non-Western civilization. Guatemalan poets are
every bit as worthy of study as Shakespeare.
When the Nobel Prize-winning
American novelist Saul Bellow asked an interviewer, “Who is the Tolstoy of the
Zulus? The Proust of the Papuans?” all hell broke loose on the cultural left.
Bellow had implied that the greatest writers of fiction were Western.
The left hates standards — moral
standards, artistic standards, cultural standards. The West is built on all
three, and it has excelled in all three.
Why does the left hate standards? It
hates standards because when there are standards, there is judgment. And leftists don’t want to be judged.
The subjectivism and relativism of
Marxist “esthetics” is basically nihilistic in nature.
Which is why the Left can be in alliance with Islam. Islam stands for nothingness, and it wishes to impose it
on the West. Every Western achievement in science, art, and politics is an
affront to Islam. The West has been, ever since the end of the Dark Ages,
pro-life and living on this earth; Islam has not changed in fourteen centuries
and its theology and “practical” advice for living on earth is decidedly
anti-life, anti-man, and anti-value.
The editors of Britannica note
that:
….nihilism encompassed a
variety of philosophical and aesthetic
stances that, in one sense or another, denied the existence of genuine moral
truths or values, rejected the possibility of knowledge or communication, and
asserted the ultimate meaninglessness or purposelessness of life or of the
universe.
This is essentially the Islamic
view, with the qualification that if anything has “purpose,” is it for or by
Allah. Human values are superfluous. See “A
Complete Way of Death
” from May 2016, and that should clarify why Islam is
nihilistic to the core. Europe is destined to become an arid “nothingness” in
which all values are hidden, apologized for, or destroyed.

Wear out my belly

Groveling in the dust?…”
No thank you! No, thank you! And again
I thank you!  No! 
  But ….
To sing, to laugh, to dream,
To walk in my own way and be alone.
Second Act, Cyrano
de Bergerac
, 1897, the Brian Hooker
translation (1923)
Europe is not
“groveling in the dust” before any “great men,” but rather retreating from its
culture at the noisy and often violent behest and demands of….mere Muslims, and
at the insistence of Islam. But the quotation from Cyrano’s “No Thank You!”
speech from the Rostand’s play represents the moral antithesis of politically
correct thinking, speech, and action. No pride, no white plumes have been
evident in Europe for a long time, except for the exceptional individuals who
are denigrated and crushed by the elite.
Can you imagine a
modern European fighting for European culture with the same verve and skill as
Cyrano de Bergerac? And
winning
?
Giulio
Meotti
’s
article on Gatestone,
Europe:
Making Itself into the New Afghanistan
?” underscores and details how even
Europe’s culture, in tandem with its politics, defers to Islamic anti-values in
pursuit of Islam’s supremacy.
European museums, instead, are
rapidly submitting to Islamic correctness. The exhibition “Passion for
Freedom,” at the Mall Gallery in London, censored the light box tableaux
of a family of toy animals living in an enchanted valley. Entitled, “ISIS Threaten Sylvania“, it was eliminated after the
British police referred to its “inflammatory” content. Previously,
the Tate Gallery in London banned a work by John Latham that
displayed a Koran embedded in glass….
The Museum of Cultures of the World
in Gothenburg, Sweden, opened with an exhibition entitled “AIDS in the Era
of Globalization”. In it, the artist Louzla Darabi
exhibited a work, “Scène d’amour”, that depicts a woman having sex
with a man whose face cannot be seen. A verse from the Koran is written on it
in Arabic. Less than three weeks after the inauguration of the exhibition, the
museum removed the painting. The Hergé Museum in Louvain, Belgium, was planning an
exhibition to pay tribute to Charlie Hebdo‘s cartoonists; that event,
too, was cancelled.
French President François Hollande
eliminated a section of the Louvre Museum dedicated to the Eastern Christians, who in
the last two years have been decimated by the Islamic State. “The Louvre
will be dedicating a new section to the artistic heritage of Eastern
Christians”, then President Nicholas Sarkozy announced in 2010. But the
project was scrapped by the museum’s new management, with the approval of
Hollande’s culture ministry.
Years ago, I asked a
young French exchange student staying in the U.S. with an American family, if
he’d ever read Cyrano de Bergerac. What?
Had he ever heard of Edmund Rostand?
Voltaire? Victor Hugo? Who?
The fellow looked perplexed. No, never heard of them. Presumably the student
was one of the best and the brightest of French students, which was why he was
in an exchange program. Apparently he knows little of his country’s literary
history, thanks to his state education, which has embarked on down-playing, if
not eradicating, his country’s cultural heritage in schools, lest the latter
offend or enrage Muslim students.

At risk: Nike of Samothrace Sculpture (“Victory”)
in the Louvre, Paris,
France

That same phenomenon
is occurring in Britain and the U.S.   It indicates why France is declining and groveling.
If you are afraid of standing up for the good, or are unaware that there is a
good to defend and uphold, it will remain undiscovered, or it will simply
disappear. All you’ll learn is how important it is for “peace” and “diversity”
to defer to and “respect” all things Islam.

Aiding Islam in the groveling is the
Left in the West, ever as always to accommodate Islam.
Meotti writes:
The officials of the fair presumably
did not want to offend Islam and possible Muslim buyers with Pignatelli’s
combination of the mat (used by Muslims for prayer) with the woman’s face.
“We are shocked, this is the first time this has happened and I think it
is legitimate to talk about it”, Pignatelli said. “If in Rome it can happen that you
decide to veil art works to avoid offending foreign visitors, well, I do not
agree”. The reference is at the Italian government decision to veil the antique Roman statues to avoid offending Iran’s
visiting President Hassan Rouhani.
If Europe wants a future, it should
be less ideological about Maastricht’s treaty and more against Maastricht’s
capitulation to fear. The brave Algerian writer Kamel Daoud said:
“Those (migrants) who come to
seek freedom in France must participate in freedom. Migrants did not come to
seek asylum in Saudi Arabia, but in Germany. Why? For security, freedom and
prosperity. So they must not come to create a new Afghanistan”.
Right. But it is the European
mainstream that is letting them turn our cultural landscape into another
Afghanistan. The Taliban have killed artists and destroyed
art works
. The West used to be proud of being the land of the free.
The main problem is that that
“modern” art is dominated by the “mainstream” Left, which
for decades has professed there are no objective measures of what is worth
contemplating as art or even as literature (the Frankfurt School introduced this
Marxist idea from Germany, and was imported to the U.S.). It is the Left which
recognizes acceptable  “art”
and rewards it. It is the clueless, timorous wealthy who buy
(“invest” in) modern art at spectacular prices. It has been
government-subsidized museums that have made room for trash, which they mix
with genuine art, so that the trash is elevated with the authentic (the Tate in London is the most
notorious practitioner). It is largely the Left with political power which
subsidizes modern art via private foundations established over a century ago
but which were taken over the Left. The modern cultural landscape is worse than
that of Afghanistan;
it is a combination sewer, swamp, and mad house.
The best solution is to get the
government out of all cultural endeavors, regardless of their venue or audience,
just as it should get out of education.
From denigrating Western cultural
achievements, the Left has progressed to charging the West with racism and
bigotry for having promoted the superiority of Western art (adding the charge
of cultural “imperialism”) over the art of primitive cultures and this policy
is now rife in academia and is being inculcated in the minds of students.
There is a sign of hope that President Trump has given the National Endowment of the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities pink slips,
but it will take more than a cancelation of funding to counter destruction
wrought by the Left. It is the Left that wishes to destroy the West.
In academia, as a result of their
exposure to subjectivist esthetics and “cultural diversity,” Stanford
University students voted against a renewal of the Core Curriculum. Stanford
Students Reject “Racist” Western Civilization Course
. Dennis Prager on
Townhall wrote:
This month, Stanford University
students voted on a campus resolution that would have their college require a
course on Western civilization, as it did until the 1980s. Stanford
students rejected the proposal 1,992 to 347. A columnist at the Stanford Daily
explained why: Teaching Western civilization means “upholding white supremacy,
capitalism and colonialism, and all other oppressive systems that flow from
Western civilizations.” The vote — and the column — encapsulated the
left’s view: In Europe, Latin America and America, it loathes Western
civilization).
This month, Stanford University students voted on a
campus resolution that would have their college require a course on Western
civilization, as it did until the 1980s.
Stanford students rejected the proposal 1,992 to 347.
A columnist at the Stanford Daily explained why: Teaching Western civilization means
“upholding white supremacy, capitalism and colonialism, and all other
oppressive systems that flow from Western civilizations.”

At
risk: Michelangelo’s David in the

Thus, Michelangelo is no better than
any contemporary artist, and Rembrandt is no greater than any non-Western
artist. So, too, street graffiti — which is essentially the defacing of public
and private property, and thus serves to undermine civilization — is “art.”

Melody-free, harmony-free, atonal
sounds are just as good as Beethoven’s music. And Western classical music is no
better than the music of any non-Western civilization. Guatemalan poets are
every bit as worthy of study as Shakespeare.
When the Nobel Prize-winning
American novelist Saul Bellow asked an interviewer, “Who is the Tolstoy of the
Zulus? The Proust of the Papuans?” all hell broke loose on the cultural left.
Bellow had implied that the greatest writers of fiction were Western.
The left hates standards — moral
standards, artistic standards, cultural standards. The West is built on all
three, and it has excelled in all three.
Why does the left hate standards? It
hates standards because when there are standards, there is judgment. And leftists don’t want to be judged.
The subjectivism and relativism of
Marxist “esthetics” is basically nihilistic in nature.
Which is why the Left can be in alliance with Islam. Islam stands for nothingness, and it wishes to impose it
on the West. Every Western achievement in science, art, and politics is an
affront to Islam. The West has been, ever since the end of the Dark Ages,
pro-life and living on this earth; Islam has not changed in fourteen centuries
and its theology and “practical” advice for living on earth is decidedly
anti-life, anti-man, and anti-value.

Islam
will eat you and Europe
and
America alive.

The editors of Britannica note
that:

….nihilism encompassed a
variety of philosophical and aesthetic
stances that, in one sense or another, denied the existence of genuine moral
truths or values, rejected the possibility of knowledge or communication, and
asserted the ultimate meaninglessness or purposelessness of life or of the
universe.
This is essentially the Islamic
view, with the qualification that if anything has “purpose,” is it for or by
Allah. Human values are superfluous. See “A
Complete Way of Death
” from May 2016, and that should clarify why Islam is
nihilistic to the core. Europe is destined to become an arid “nothingness” in
which all values are hidden, apologized for, or destroyed.

Britonistan, or Deconstructing Britain


We Shall Never, Ever be Slaves….?

The indefatigable
Soren Kern, of the Gatestone
Institute
, itemizes the multculturalization of Britain, in March, or rather
the continuing Islamization of Britain in just one month. For if
multculturalization means anything in Britain (and elsewhere), it all seems to
be a marked deck, or a rigged game, in favor of Islam. “Heads we win, tails we
win.”  However, I don’t see Muslims donning
bells and learning the simple steps of the Morris dance, or any
other British reel.
Where does the “multi” enter the picture?
It doesn’t.
Multiculturalism in Islam’s
vocabulary means submission to Islam. It doesn’t mean “equality” or par with
Western values or cultural traditions. It doesn’t mean that the hijab is equal to the miniskirt. In
means a total substitution of Islam for whatever is Western. It means the
negation of the West. It means not just the elevation of a barbaric “culture” to
a level with the West’s. It means its burial. Paraphrasing one of Ayn Rand’s
villains, it means “elevating the mediocre so that the shrines
are razed
.” That is all it has ever meant.
The month of London
and Britain in March that Kern details does not include the likes of Indiscreet. That culture
is gone.
Afraid of asserting
the superiority of its values lest it be charge with hubris, the West has
always shilly-shallied when it came to defending its values against the
cultural and moral relativists, and against Islam. It did not want to be
accused of cultural “imperialism.” Rand had another gem that applies across the
board in all conflicts, most especially today, in the conflict between the West
and Islam:
In any compromise
between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise
between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”
That is, the most
consistent party will come out on top.
Andrew Michta, in his
essay on American Interest, “The
Deconstruction of the West
,” offers a number of salient observations on why
the West has become so timorous when confronting Islam, among them:
The problem, rather, is the West’s
growing inability to agree on how it should be defined as a civilization. At
the core of the deepening dysfunction in the West is the self-induced
deconstruction of Western culture and, with it, the glue that for two centuries
kept Europe and the United States at the center of the international system….
Today, in the wake of decades of
group identity politics and the attendant deconstruction of our heritage
through academia, the media, and popular culture, this conviction in the uniqueness of the West is
only a pale shadow of what it was a mere half century ago. It has been replaced
by elite narratives substituting shame for pride and indifference to one’s own
heritage for patriotism. [Italics
mine]
Soren Kern, in an
earlier Gatestone article from May 2016, “Meet the First Muslim Mayor
of London
,” discusses the number of “troubling” actions and statements from
Sadiq Khan’s past that
belie his image as a mild-mannered Muslim and a harmless Pooh bear:
Conservative Party candidate Zac
Goldsmith accused Khan of giving “platform, oxygen and cover” to
Islamic extremists. He also accused Khan of “hiding behind Britain’s
Muslims” by branding as “Islamophobes” those who shed light on
his past…..
Khan also spent years campaigning to
prevent Babar Ahmad from being extradited to the United States on charges of
providing material support to terrorism. Ahmad, who admitted his guilt, later said that his
support for the Taliban was “naïve.”
In 2002, Khan represented the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis
Farrakhan. Khan tried to reverse a decision by the Home Office, which had
banned Farrakhan from entering the UK due to fears that his anti-Semitic views
would stir up racial hatred. Farrakhan has called Jews “bloodsuckers” and referred to Judaism as “a gutter religion.”
At the time, Khan said: “Mr. Farrakhan is not anti-Semitic and does not
preach a message of racial hatred and antagonism.” Khan added:
“Farrakhan is preaching a
message of self-discipline, self-reliance, atonement and responsibility. He’s
trying to address the issues and problems we have in the UK, black on black
crime and problems in the black community. It’s outrageous and astonishing that
the British Government is trying to exclude this man.”
Khan now says: “Even the worst people deserve a legal defense.,,,”
In 2004, Khan was the chief legal
advisor to the Muslim Council of Britain, a group linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Khan defended Yusuf
al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born Islamist who has been banned from entering the
UK. Al-Qaradawi has expressed support for Hamas suicide bombings against
Israel: “It’s not suicide, it is martyrdom in the name of Allah.”
According to Khan, however, “Quotes attributed to this man may or may not
be true.”
Also in 2004, Khan shared a platform with a half-dozen Islamic extremists in
London at a political meeting where women were told to use a separate entrance.
One of the speakers was Azzam Tamimi, who has said he wants Israel destroyed
and replaced with an Islamic state. Another speaker was Daud Abdullah, who has
led boycotts of Holocaust Memorial Day. Yet another speaker was Ibrahim Hewitt,
a Muslim hardliner who believes that adulterers should be “stoned to death….”
in 2009, when Khan was the Minister
for Community Cohesion in charge of government efforts to eradicate extremism,
he gave an interview to the Iran-backed Press TV. He described moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms,” a
racial slur used against blacks to imply that they are too eager to please
whites.
Meanwhile, today, Kern
reveals that:
March 3. The Amateur Swimming
Association changed its swimsuit regulations to allow Muslim women to
wear full body outfits, after a request from the Muslim Women’s Sport
Foundation. The rule was changed to encourage more Muslim women to take part in
the sport. Rimla Akhtar, from the Muslim Women’s Sport Foundation, said:
“Participation in sport amongst
Muslim women is increasing at a rapid pace. It is imperative that governing
bodies adapt and tailor their offerings to suit the changing landscape of
sport, including those who access their sport.”
March 2. English actor Riz Ahmed warned that the lack of Muslim faces on British television
was alienating young people, driving them towards extremism and into the arms
of the Islamic State. Delivering Channel 4’s annual diversity lecture in
Parliament, Ahmed said that television had a pivotal role to play in ensuring
that Muslims felt heard, and valued, in British society
March 7. The
National Health Service (NHS) revealed
that there were 2,332 new cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Britain
between October and December 2016. That brought the total of new cases in 2016
to nearly 5,500.
Speaking of FGM, Daniel Greenfield of Sultan
Knish reports on Islam’s advances in this “multicultural” realm in the U.S. in
his column, “The
Screams of Little Girls in Little Palestine
” from April 26th:
We think of
horrors like female genital mutilation as a terrible thing that happens over
“there.” But as the implacable tide of Muslim immigration swept across Europe,
“there” became the United Kingdom.

England recorded 5,700 cases of FGM in less than a year. France has jailed 100
people for FGM. An estimated 50,000 women in Germany have undergone FGM with a
30 percent boost due to the rise of Islamic migration in the last several
years. In Sweden, it’s 38,000. And now, as American towns and cities are
reshaped by Muslim migration, “there” is now right here. The terrible practice
is in America.

Sweden was the first Western country to outlaw FGM. But despite the prevalence
of FGM in Sweden, there have only been a handful of convictions. The United
States banned FGM in 1997. A Federal report in 2012 warned that 513,000 women
and girls in the United States were at risk for FGM.

Time marches on to Mecca

Back to
Britain:
March 7. The
managers of the cash-strapped Sandwell General Hospital near Birmingham are considering the construction of a special kitchen for
preparing halal meals for
Muslim patients and staff. The move follows complaints about the quality of
halal meals that the hospital has outsourced to local vendors. A spokesman
said: “We are still reviewing options around creating a separate halal
kitchen and the best ways to provide a range of healthy halal options to
patients and staff who want them.”
Prime Minister Theresa May said that the government should not tell women what to
wear:
“We have a strong tradition in
this country of freedom of expression, and it is the right of all women to
choose how they dress and we don’t intend to legislate on this issue. There
will be times when it is right for a veil to be asked to be removed, such as
border security or perhaps in courts, and individual institutions can make
their own policies, but it is not for government to tell women what they can
and can’t wear.”
March 17. The former owners of a
bookstore in Bradford apologized after copies of the Koran and other Islamic
literature were found in a garbage dumpster outside the store. Police were
called to the store after a group of Muslim males began shouting at and abusing
staff. The imbroglio began after the bookstore’s 80-year-old owner decided to
close down his business, and the new owners gave him a month to move out the
stock, which included a number of Korans and other Islamic books.
March 21. Minister for Higher
Education, Jo Johnson, ordered British universities to include a clear commitment
to freedom of speech in their governance documents to counter the culture of
censorship and so-called safe spaces. In a letter, Johnson wrote that it was
the “legal duty” of universities to ensure as far as practicable that
freedom of speech is secured for “members, students, employees and
visiting speakers.” This meant that all university premises should not be
“denied to any individual or body on any grounds connected with their
beliefs or views, policy or objective.”

Either/Or: Shadada
or Freedom

March 22. Khalid Masood, 52, drove a
car at pedestrians on London’s Westminster Bridge and, armed with two knives,
stormed the parliamentary estate. He killed five people and injured more than
50 before he was shot dead by police. Masood, a convert to Islam, was born in
Kent as Adrian Elms. During his school years, he used his stepfather’s surname,
Adrian Russell Ajao. A former English tutor, he was unemployed at the time of
the attack and had been living on social welfare benefits. Masood, who had a
history of criminality — he had previous convictions for assaults, including
grievous bodily harm, possession of offensive weapons and public order offences
— was reportedly radicalized in prison.
March 23. The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the Westminster attack.
“The perpetrator of the attacks yesterday in front of the British
parliament in London is an Islamic State soldier and he carried out the
operation in response to calls to target citizens of the coalition,” the
group’s Amaq news agency said in a statement.
March 23. Prime Minister Theresa May said that it would be “wrong” to describe the
jihadist attack on Westminster Bridge and Parliament as “Islamic
terrorism.” Instead, she said, it should be referred to as “Islamist
terrorism” and “a perversion of a great faith.”
Où allez-vous, le Canada?
What’s my semantic
line? Can you detect and explain the difference between “Islamic terrorism” and
“Islamist terrorism”? Is it similar to the difference between a  Chocolate
Bonbon
” and a “Eclair
au chocolat
”? Can an “Islamist” terrorist not be a Muslim? And if he isn’t a Muslim, what is he? A “mentally
disturbed” person who perchance wears an aluminum hat? The latter example is
the lengths to which Western authorities will go to avoid blaming Islam and
offending Muslims.
Soren Kern has
chronicled the march of Islam in the whole month of March in Britonistan.
Someday he will need to do the same task for Ameristan. Perhaps he’s already
chronicling the creation of Canadastan.

Hollywood Hijrah

A correspondent sent
me the links to two commentaries on the fate of “Homeland,” a
TV series, described by Wikipedia as “an American spy thriller television series developed by Howard
Gordon
and Alex Gansa based on the Israeli series Prisoners of War….”
I have not watched the
series, because, for one thing, I don’t subscribe to Showtime. I very
much stopped watching “broadcast” TV. Years ago, after broadcasting changed
from analog to digital, I could not find a reliable, problem-free device that
converted the media to my computer or TV, so I gave up “regular” TV, and
haven’t missed it. Combine those reasons with the fact that most TV today is a
hoochie-coochie belly-dancer of the MSM, charged with the task of keeping the
public pacified, distracted, and dumbed-down. With very few exceptions, I could
see where it was going and how Politically Correctness was dulling its future.
It was no loss to me.
Because Showtime has an international subscriber-viewer
list, this column does not address American readers solely.
Two insightful articles appeared
about “Homeland,” one by Patricia
McCarthy
on American Thinker, “Uh-oh, Homeland:
Hillary Lost! Now what?
“ from April 11th, and by M.G. Oprea on the
Federalist site on April 7th,  ’Homeland’
Actor: The Real ‘Guilty Ones’ this Season are White Men, Not Islamic
Terrorists.
Both writers detail how a
hit show has succumbed to political correctness in its story to become drearily
boring and predictable. Political correctness, subtly or blatantly, has been
damning up its own mosquito-infested, “drainable” Swamp for decades, since
before WWII.
McCarthy
begins with an ominous warning:
The
writers of Homeland, Season 6, obviously were so confident that Hillary
Clinton was going to be the next president that their new narrative had a
female Democratic Party candidate win the election.  Elizabeth Marvel is a
wonderful actress and a pretty fair doppelganger for Hillary Clinton.  But
the writers got it all wrong.
Did
the writers “get it wrong”? Or were they given their marching orders from on
high, after the 2016 election, to rewrite the denouement in Season 6? Just as you
can’t abruptly change a car’s speed from first to third while going at sixty
mph, but not expect the gears to grind and strip and create nasty results.
In
an interview, show creator Alex Gansa revealed that their scripts were by design
following real events, but “five or six episodes had been completed
when the election happened.”  Hillary lost, and they were stuck with
the wrong real-life president-elect….
Suddenly,
the people who have been running the CIA for years, the good guys who were
trying to protect the country, set out to murder the president-elect!  Did
they construct the new direction after Donald Trump won?  The latter must
be true, because the first female president-elect, a Democrat, is by the finale
somehow a female Donald Trump, to be dealt with exactly in the manner the real
left have been behaving since their loss to Trump in November.  Total
derangement…. 
The
writers have inadvertently demonstrated exactly how the left functions, not the
right.  Now that we know that the Obama administration functioned like a
crime syndicate, it is easy to surmise how easily the writers projected these
tactics onto their own characters.  They even created a character
(presumably based on radio conspiracy theorist Alex Jones) who operates a
massive bot organization to propagandize by social media. 
“Inadvertently”? “Unconsciously”? Or
“accidentally on purpose”? If an Antifa thug tosses a rock at a Berkeley
auditorium window to protest the appearance of a scheduled speaker he has been
told not to approve of, is that an inadvertent, unconscious, or incidental
action? To toe the politically correct line is to dilute one’s volition, to rob
it of any power or consequence, to reduce oneself to the level of a kneejerk
village idiot who believes anything anyone tells him. The only realm of
volition an

Antifa thug can exercise is initiating physical force. Yes, that is
how the left functions.

Mandy Patinkin, who has played Saul
Berenson from the beginning,  Carrie’s father-figure and mentor, was
interviewed on NPR and, as M.G. Oprea explains, admits to and totally
supports the guilt-driven narrative shift.  Who knew he was such an
abject moonbat?  Probably lots of people.  And he plays one of the
good guys!  But as Oprea writes, “[a]ctors tend to think they are the only ones
with the knowledge and power to speak the truth about the injustices in our
country and the world at large, that they are our last great hope.” 
She goes on: “But they aren’t.  They are entertainers and, much more
rarely, artists.”
Later in column:
“Homeland’s”
season six finale will air on Sunday night. If you’re like me, at this point
you couldn’t care less. That’s because the show has taken such a sudden turn
toward political preaching and progressive tut-tutting that its story and
characters barely resemble those of the previous five seasons. If you’ve been
wondering what on earth happened, wonder no more.
On
Thursday, the actor who plays Saul Berenson, Mandy Patinkin, explained
everything on NPR. In an interview
with “Here & Now’s” Jeremy Hobson, Patinkin discusses past accusations that
the show is Islamophobic. He says that although the “Homeland” crew never meant
to be Islamophobic, and certainly didn’t expect that kind of criticism, it is
nevertheless true. According to him, the show became “part of the problem of
the Islamophobia.”
To correct the “problem of
Islamophobia,” it was decided to “back-pedal” to insanity, to lose one’s
balance, and fall gracelessly into a ditch. Who voiced the “accusations”? Muslims?
John Espiosito, Professor
of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies at Georgetown
University? He’s had plenty
to say
about “islamophobia.”
John Esposito, the Saudi-funded
director of Georgetown University’s Bridge
Initiative
, is on a mission to convince the world that “Islamophobia
has metastasized” as a “social cancer in America” one academic
conference at a time. Speaking alongside his protégé, Dalia
Mogahed
, Bridge Initiative Senior Fellow Engy Abdelkader,
and others at the September 22 “Islamophobia
in Focus: Muslims and the Media
” conference in Washington, DC, the
notorious Islamism
apologist
pitched this message to an audience of about 130.
What mere TV writer for a spy-thriller can
ignore the condemnation of such a high level academic?

The U.S. State Department throws
the hero to the Islamic wolves.
Oprea
offers some further insights.
Political propaganda makes for terrible
entertainment. High-quality television of the sort we’ve come to expect from
Showtime is supposed to present its viewers with a compelling narrative, not
scold them over their supposed beliefs and concerns. That is not why most
people watch television. They watch it to be entertained.
Actors want to believe they are somehow the
heroes of our culture. Patinkin said in his NPR interview that the “system of
false information and truth that has seemed to take over the focus of the show
is so horrifyingly important to bear witness to.” Actors tend to think they are
the only ones with the knowledge and power to speak the truth about the injustices
in our country and the world at large, that they are our last great hope.
But they
aren’t. They are entertainers and, much more rarely, artists. An entertainer’s
job is to entertain, not to preach. An artist’s job is to tell us something
compelling about what it means to be human, not spew political propaganda.
[Italics mine]

“Concerned Citizens” attempt to
delegitimize the hero
An entertainer can be a fellow who mimes or
who juggles four or five balls for the “entertainment” of people standing in a
long line to see a hit movie. Or it can be Laurence Olivier delivering
his Richard the Third speech.
I’ve always had a problem with the term entertainment. One can be “entertained”
at a circus or by a mime pretending to be in an imaginary space, and that will
be the end of it. But to listen to and watch Olivier “decamp on his deformities”
and plot murder is more than entertainment; it is “educational.” It’s a moment
that imprints itself in one’s mind as a glimpse into the soul of an envious,
vicious power-luster. Olivier was an artist. There used to be many talented
actors who were also artists. But where in the realm of “entertainment” can one
segregate it from memorable

The hero investigates academic fraud


artistry?

They are entertainers and, much more rarely,
artists. An entertainer’s job is to entertain, not to preach. An artist’s job
is to tell us something compelling about what it means to be human, not spew
political propaganda.
So, there it is. “Homeland’s” monumental
shift in narrative and tone this season wasn’t an accident. It was a 100
percent intentional effort to atone for the show’s previous sins. But the
self-flagellation is so heavy handed, and such a departure from previous
seasons, that it’s jarring for the viewer. It’s also boring.
”Political propaganda makes for terrible
entertainment,” noted Oprea.
Not necessarily. Some of the most dramatic
films I’ve seen have been “political propaganda.” Orwell once wrote a highly
readable collection of essays: “All
Art is Propaganda
.” I disagree with that estimate, because much art isn’t
an attempt to advance a political view, but rather to communicate an esthetic
or dramatic value.
Many of my novels only seem to reflect a
political viewpoint. An early one, We
Three Kings
, pits an American entrepreneur in America against a Saudi
prince. The hero has been abandoned by the State Department to allow the
vengeful prince to deal with the hero as he wishes. The hero has no recourse
but to retaliate against the violence visited on him and his friends.

The hero has a violent encounter
with the Muslim Brotherhood
My Cyrus Skeen detective series, set in the
1920s and 1930s, often sees Skeen launched into an unavoidable political
contest, as in Civic
Affairs
, A
Crimson Overture
, and Wintery
Discontent
. Speaking of Islamophobia, Skeen encounters the early agents
of the Muslim
Brotherhood
in The
Black Stone
. Because Skeen is a thinking, well-read detective, he is also
drawn into solving murders
and mysteries set in academia, such as in Trichotomy.


Skeen “inadvertently” (or coincidentally)
projects in the narrative particular political developments that will come to pass
in the future. Many of the forces that engage him in conflict are invariably
political ones. My latest novel, Celebrity
News
, could be taken as an allegory on the current campaign to discredit
and
delegitimize Donald Trump.
Of course, none of my titles has ever been
produced for TV or the big screen, and I doubt that, given the state of Hollywood,
any will ever will be. Hollywood has taken a journey to the dark side of “entertainment,”
that is, it has embarked on an Islamophilac hijrah
to ensure that Islam and Muslims are never again blasphemed or offended.

An Unnecessary Dichotomy

Even for someone who
has experienced – nay, endured the
rigors and brutality of Islamic “culture,” such as Ayaan HIrsi Ali – it may
be difficult for that person to condemn the ideology-cum-religion of Islam and
disown it as thoroughly and finally as one can Nazism or Communism, regardless
of how Islam affected that person’s life, publicly and personally. However, one
can “disown” Islam yet some emotional connection to it may linger, like a virus
that may lay dormant for decades and then begin to affect one’s thinking and
actions.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali


That state of
lingering belief is utterly alien to me; I have been a committed, conscious
atheist since my mid-teens. I dismiss all religious systems, dogmas, and tracts.
Having been raised in the Catholic religion, I have never been tempted to find
a replacement or substitute for it. Paraphrasing the American patriot Ethan Allen, reason,
then and now, has been to and for me the only “Oracle of Man,” not Christ or
Moses, and certainly not Mohammad. Allen’s arguments against superstition are
not mine; I rejected God and other ethereal deities, regardless of their names,
for two reasons: their metaphysical impossibility, and for moral reasons of
rejecting the power and influence of a “higher” authority over my existence and
mind.
The lingering need
of a person for a “higher” authority will cause him to sooner or later embark
on a project of reclamation of, say, Islam, that will be at dramatic odds with a
past record and stature as a critic of Islam, failing to realize that to
criticize Islam is not enough. It must be repudiated wholesale; as in Nazism
and Communism, there are no “redeeming” features in Islam.
I have said it many
times before, in past columns over the years; Islam must be refuted and
repudiated “root,
branch, and twig
.” There is no middle, reconciliatory ground to be advanced,
argued, and promoted; the whole ideology must be tossed onto an intellectual
bonfire with no regrets or personal recriminations or sense of loss. As an
active “religion,” it must be reduced to ashes.
It doesn’t matter
that, as an ideology, Islam is somewhat schizophrenic, exhibiting on one hand a
“nice,” laid-back, wouldn’t-hurt-a-fly persona
among the rank-and-file, non-jihadist Muslims, and on the other a mean, vile,
vindictive, homicidal, and consistently destructive persona in actions dedicated to conquest and destruction for the
sake of destruction among the “fundamentalists.”
Granted, that religion, as a measure of
moral guidance, has had a grip on man since the dawn of history, and even
before when man first began carving or painting symbols and ideograms on stone
tablets or on cave walls. Religion, as author/philosopher Ayn Rand has put it,
is a primitive form of philosophy. She wrote that religion demands:
“…blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to,
the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is
extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must
remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts
to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life
and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or
developed enough to have philosophy.
A clinging fealty to or respect for some
religious belief, then, in spite of the outrages to which Ayaan Hirsi Ali was
subjected by Islam in her life, including a perpetual death fatwa on her, drew
her to attempt to salvage Islam in a Hoover
Institution
paper published in March 2017, “The
Challenge of Dawa: Political Islam Ideology and Movement and How to Counter
.”
  It is in three versions: a printable,
closely packed version
; a longer PDF
of it; and a shorter, excerpted version published on March 20th in the Wall
Street Journal, “Why Islam
Needs a Reformation
.” A byline at the end of the Wall Street Journal
article reads:
This essay is adapted from Ms.
Hirsi Ali’s new book, “Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now,”
to be published Tuesday by HarperCollins….Her previous books include “Infidel” and “Nomad: From Islam to America, A Personal
Journey Through the Clash of Civilizatio
ns
.”
The contents in the three versions
differ negligibly. The paper is her solution to eventually ending the
“civilizational” conflict between the West and Islam, so that Islam can truly
be a “religion
of peace
,” at least as
the West understands
the term. The
Muslim Brotherhood
would contest Hirsi Ali’s contention that Islam can be a
bonafide “religion of peace.”
“The process
of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The
Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in
eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and
’sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers
so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other
religions.”

Germany, 1928: Mohammed on his flying horse:
an ad for Justus von Liebig’s Extract
of Meat (Spam). From a time when images of
Mohammed were no big deal. Muslims did not
protest or go on killing rampages.


That is, when it has attained “peace.” Islamic
fundamentalists wish to establish the same political power as the Church
enjoyed for centuries in Europe, in the form of a caliphate.

Only twice in any
version of her paper does Hirsi Ali mention the Brotherhood, and never once the
1991
Explanatory Memorandum
that details how Islam can conquer the U.S.
Hirsi Ali begins her Hoover paper with:
I argue that
the American public urgently needs to be educated about both the ideology of
political Islam and the organizational infrastructure called dawa that
Islamists use to inspire, indoctrinate, recruit, finance, and mobilize those
Muslims whom they win over to their cause.
There is no
point in denying that this ideology has its foundation in Islamic doctrine.
However, “Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Muslims” are distinct concepts. Not all
Muslims are Islamists, let alone violent, though all Islamists—including those
who use violence—are Muslims. I believe the religion of Islam itself is indeed
capable of reformation, if only to distinguish it more clearly from the
political ideology of Islamism. But that task of reform can only be carried out
by Muslims. Happily, there is a growing number of reformist Muslims. Part of
the Trump administration’s strategy must be to support and empower them.
Not so happily, Trump has selected as his intelligence
advisors some individuals, chiefly Sebastian
Gorka
, Lt.
General H.R. McMaster
, and retired General James
Mattis
as Secretary of Defense, who shy away from saying that the U.S. is
at war with Islam. Hirsi Ali continues:
The other
part of the strategy requires confronting dawa,
a term unfamiliar to Americans. Dawa as practiced by radical Islamists employs
a wide range of mechanisms to advance their goal of imposing Islamic law (Sharia)
on society. This includes proselytizing but extends beyond that. In Western
countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to
instill Islamist views in existing Muslims. The ultimate goal of dawa is to
destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with the
rule of Sharia law.
In “How to
Counter Political Islam
,” Hirsi Ali writes:
It cannot be
said often enough
that the United States is not at war with Islam or with
Muslims. It is, however, bound to resist the political aspirations of Medina
Muslims where those pose a direct threat to our civil and political liberties.
It is also bound to ensure that Mecca Muslims and reforming Muslims enjoy the
same protections as members of other religious communities who accept the
fundamental principles of a free society. That includes protection from the
tactics of intimidation that are so central to the ideology and practice of
political Islam.
What are Mecca Muslims and Medina Muslims? In the Wall
Street Journal article, and in the other versions of her paper, she makes the
differentiation:
In the
early days of Islam
, when Muhammad was going from door to door in Mecca
trying to persuade the polytheists to abandon their idols of worship, he was inviting
them to accept that there was no god but Allah and that he was Allah’s
messenger.
After 10
years of trying this kind of persuasion, however, he and his small band of
believers went to Medina, and from that moment, Muhammad’s mission took on a
political dimension. Unbelievers were still invited to submit to Allah, but
after Medina, they were attacked if they refused. If defeated, they were given
the option to convert or to die. (Jews and Christians could retain their faith
if they submitted to paying a special tax.)
If they weren’t first beheaded and slaughtered, and their
wives and other female relatives taken into sexual slavery.
Her chief argument on how to defeat “political” Islam is to
identify two different manifestations of Islam. Meccan Muslims can be characterized
as peaceful Mormon or Jehovah’s Witnesses doing door-to-door missionary work.
Medina Muslims are the ones who break down the doors.
But Islam is nothing if not “political.” It governs
virtually every facet of an individual Muslim’s life. Islam Today emphasizes
the “peaceful” character of Islam.
So we must ask our question again: What does Allah
want from me as a Muslim in my dealings with others? To answer this question,
we must return to the Qur’an and Sunnah. When we do, we find there can be no
doubt that the texts point us to at least two types of concerns. First, it is
obvious that we are supposed to propagate the faith and convey the message of
Islam to others. There are many verses of the Qur’an and Prophetic hadith that
call us to this duty. However, that is not all. There are also numerous texts
that call upon us to serve humanity. How often are we told to respect, honor,
and assist others? These texts help us to complete the picture of how we are
expected to worship Allah in our daily lives.
The Mecca-Medina
dichotomy concocted by AHA demonstrates how far “south” she has gone,
making a completely artificial distinction between “moderate” Muslims and
“radical” or “extremist” Muslims.
The “peaceful” Islam is also
altruistic, as altruistic as Christianity:
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
said: “Whoever is engaged in fulfilling his brother’s needs, then Allah will be
fulfilling his needs.” [Sahīh al-Bukhārī]

Likewise, he said: “Allah loves best the one who benefits people the most. The
most beloved deed to Allah is to make a Muslim happy, remove his distress, pay
off his debt, or placate his hunger. For me to go forth in fulfilling my brother’s
need is dearer to me than to observe a retreat in this mosque (in Madinah) for
worship for a month… And whoever goes forth to fulfil his brother’s need
until it is taken care of, then Allah will make his feet tread steadily on that
Day when feet will slip.” [al-Silsilah al-Sahihah]

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is also reported to have said: “Whoever
goes forth to fulfil his brother’s need and makes headway in fulfilling that
need, it is better than observing a retreat in the mosque for ten years.” [al-Tabarānī,
al-Bayhaqī and al-Hākim]
The Gatestone
Institute
, on the other hand, in June 2013, reported an interesting
observation by an Australian journalist:
Recently, Mark Durie’s article
highlights the efforts of the journalist Paul Sheehan, reflecting on the
Woolwich beheading of Drummer Lee Rigby, and invited consideration of the view
of Muslim violence in authoritative Islamic texts. In the Sydney Morning
Herald
of May 27, 2013, Sheehan observed that the Koran and the teachings
of Muhammad seem to be a factor behind Muslim violence, and offered these critical observations:
·        
Many
violent attacks on civilians are done in the name of Islam.
·        
The
existence of violent Islamic sectarian conflict and the repression of religious
dissent in Muslim nations give the lie to the “absurd claim” that
Islam is “the religion of peace.”
·        
Many
verses in the Koran call for violence against unbelievers, and these are
invoked by Muslims who murder others: “So many Muslims have been
encouraged to murder civilians by such exhortations that the rate of violent
incidents perpetrated in the name of Islam is staggering, a toll that shows no
sign of subsiding.”
A
rejoinder was published the next day by Associate Professor Mohamad Abdalla,
founding director of the Islamic Research Unit at Griffith University in
Queensland, Australia. Abdalla rejected the proposition that Islam supports
killing innocent people: “A contextual reading of the Koran or Hadith
leads to one conclusion only: there is no justification for killing of innocent
people…”
It all depends on “context,”
explains Abdalla. But the context is that of 1400 years ago.
It also needs to be understood that
radical jihadis themselves use a contextual model to interpret the Koran: they
do not simply rely on context-free interpretations or on proof-texts — quotes
taken out of context to support an argument. The Bin Ladins of the world — and
theologians such as Sayyid Qutb who paved the way for them — have been more
than familiar with interpretive tools such as the “context” of
revelation, “abrogation,” or the life of Muhammad. Such subjects are
on the curriculum in the jihad factories.
What is disappointing about
Abdalla’s article is that the very texts he refers to only get worse when their
context is taken into account. For example, he criticizes Sheehan for citing a
passage from the second chapter of the Koran: “And slay them wherever ye
find them …” Abdalla writes:
Let us take a closer look at these six
verses, with the help of a great Muslim scholar, Ibn Kathir,
whose commentary on the Koran has been translated into English, and is widely
respected and read today by Muslims around the world. (The reader can examine
the relevant part of the commentary here.)
First, here are the verses from the
second chapter of the Koran:
190. And fight in the way of Allah
those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the
transgressors.
191. And kill them wherever you find
them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is
worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram (the
sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack
you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
192. But if they cease, then Allah
is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
193. And fight them until there is
no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and the
religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone). But if they
cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimin (the polytheists
and wrongdoers).
194. The sacred month is for the
sacred month, and for the prohibited things, there is the Law of equality
(Qisas). Then whoever transgresses against you, you transgress likewise against
him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqin.
195. And spend in the cause of Allah
and do not throw yourselves into destruction, and do good. Truly, Allah loves
Al-Muhsinin (those who do good).[Parentheses in the text.]
What is the context of this passage?
It dates from the early Medinan period, when Allah had given permission to
Muslims to fight against those who fought them: “fight in the way of Allah
those who fight you, but transgress not the limits.” (2:190) Abdalla is
correct when he says that the phrase “slay them wherever you find
them” (2:191) refers to fighting against those who fight Muslims: it is
not a universal command to kill noncombatants or innocent people. Yet there is
more to be said.
Ironically, verse 190 was one of the
passages invoked by Michael Adebolajo, the killer of Drummer Lee Rigby, when he said: “we are forced by the Quran … through many,
many ayah [verses] throughout the Koran that we must fight them as
they fight us
.” [Emphasis added.]
So much would need to be gutted from
a “reformed,” rewritten Koran for a
“reformed” Islam that, as a prescription for living the “good life,” it would
be reduced to the level of “Eat your vegetables” and “Wash behind your ears.”
Observing in all three versions that
the jihadists are seeking to impose the 7th Century vision of Islam on the
world, in the Wall Street
Journal
version of her paper, Hirsi Ali writes:
…The
Mecca Muslims have a problem: Their religious beliefs exist in an uneasy
tension with modernity—the complex of economic, cultural and political
innovations that not only reshaped the Western world but also dramatically
transformed the developing world as the West exported it. The rational, secular
and individualistic values of modernity are fundamentally corrosive of
traditional societies, especially hierarchies based on gender, age and inherited
status.
Trapped
between two worlds of belief and experience, these Muslims are engaged in a
daily struggle to adhere to Islam in the context of a society that challenges
their values and beliefs at every turn. Many are able to resolve this tension
only by withdrawing into self-enclosed (and increasingly self-governing)
enclaves. This is called cocooning, a practice whereby Muslim immigrants
attempt to wall off outside influences, permitting only an Islamic education
for their children and disengaging from the wider non-Muslim community.
It is my hope to engage this second
group of Muslims—those closer to Mecca than to Medina—in a dialogue about the
meaning and practice of their faith…..
Hirsi Ali lists the principal
attributes of the Koran that must be
amended or discarded if Islam is to be reformed:
I have identified five precepts
central to Islam that have made it resistant to historical change and
adaptation. Only when the harmfulness of these ideas are recognized and they
are repudiated will a true Muslim Reformation have been achieved. Here are the
five areas that require amendment:
1. Muhammad’s semi-divine status,
along with the literalist reading of the Quran.

Muhammad should not be seen as infallible, let alone as a source of divine
writ. He should be seen as a historical figure who united the Arab tribes in a
premodern context that cannot be replicated in the 21st century. And although
Islam maintains that the Quran is the literal word of Allah, it is, in
historical reality, a book that was shaped by human hands. Large parts of the
Quran simply reflect the tribal values of the 7th-century Arabian context from
which it emerged. The Quran’s eternal spiritual values must be separated from
the cultural accidents of the place and time of its birth.
2.
The supremacy of life after death.
The appeal of martyrdom will fade
only when Muslims assign a greater value to the rewards of this life than to
those promised in the hereafter.
3.
Shariah, the vast body of religious legislation.
Muslims should learn to put the
dynamic, evolving laws made by human beings above those aspects of Shariah that
are violent, intolerant or anachronistic.
4.
The right of individual Muslims to enforce Islamic law.
There is no room in the modern world
for religious police, vigilantes and politically empowered clerics..
5.
The imperative to wage jihad, or holy war.
Islam must become a true religion of
peace, which means rejecting the imposition of religion by the sword.
Hirsi Ali concludes:
I
know that this argument will make many Muslims uncomfortable. Some are bound to
be offended by my proposed amendments. Others will contend that I am not
qualified to discuss these complex issues of theology and law. I am also
afraid—genuinely afraid—that it will make a few Muslims even more eager to
silence me.
In conclusion, I frankly do not care
if Muslims can ever establish a “reformed” Islam – which I doubt they will —
no more than I care if a Christian ever experiences “rapture” or divination.
Doubtless, Hirsi Ali will find some reform-minded Muslims who will work with
her to try to strip Islam of its pernicious and aggressive political character.
That would make Islam as anemic and impotent as Scientology.
What I do care about is whether or
not our political leaders can grasp Islam by its fundamentals and understand
that they must fight Islam – to defeat it. To burn it to ashes. Or at least is
forced to retreat permanently into the dank, unhealthy hole from which it has
emerged.
Before it triumphs by default and defeats the West.

Stuff and Nonsense

I think one of the most astounding, arguably dense articles to
be published anywhere on the issue of censorship vs. freedom of speech was published
in one of the most unlikely quarters of the world, New Zealand. A correspondent
sent me the text and link to an article titled: “Want
equality? Curtail free speech
.” It was written for “Stuff” by a fellow by
the name of Jacob Van De Visser. “Stuff” was described by the correspondent, Lindsay Perigo, as IslmoMarxist.

A New Zealand kiwi’s
impersonation of a golden eagle.

 

Freedom of Speech? Stuff and nonsense! It’s a short article, so,
instead of beginning with my own comments, I’ve reproduced the article here so
you can guffaw or be astonished as you will. Mr. Perigo, in his own remarks, wondered
if the piece was tongue-in-cheek satire because it is so blatantly irrational
and hostile to freedom of speech 
I’m not certain of its sincerity, either, but given the
avalanche of anti-speech articles and the ubiquity of actions that have taken
place before and after Donald Trump’s election (see the Gatestone
column here about American campuses opposing or shutting down speech, except
that which doesn’t violate student “safe
spaces
”) in November 2016, together with the tone and content of Stuff’s
other articles, it is wholly consistent with the irrationality of what is
occurring in the West.

The Stuff article begins here.
 

It’s time for New
Zealand to criminalize Islamophobia!
On
March 23, New Zealand awoke to the horrific news of yet another terrorist attack, this time in London.
A
deranged individual ploughed a car
into innocent pedestrians and brutally stabbed a police officer to death before
being shot. Five people died, including the attacker. [Italics mine]
The
Twittersphere was soon abuzz with conjecture and accusation. Who was to blame?
What were the motives?
I
felt sick as I read comments saying “Islam is to blame” and “it must be another
Muslim”.
The
fact that the attacker was a Muslim is irrelevant. The issue is that
Islamophobia was the first response.
If you are a Muslim, you continually have
to defend your faith against people who accuse it of being a dangerous and
violent set of ideas. Islam is the religion of peace; anyone who understands
this knows it has no part in the ideology of ISIS.
Life
is a constant fight for other minorities, too.
If you
are a member of the LGBTQAA+ community, you must battle for your rights. You
are forced to choose from just two bathroom choices when often you don’t fit
either. Workplaces often fail to be inclusive to this community, refusing them
places in the boardroom.
If you
are a woman, trans or otherwise, there is no escape from rape culture. On any
given day you might hear a rape joke, or be given a “compliment” such as being
asked for your number by a stranger. The men who make these comments defend
them as harmless, but unwanted harassment can trigger harmful flashbacks to
previous similar incidents or experiences of sexual assault.
The
misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic hate speech directed at
oppressed groups is damaging to society – and with the rise of Donald Trump’s
brand of politics, it is also being legitimised.
So,
what does this have to do with free speech? And how might things change for the
better?
Well,
there is some hope. The Canadian parliament has passed the M-103
motion,
which calls on the government to condemn
Islamophobia
. It is the silver lining of a dark and depressing cloud, and
it is something I think New Zealand should seek to not only emulate but
improve.
Our
Government should look to criminalise not only Islamophobia, but racist
rhetoric and the criticism of feminism and LGBTQAA+ rights.
Free
speech is all well and good, but it should not be defended at the expense of
minority groups.
Nothing
quells fear and hatred like making it illegal, and if we stop opposing
progressive values then surely the constant fighting will stop too.
New
Zealand is not a place of tolerance at the moment, but I believe if we curtail
free speech, we will be on the path to a fairer future. 

The Stuff article ends here.
 

No hablar Kiwi, dice el
gamberro M13.

¿Quieres drogas?  ¡Soy tu hombre!

To make a solid argument for
something, one must connect the dots. But the dots in the minds of anti-freedom
of speech advocates are all over the map, unconnected (or disconnected,
assuming there were once brains in which dots could be severed). The mind of an
“anti-fascist” activist visually resembles a Jackson Pollock canvas. It is
not for nothing that militant groups, such as Antifa,
protest what they call “fascism” by adopting the tactics of demonstrably fascist
thugs. It is, again, Soros-Speak. Or, Hillary-Speak.

“We must censor
freedom of speech in order to protect it.” Or:”We must censor the Internet in order to protect
it.” This is George Soros-Speak; in order to create an “open society,” which would
be closed to anyone who values his freedom of speech and freedom, certain types
of speech must suppressed, banned, or punished. In 2011,
Hillary Clinton’s
prescription
for suppressing “offensive” or “hate” speech would be to “shame”
it if not outright obliterate
the First Amendment
. Mr. Van De Visser’s Stuff article, in language and in
tone, could well have been written while he snorted up his sleeve, but it could
as well have been a paper submitted  for
discussion by The
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)
, an office
within the OSCE  (The Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)  that claims to be dedicated to democratic
elections, respect for human rights, rule of law, tolerance, and
non-discrimination.

M13 gangsters react to freedom of speech.

Or are they Maori copycatting M13 criminals?

Their stated overall objective is helping governments
protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and tolerance and
non-discrimination, as well as to improve and strengthen democratic practices
and institutions. Except that the actual theme of the two-day proceedings had a
lot more to do with countering ‘hate crime,’ criminalizing ‘hate speech,’ and
demonizing ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Islamophobes’ than it did with genuinely
championing the right to believe, live, and speak freely.
I’ll let Mr. Perigo have the nearly
last word:
Good that the real fascists are
coming out of the closet. Having been shrieked down by hysterical Muslims at
Auckland University last year I know just what a menace to free speech they and
their fellow-travellers are. At least the writer of this piece, assuming it
isn’t a satire on Political Correctness, is honest.
Anymore, it’s
difficult to distinguish between satirical writing and serious polemics.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén