The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: May 2017

Merkel’s Own Kool-Aid: Beer


Our
“Destiny”?   As Europeans? Angela Merkel’s
brain is on some kind of drug. Perhaps she should also lay off the quart-sized glasses
of Bavarian suds.
The
New York Post’s story “Merkel: Europe can’t rely on
allies anymore
” of May 28th reported:
Just days after President Trump lectured NATO members about
ponying up more money
for defense , German leader Angela Merkel said Europe
could no
longer count on its allies
.
“The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way
out,” Merkel said during an appearance at a beer tent in Munich on Sunday.
“I’ve experienced that in the last few days.”
“But we have to know that we must fight for our future on our own, for
our destiny as Europeans,” she added.
Oh,
yes. The plentiful times when Europe could mooch on the U.S. are past. But is
Europe’s future to be a European one or an Islamic one? Germany and other
European governments want to ensure that the transition from European to Islamic
submission is smooth without any speed bumps that would frustrate the
conquerors.  
The
Daily Caller reported on May 19th, “Germany
Considers Million Dollar Hate Speech Fines
”:
The German parliament is debating a proposal to force social media
platforms to either delete hate speech quickly or risk hefty fines.
The problems that many critics point out are the vague definitions of the
term “hate speech” and the restrictions that the proposed law may have on
freedom of speech. Justice Minister Heiko Maas disagrees, arguing it will only
help protect freedom of speech in Germany.
“The point of the proposed legislation is that statements that violate
the law must be deleted,” Maas, a Social Democrat, said Friday, according to Deutsche Welle. “These are not
examples of freedom of speech. They’re attacks on freedom of speech. The worst
danger to freedom of speech is a situation where threats go unpunished.”
Flagrant violations need to be removed within 24 hours while more complex
cases have to be removed within one week, according to the proposal. Failure to
remove posts may result in fines of up to 50 million euros ($56 million dollars).

Coming to your neighborhood, thanks to
Resettlement NGOs and Christian charities, which
work together to facilitate a barbarian invasion and
introduce you to diversity.

Because,
after all, who’s going to hold up all “Refugees Welcome” signs to greet the boatloads
and swarms of middle-aged Muslims of virtually every hue and color when they
step into your life to  infest your town
and city and countryside? We’ve got to shut the Islamophobes,  malcontents up and make sure they don’t offend
our new citizens! Put a premium on their “free speech.” Make them pay, block
their speech, delete it! “After all, we, the European elites won’t have to live
with the consequences of our immigration policies. We have protection! We live
in gated communities. You the hoi polloi
don’t! Misstep or one bad word, and you spend
a night in the box
! Don’t like it? Tough! We’re here to protect you!”
They
live comfortable and risk-free lives – except for the really dhimmified
morons
who don’t mind having their daughters and wives raped and murdered:
The perpetrator is a
17-year-old Afghan asylum seeker
The search
for the culprit is finally over : A 17-year-old Afghan was due to one
belonging to him black scarf, its probably refugee helpers donated bicycle and a black hair, which lay
in the riverbed, converted and finally arrested.
Its DNA corresponds to that found in the body of the victim.
The perpetrator was illegally submitted to Germany in
2015 and was one of the so-called unaccompanied minor refugees.
He had already appeared in the context of a fight, but was
not deported.
Mary’s parents collected at
the funeral for a refugee project
At the end of
October, the parents of Maria L., who came from a middle-class academic family,
had a mourning display in the FAZ.
In this,
they wrote that they did not want to get flowers at the burial as usual, but
that the mourners should donate money instead
:
on the one hand for the education work of the Catholic Church in Bangladesh, on
the other
for the association “Weitblick Freiburg eV”.

Out of Africa, Syria, Turkey, etc.:
Muslim Morlock drooling over the body of Europa,
Courtesy of Angela Merkel.

The
German
authorities
will not
release accurate statistics
about the nature and frequency of migrant and especially
Muslim crime in that country. Gates of Vienna reported in April 2017,
Real Crime, Fake News on German Crime Statistics.”
The following video features a press conference held by German Interior
Minister Thomas de Maizière in which he summarizes the country’s crime
statistics for 2016. Mr. de Maizière does his best to spin the facts in such a
way that the “refugees” don’t end up looking quite so criminal, but he can’t
completely hide the reality of the numbers. To mitigate all those embarrassing
un-PC statistics, he makes a point of emphasizing politically motivated
right-wing crime as an important component of the report.
Interesting in this context as well is the blocking
practice of our quality media. One of our readers, J.B., wanted to comment on
de Maizière and the crime statistics at Die Welt. The comment wasn’t
approved. Here’s the comment:
“So, Herr Minister of the Interior. I have taken
it upon myself to work out the crime statistics numbers since 2010. The result:
2010: 5.933M
2011: 5.990M (first light increase after receding stats in the past few years)
2012: 5.997M
2013: 5.961M
2014: 6.082M
2015: 6.330M
2016: 6.372M
German Suspects:
2010: 1.680M
2011: 1.628M
2012: 1.591M
2013: 1.555M
2014: 1.531M
2015: 1.456M
2016: 1.405M
Non-German Suspects:
2010: 0.471M
2011: 0.484M
2012: 0.502M
2013: 0.538M
2014: 0.492M (weird jump downwards…)
2015: 0.555M
2016: 0.616M

Angela Merkel
should lay off the Bavarian suds.
Muslims might
mistake her for a German infidel.

Under it migrants:
2014: 0.059M
2015: 0.114M
2016: 0.174M
In other words, for 2016:
German citizens: 19 Suspects per thousand
Migrants: circa 174 Suspects per thousand
How, therefore, should one assess the statements
by the Minister of the Interior, when he issues a blanket denunciation of the
entire citizenry of Germany? Fake news? Hate speech?
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that the huge number of Muslim
migrants
flooding Europe and Germany represent an “opportunity”.
Here’s what
that opportunity looks

like now
.

Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of Jihad!
Fresh white meat and subsidies for the taking in Europe!
But first have a selfie taken with Ma Merkel!

A mass brawl occurred between refugees from
Afghanistan and Albania. Some 60 refugees went after one another in the camp in
the Wilhelmsburg district on Tuesday evening. Some were armed with iron bars,
also witnesses had testified that a refugee had a firearm, a police spokesman
said.
In Lower Saxony in Braunschweig there was also an
altercation between 300 to 400 refugees between Algerians and Syrians from a
dispute over stolen goods.
In the brawl in Hamburg five refugees were injured,
one got a wound in his arm and had to be hospitalized. Whether they were
stabbed, was initially unclear. The police had deployed a large contingent on
site to separate the warring Afghans and Albanians, said the spokesman. 30
police cars were in use…..
Here’s
what the opportunity looks like. It’s an opportunity for No Go Zones. For
suicide bombings. For organized crime, constant riots and entire neighborhoods
and then cities ruled by Muslim gangs that swiftly evolve into militias just
like they do in the Middle East.
Any brawls reported between
migrants and white Europeans?  Probably
not. White Europeans are not permitted to fight back against their attackers. It’s
a punishable offense, because it would be called “racism.” But the elephant
under the table is that fact that, no matter if it occurs in Rotherham,
Cologne, Manchester, or Paris, Muslims wage their own kind of “race war”
against white Caucasians. I don’t think I’m the first to make and express that
observation.
So, Frau Merkel, how’s
that working out your country’s destiny yourselves working for you? Remember what
your selfie pal said:
“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets,
the minarets our bayonets and the faithful  our soldiers…” ―Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
President of Turkey.

Merkel is
obsessed with having
selfies taken of her with
Muslims  

Did you think
Erdogan was kidding? Breitbart
reported
in February 207:
The 62-year-old German chancellor began her speech by acknowledging that “the European Union right now
is in a very difficult situation due to the result of the British referendum …
which is very regrettable”.
Germany, France,
Sweden, and Belgium and the rest of the European Union need more Morlocks to
make things work! So let them emerge from their dank pestholes and grace us
with their diversity! Morlocks and the Eloi can dance in celebration around a
Maypole….No, wait, dancing and quaffing beer, too, are prohibited in Islam!
Has Merkel ever
clinked glasses of Reinheitsgebot with a Muslim
after another selfie?
Doubtful.

Violent Politics


Progressives and ISIS have
 the same perception of reality as a snake’s.

Try to imagine the metaphysics of a
deadly snake.
Existence exists. You know that. But does a snake?
On
May 18th Tucker Carlson
on Fox Insider News delivered what must be one of the most poignant and
hard-hitting warnings voiced by a newscaster about today’s trend to settling
political disputes with violence. It was a delivery that reflects a cogent,
thinking mind, a virtue we don’t usually associate with TV newscasters:
The
modern left is no longer an ideological movement. Instead it’s an organized
movement around identity politics,” Tucker said on tonight’s show.
He warned that dividing Americans
into “sub-groups” and promoting “tribalism” is dangerous
for our democracy.
He said that modern progressives
don’t want to argue and have a reasonable discussion. They want their
“team” to win, and some of them are willing to use violence to do so,
as we’ve recently seen at protests across the country.
“Violence is what separates
politics from war,” Tucker said. “It’s when hurt feelings become dead
bodies, the point at which countries become ungovernable.”
He noted that he’s recently had
progressives on his program, and when pressed, they refused to condemn
political violence.
He concluded that “we are in
danger” as long as that’s the case.
In truth,
the Progressives and Antifa thugs have no “identity” to speak of. It could be
an amalgam of disparate groups. I am “anti-Trump” and violence is what I do. As Greg
Gutfield
writes, also on Fox:
On its ever changing face,
identity politics seemed pretty innocuous. It’s simply a way of unifying your
demands among a similar group of people. 
We’ve seen it take all shapes:
There’s identity politics based on race, gender, disability and religion. There
are loads of others — some so unusual they beggar belief (there are people who
now identify as animals, for example. Sometimes, I feel that I am one of them).
But as identity politics
expanded, infecting campus life, political agendas and
self-absorbed acceptance speeches at award shows, we saw something strange
and wonderful happen….
2017 may have been that year when
identity politics hit a brick wall, and slumped limply on the pavement.
But what prompts
Progressives and their “foot soldiers” – the ones who riot, destroy property,
shout down speakers with impunity, and physically assault anyone who dissents –
to close their minds to any rational, civil discourse on the issues that seem
to excite them to foam-flecked madness?
I have taken to characterizing
Progressive/University behavior to that of cobras or rattlesnakes. Snakes do
not think; in terms of teleology, they are “programmed” to respond to stimuli
such as heat or a moving body, at which they will strike, to kill and/or
consume. To a predator snake, all moving bodies pose a threat or an opportunity
for a meal. Snakes do not pause to think about the body; there is no appraisal
of it at all. The consciousness of a snake is not volitional. A snake cannot,
by its nature, have values. Progressives champion no fixed ideology but chaos.
They are prime candidates for herpetological study.
But this is what Progressives,
members of Antifa, and so on, have reduced themselves to, making themselves less than
human. If snakes could think or speak, this is what they’d say: “I am a snake,
and this is what I do.” As one correspondent put it:
The point is
that the Left, [including] the nihilists, are ideologically blinded by
intentionally cutting themselves off from reality and the facts. They end up
embracing nonsense because, ideologically, they have no recourse to facts to
sort out what is truth and what is farce, malevolent and otherwise, including
what is just plain silly.

The true symbol of ISIS;
its colors are also Antifa’s.

Snakes cannot know what is silly or
what is not. They are purely reactionary in their behavior. Reality is a
snake’s environment but it is not able to consciously evaluate it. A snake can
be conscious but unconscious of what anything is, including itself. It can only
respond automatically, per its programmed nature. If it grows cold, it will
seek warmth. Not finding warmth, it will die. If it basks on a rock in the sun,
it will seek a cooler place if it grows too hot. Otherwise its programmed
nature compels it to find a cooler spot before it bakes.
Leftists have trained themselves –
by rote, via programming – to respond to specific stimuli. Responding to
stimuli is the only alternative they have left themselves because they have
willingly sabotaged their own minds, or let their teachers determine their
content. They have been assisted in reducing their minds to merely
stimulus-activating vehicles by their Progressive teachers from kindergarten to
graduate school.
They have not been taught how to
think. To think is to evaluate facts. But facts, they have been taught, are
merely socially or racially constructed and are purely arbitrary, and
oppressive, and to be automatically dismissed in favor of action. Facts can be whatever they have been taught is not. The
mind is not volitional, they have been taught by their teachers. The mind is a
product of environmental conditioning. Volition is a racist construct. This is
pure Marxism. There’s no use in asking: But don’t they respond to the evidence
of their senses?
The evidence of their senses no
longer counts for anything. Like many birds, such as parrots or cockatoos, they
will, with repetitive couching, “learn” to produce desired sounds on cue. If a
cockatoo says “Pretty birdie” it doesn’t know the meaning of the words
pronounced by its owner. It’s simply responding to the stimulus of a certain
sound. When an Indian snake charmer produces certain sounds, a cobra simply
responds to a sound that literally means nothing to it, and will rise from a
vase and appear to be mesmerized.
The sound of “Trump  Supporter,” or “Freedom of Speech,” are mere
sounds to them, or it will be simply the sight of a person or a sign that will
“trigger” a violent response. The mere sight of a pro-Trump sign or hat will “trigger”
their attacks. Progressives and Antifa thugs are the ultimate, end results of
Pavlovian experimentation.
Will the Progressives ever abandon or
eschew violence? Disown or reproach any fellow Progressives or nihilists who
resort to it?  Can Progressives and
Antifa thugs be trained not to fly off the handle upon hearing the names of Ann
Coulter, or Milo Yiannopoulos or Heather McDonald?
Can snakes be trained not to
strike? No?
The malevolent, anti-man virus is embedded
so deeply in what passes for their minds, that the next best condition for them
is non-existence, or death.
The Progressives are beyond reason,
beyond reality.
When confronted with their demands,
the best answer would be a resounding “NO!” and if they press the issue with
their  fists, pepper spray, or sticks, is
to retaliate in kind, and make sure they don’t get up again to renew their
assaults.
President Trump got it almost right
in his Riyadh speech to Muslim state leaders:
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (CNN)President
Donald Trump looked to make
clear that the United States is not at war with Islam in a major speech here

on Sunday, instead defining the battle against terrorist groups as a
“battle between good and evil” as he urged Muslim-majority countries
to redouble their counterterrorism efforts.
“This is
not a battle between different faiths, different sects or different
civilizations,” Trump said. “This is a battle between barbaric
criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions
who seek to protect it. This is a battle between good and evil.”
“Drive them
out,” Trump said. “Drive out the terrorists. Drive out the
extremists. Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your
communities. Drive them out of your holy land and drive them out of this
Earth.”

ISIS makes
war on the defenseless. In a
Real war
against us it would lose.

In
one sense, the jihadists are not “losers.” They destroyed the youth and future of
a nation, in the form of the 22 people (I think there were one or two men). The
“grooming” gangs of Britain, which continue raping young British girls
unabated, are a form of jihad, because all of the rapists are Muslims. But the
authorities are reluctant to pursue them lest they be called “racists,” even
though Islam is not a race. Theresa May should face up to that simple logic. But
it’s the groomers who are the racists, because they target British white girls
to reduce them to what they call “slags.” The purpose of the groomers is to
humiliate the victims, to degrade them.
However,
in the larger sense, Trump is right: the jihadists are “losers.” They can only successfully
make war on defenseless civilians, on children, who are unable to fight back. Pitted
against a military that knows how to conduct a war – and we certainly do when
we mean business – they become losers.
But
there is no such thing as Islamic “extremism.” There is only Islam – if Islam is
to be little more than a laughable California fringe cult. Islam commands the
death or maiming of anyone who is not Muslim – such as over a dozen of infidel “Crusaders”
attending a pop singer’s concert (don’t forget the Bataclan massacre and
torture in Paris).
The Islamic State
of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
claimed responsibility for Monday night’s suicide
bombing in a generic statement posted online. CBS News confirmed Tuesday that
the man who blew himself up outside the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester,
England was 22-year-old Salman Abedi, who was known to British authorities
prior to the attack. 

Some of the
Manchester victims; not
exactly “Crusaders”
are they?

The best way to combat snake
attacks is to cut off the snake’s head. The Progressives and their natural
allies, Antifa and similar gangs of thugs are a domestic alliance; ISIS is an international
gang of nihilists that must be erased from the face of the earth; our taking no
prisoners should not  lead to a comfortable
life at Guantanamo. All members of ISIS, if captured, should be executed on the
spot. There isn’t a one who hasn’t boasted of rape, torture, or murder. Not a
one deserves to ever breathe air again.
Pamela
Geller
got it right:
Brace yourself for jihad attack
part two in the information battle-space, as jihad spox groups such as CAIR,
ISNA, MSA, etc. take control of a Sharia-compliant media and proselytize and
lecture us on “fear of reprisals” and “backlashophobia” while clubbing us
bloody with the mind-numbing mantra that “Islam is peace.”
Strike terror
into the hearts of the unbelievers (Quran 8:12)
Therefore
strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them (Quran 8:12)
The Qur’an
guarantees Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (9:111)
Rather: Strike terror into the
hearts of ISIS. And then finish the job.

The Black Stone Excerpted


In
defiance of former President Barack Obama’s September 25th 2012 dictum to the
General Assembly of the United
Nations
that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet
of Islam,” that’s my
cue
to slander, Mohammad, Islamic snowflakes, and Islam. He said more or
less the same in June 2009
in Cairo
during his pontificating, cliché-rich address at Al-Azhar
University, in front of an audience of turbaned and rag-headed Islamic clerics
and officials.
Since
its original publication in 2014, my detective novel, The
Black Stone
, set in San Francisco in 1930, has experienced
continuing sales in its print, Kindle and Audible editions. In terms of
excoriating Islam, however, it was preceded by a suspense novel, We
Three Kings
, set in our time in New York City, in which an American
entrepreneur, Merritt Fury, is thrown to the Saudi wolves who have been granted
carte blanche to deal with him as
they pleased. It was written in 1980 but not published until 2010. It, too, has
enjoyed continuing sales.
While
in We Three Kings the hero knows who
his enemy is, a member of the Wahhabist
Saudi royal family, in The Black Stone
Islam is a new nemesis to the hero, new to the police, new to American politicians,
new to the FBI, new to virtually everyone. 
The Muslim Brotherhood was only a few years old, founded
in 1922
by Hassan al-Banna as a private association of Egyptian Muslims obsessed
with the austere, alleged purity of Islamic doctrine and practice, and was late
in 1928, reorganized into a political organization that has been active in
Egyptian politics since the early 20th century.
As
a relatively new activist organization, the Brotherhood had its tentacles
almost everywhere in Mideast political life. The Brotherhood was hostile to everything
Western to modernization, to living on earth. It is basically a death
cult
. When it speaks of “peace,” it is the quietude of death; that is, it
will bring “peace” to Muslims when they are no longer annoyed by the existence
of infidels, Jews, and other unbelievers and no longer need to wage jihad on Western civilization, which the
Brotherhood wishes
to extinguish
..
Initially
hostile to the Muslim Brotherhood which it regarded as an enemy, Saudi
Arabia
has become its ally
and funder
.
Wahhabism
is named after an eighteenth-century preacher and activist, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).
He started a reform movement in the remote, sparsely populated region of Najd, advocating a
purging of such widespread Sunni practices as the veneration of saints,
the seeking of
their intercession
, and the visiting of their tombs, all of which were practiced
all over the Islamic world, but which he considered idolatry (shirk),
impurities and innovations in Islam (Bid’ah).
Eventually he formed a pact with a local leader Muhammad
bin Saud
offering political obedience and promising that protection and
propagation of the Wahhabi movement mean “power and glory” and rule
of “lands and men.”
I feature the cover of The Black Stone in my December 2015 column, “Islam
in Contemporary Fiction
,” but do not discuss the novel. So, here are some
excerpts
________________________________________________________________________________
At the request of a
local rabbi and scholar, Skeen is investigating the brutal murder of a young
Jewish girl, the client’s daughter. Set in San Francisco, the crime is unlike anything
he’s ever dealt with before. He knows little or nothing about Islam, only that
there are such creatures as “Moslems.” What little he knows he had learned from
newspaper accounts of Moslem atrocities committed on Jews, Armenians, and
Christians in the Middle East. At one point, he is sitting for his wife, Dilys,
an artist, as she sketches him for a planned painting.
            Skeen said, “I’ve been dipping in the Koran.
It’s worse than the Bible in many respects. Utterly schizophrenic in
parts. One moment you’re being urged to behave like St. Francis, and be kind to
all animals, even Jews and other infidels. The next it’s inveighing against
Jews and other infidels, calling for their extermination. It’s beginning to
read like a manual for a career in sadomasochism, authored apparently by a
person currently incarcerated in Sing Sing, and provided with a liberal and
lifetime supply of cannabis or some other hallucinatory pharmaceutical product.
You know, one of those serial killer convicts who finds religion.”
            Dilys said, “Surely you’re exaggerating.”
            Skeen shook his head. “Remember that my sole
encounters with Islam in the past were two of Mr. Winston Churchill’s books about
his experiences in the Sudan and the Indian Northern Frontier in which he
describes Moslems, or Mohammedans, or Muslims and their practices and
fanaticism, then my declining an invitation to join the Ancient Arabic Order of
the Noble Shriners last year – can you picture me wearing a red fez decorated
with mystical symbols? – “
            “No, I couldn’t,” replied Dilys. “And stop
moving your head so much.”
            “—and occasionally passing the Temple Islam on Geary
Street on my usual rounds of investigation.” Skeen paused. “Or is
that the Odd Fellows Hall?”
     

The Walking Dead’s  Negan’s spiritual
ancestor,
Hassan al-Banna, who would also like to
knight
you with a baseball bat sheathed barbed
wire.

       “Sounds as though the Ancient Arabic Order and the
Odd Fellows are connected, and have as much to do with Islam as do the Boy
Scouts.”

            “Anyway, that being my past exposure to Islam,
reading about it in such detail is an eye-opener.”
            “Move your head, please, to the right, just a
smidgen.”
            Skeen obliged. “In the one Philby book I discovered
the Saudi Ikhwan – “
            “The icky one?” asked Dilys, pausing to
scrutinize her husband’s face for a moment.
            “The Ikhwan,” repeated Skeen, spelling
the term. “Plural for Moslem ‘brothers.’ Tribal allies of this Saudi king.
They’re Wahhabists, sticklers for pure Islam.”
            Again, Dilys looked incredulous. “Wahhabists? As in
the Wabash River? Or should it be the Swanee?”
            “No, not quite. I’m not sure of how to pronounce it,
either. Say! I think I’ll use that phrase of yours the next time anyone asks me
about the Ikhwan.”
            “What phrase?”
            “The icky ones.”
            Dilys shrugged. “I thought that was what you said.
You’re welcome to it.”
            “According to Philby and Picket, they’re first-class
throat cutters. Very similar to the Thugees of India, who were stranglers.”
Skeen chuckled. “That would be a sight. Allah versus Kali. More
interesting than both Dempsey-Tunney fights. Kali, you see, would have twice
the punching power.”
            “Why?”
            “She’d have four arms. She could deliver a double
sucker punch. I wouldn’t put my money on Allah.”
            “I’m not a betting woman.”
            Skeen paused before replying. “You bet on me.”
            Dilys shook her head. “No, I didn’t. I set my cap
for you the moment I laid eyes on you.” She sighed. “I’m finished
here. You can go back to your icky ones and the Wabashites.”
At
another point in the story, Dilys and Skeen are having breakfast:
“Did you know,” Skeen asked
casually over breakfast the next morning, “that Mohammedans, when they go
on a pilgrimage to Mecca, must walk counter-clockwise around the Kaaba seven
times, and run between some hills looking for water, and perform a schedule of
other rituals, all designed to make them feel like silly, worthless asses?”
 “Kaaba?” asked Dilys, who was paying
only half attention to her husband. “Sounds like a Greek dish, smothered
in the finest feta cheese sauce, and best served with ouzo.” She was
reading the morning Observer-World. She had fixed a breakfast of scrambled
eggs, bacon, and toast. Skeen had just poured himself a second coffee and was
on his first cigarette of the day. He was reading from notes he had made last
night in his study and had passed the newspaper over to Dilys.
“The Kaaba,” read Skeen, “is
a cube-like structure smack in the middle of an open-air mosque about the size of
Kezar Stadium, about forty-four feet high and fifty in length. Other scholars
reverse the dimensions. It is built of granite on the outside, marble on the
inside. It sits on a spot, according to Mohammedan lore, that Allah designated
that Adam and Eve should build a temple, or an altar.” Skeen paused.
“Of course, that story must have been concocted after the Kaaba had been a
pagan shrine for an undetermined number of centuries, housing scores of other
deities. Allah’s own genealogical antecedents seem to be rooted in a moon god
of fecundity.”
Dilys looked up from the newspaper.
She said, wearing an incredulous but amused frown, “You’re making that
up.”
Skeen chuckled. “No, I’m not.
It’s all in the encyclopedia.”
Dilys shook her head. “I know
you’re not. Forgive me for saying, but it still sounds like you’re
ad-libbing.”
Skeen smiled wickedly. “Great
material for a stand-up comedy monologue at the Fantasma Theater.” He went
on. “The Kaaba is skirted by an enormous black silk table cloth, with
Koranic verses embroidered in gold, high enough out of reach of light-fingered
pilgrims.” He paused. “Presumably, the roof is bare, but somehow water-proofed.
All in all, the Kaaba that exists today is just one of several that have been
built, destroyed, collapsed by floods, damaged in war, redesigned, and gussied
up ever since it probably began as a stone shanty erected by heathens thousands
of years ago, housing wart-nosed witches they probably called vestal virgins,
visited by decrepit old priests who performed Masonic-like rites over bowls of
foul-smelling incense.”

Not a tea party: Hassan al-Banana, second
from the left.
 “Big
Al” to his fellow fez heads.

Dilys chuckled. “I can just
picture it now. Thousands of the heathen votary doing a syncopated conga around
the place to a mad drum beat. Some cranky old priest on the roof with a
megaphone acts as a cheerleader, prompting them to shout en masse some obscene imprecation in Arabic, or whatever they spoke
back then.” 
“A very fine parody,
darling,” said Skeen, “worthy of Cecil B. DeMille’s talents.” He
continued reading. “Today, observers write, about one hundred thousand
pilgrims perform the Hajj annually.” 
Dilys looked up from the newspaper
again. “Hodge? As in hodge-podge?”
Skeen shrugged. “I suppose so.
Or perhaps it it’s ‘Hadge,’ as in ‘badge.’ There was no pronunciation guide in
the encyclopedia.” He frowned. “As for Mecca, historians and
cartographers aren’t even sure the place existed when the alleged prophet,
Mohammad, or Muhammad, is said to have graced the Kaaba with his presence and
laid the Black Stone. They think it might have been a backwater town, a kind of
camel stop, noted by Ptolemy, called Macoraba. Which, in turn, raises a
question mark over the existence of Mohammad himself. It’s all quite
hilarious.” Skeen put aside his notes. “And that’s all I was able to
glean from my sources here.” He finished his coffee. “I’ll be going
downtown today to find more books on Islam. Care to come along?” 
Dilys shook her head. “No,
thank you. I want to work on ‘Phryne’ and address some issues about her
audience.” She frowned again. “Why this sudden interest in
Islam?”
“Professor Lerner advised me
to look into it.”
Later
in the novel, Skeen discusses Islam and “Moslems” and the murder of a New York
reporter in the city over lunch in a restaurant with Mickey Kane, a local
newspaper reporter.
Skeen said, “I think Moslems
were behind the murders. Or Mohammadans. Muslims. Muhammadans, or
Mahometans. Take your pick.” 
Kane replied, “Now you’ve lost
me. I know nothing about them. How many names do they got anyway?”
“Just those, that I know of. And
I didn’t know much about them or their creed, either, until Professor Lerner suggested
that I read up on Islam, which I did over the weekend. It’s his contention that
the person or persons who killed his daughter were Moslems. Bodily mutilation
is their modus operandi, he said,
when the issue is differences about religion. Sometimes even race. And these
two murders fit it.”
“How so?”
“In the realm of Islamic
justice, a thief’s hand or both hands can be cut off. But Dwyer got the whole
business because he wasn’t a Moslem.
His head was removed, probably while he was still alive.”
“And Rachel Lerner got it
because she was a Jew?”
Skeen nodded. “But whoever was
responsible for Dwyer was after information. Thus the torture. What was his
killer after? Did he succeed in getting what he wanted from Dwyer?”
Their lunches came then. They silently
agreed to discuss other things while they ate. Kane gave Skeen a colorful
description of Klamath Falls (where he had just vacationed). 
Kane finished his sandwich last,
and went for another coffee. When he returned, he asked Skeen, “So, fill
me in on these Mummers.”
Skeen chuckled. “Mohammedans.
Or Moslems. You can look up all the variations at the library.” He lit a
cigarette and briefly described Islam and its fundamental tenets and rules.
Kane looked incredulous, but he
believed what Skeen had told him. “What a bunch of crackers!” he
said. “Do these guys also speak in tongues, and roll on the ground, and
foam at the mouth?”
“They probably speak Arabic,
for starters. At least, that’s what the Koran
is written in, although there’s evidence it was originally penned in Aramaic.
They pray five times a day, on their hands and knees, and bang their foreheads
on the ground or floor. As for foaming at the mouth, that seems to happen when
they’re on the warpath, or beating their wives, or cutting men’s throats.” 
“And this Catawba in Mecca,
these pilgrims run around it seven times and kiss something called the Black
Stone? Is that anything like the Blarney Stone? You kiss it and you’re given
the gift of gab?”
Skeen chuckled again. Kane was just
as amusing as was Dilys. “It’s the Kaaba, and I don’t know of any purpose
in kissing the Stone, other than to prove you have a rock fetish, are not a
little addled, and wish to be in the company of a multitude of fools.”
“Do you think any of these Catawbans
live here?”
Skeen shook his head. “It’s
doubtful.” 
“That Hajj pilgrimage you described: It sounds like one long college
fraternity initiation.”

Partners in Islamic crime: Sayyid Qutb, the
theorist of Islamic purity;
And Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Kane sighed. “Well, I think I’ll read up on
this gang, too. Library, here I come.” He put out his Lucky Strike.
“But where can you take it from here? What can you do about it? I mean,
suppose it wasn’t a genuine Catawban who killed the Lerner girl and Dwyer, but
someone who wants everyone to think it was?”

“It’s a good question, Mickey,
and I don’t have an answer. Not yet, anyway. Perhaps never.”  He paused. “Would you make me a copy of
the Dwyer note?”
“No problem. I’ll send it to
your office later today.” Kane glanced at his watch. He collected the
Dwyer note and returned it to his envelope. “I gotta get back to the
paper. I’m working on a story about a guy who tried to rob a trolley conductor
of his day’s fares yesterday, and got the hell beat out of him.”


_________________________________________________________________________________


More murders are committed, all pointing to Muslims as the
perpetrators, and the murderer himself is murdered to keep him quiet about the
identity of his partners in homicide. By novel’s end Skeen has solved the
crimes, and recovered the priceless relic sought by the Brotherhood
operatives.
It has a just fate in Skeen’s hands. He gives it away to a
bankrupted businessman he encounters near a Depression-era “Hooverville” in the
city.
Enjoy the novel. There’s much more in it.

Monsters are the Real Victims


Norman Bates: Mother or Allah told me to
carve you up.

Some
of you may have observed over the years – perhaps over the decades – that when
Hollywood releases a new monster movie that features rampaging “cage –free”
dinosaurs or other monsters, it is the reptiles and other hostile beasts that get
any sympathetic treatment. It rarely fails, whether it’s Godzilla or
talking simians,
man is usually the offender and sinner. This has been going on for decades,
ever since the first
King Kong
film debuted in 1933 (actually, in literature, since at least the
19th century). It doesn’t seem to matter how horrible (or implausible) the
monster is portrayed –the number of its human victims who are crushed into two
dimensions or torn to pieces or chomped on is immaterial.
Kong escapes and
climbs the Empire State Building, only to fall from the
skyscraper after being attacked by airplanes with guns. Denham [the explorer
character who brings Kong to New York City] comments, “It was beauty
killed the beast,” for he climbs the building in the first place only in
an attempt to protect Ann Darrow, an actress originally offered up to Kong on
Skull Island as a sacrifice.
But
the very first time I saw the film, in an old movie revival house in New York
City years ago (in the 1960s), someone in the audience retorted, angrily and
loudly, “No! You killed him!”
Obviously, that audience member was fascinated by Kong, perhaps even in love
with the idea that Kong was “larger than life” – that is, larger than man. He
had somewhere, somehow, been taught to hold contempt for man and for himself.
That
retort has always stuck in my mind. It was a clue to something larger than a
film about an oversized ape going berserk.

Psycho:
The inspiration behind Muslim stabbing attacks?

The
theme has almost consistently been that when man encounters a monster, it is
man who is responsible for whatever evil or wrong-doing occurs (such as
violently inclement weather, global cooling or warming). It’s that, or he is
responsible for a monster’s existence.  Whether it’s Mary Shelley’s monster,
Frankenstein (“the Creature”), or Godzilla or the Alien or the Predator, or Jurassic Park’s raptors,
the moral motif is that if man is terrorized or defeated by a monster, he
deserves it because he’s “so full of himself.” Man, the theme goes, must be
punished for simply existing and perhaps for just being curious. There is
nothing special about man. He deserves to be reduced from a sentient, rational
being in charge of his actions, his future and his happiness to a shivering gelatin
of protoplasm, or put to death, preferably painfully.
The ostensible monster at large today is Islam.
Islam is a man-created monster. Who or what set it loose to prey
indiscriminately on man? Men created Islam, using the lethal weapon of altruism; the moral
philosophy that it is one’s duty and moral worth, measured by the extent that
one is willing to sacrifice oneself and one’s values, and not only for the
“public good” (unless that includes the Islamic Ummah)
but also because an all-powerful, malicious ghost, Allah, said so. It’s your
duty to become some monster’s meal. That’s why you were created by Allah, to do
his bidding, at his vile whim and pleasure.

The character of
King Kong has become one of the world’s most famous movie icons, having
inspired countless sequels, remakes, spin-offs, imitators, parodies, cartoons,
books, comics, video games, theme park rides, and a stage play. His role in the different
narratives varies, ranging from a rampaging monster to a tragic antihero.
The
antihero archetype
can be traced back as far as Homer‘s Thersites. The concept has also been identified in
classical Greek drama, Roman satire, and Renaissance literature
such as Don Quixote and the picaresque
rogue. Although antiheroes may sometimes do the “right thing”, it is
often because it serves their self-interest rather than being driven by moral
convictions.
What
accounts for the fascination with monsters?

Muslim Aliens want you to make babies with them.
Your gender is irrelevant.

It
can’t just be that we have become so enervated by a culture that offers few
positive, soul-strengthening values that we welcome being scared out of our
wits, or cringing at blood-splattered gore, or seeing the irrational run amok
and triumph. Mary Shelley created the Frankenstein Creature as a literary
challenge
, in 1818, in a time and era, in terms of a cultural spirit, as
far away from our time as earth is from Pluto. The Creature became the subject
of a 15-minute
film
in 1910, not long after the successful debut of Rostand’s Cyrano de
Bergerac
in 1897. Shelley even later penned a novel about a pandemic that
wipes out man, The
Last Man
, set in 2073, surely a pioneer in a the literary and cinematic
genres.
Who
are the real life monsters? Why do they get a sympathetic pass, and not man?

A 1910 movie depiction
of Frankenstein the monster

Aside from Islam, the monster, the predator, the
man-hating and man-eating creature, is any man who says or thinks that man must
sacrifice himself, for the “public good,” or for no reason at all. Ellsworth Toohey
in Ayn Rand’s The
Fountainhead
is a monster. The collectivist, the career altruist, the
jihadist Muslim, is a dedicated antihero. If you are not willing to sacrifice
yourself or your values, the monster will sacrifice you and them for you.
Today, the monster is a Postmodern
nihilist. He is also a member of Antifa,
a consummate and violent movement dedicated to nihilistic chaos for the sake of
permanently disruptive chaos.
But not all monsters look like monsters. Many of
them look like the neighbor downstairs or the Muslim next door. They could look
like Norman Bates of Psycho
or as nondescript as any one of the 9/11 hijackers.
All human monsters are nihilists simpatico
in motive with their celluloid brethren. If

The
9/11 hijackers

they can’t have what you have, or
are unable to achieve a value of their own, they are perfectly willing to
destroy what you have. They are the nihilists who wish to inherit the earth,
but they are neither meek nor humble, as neither Max Cady of Cape Fear
and Preacher Harry Powell of The Night
of the Hunter
were not. They can be shy, retiring, and unassuming, or they
can be as brash, brutal, boastful and glibly talkative as Negan, the chief nihilist of The Walking Dead, the popular TV horror
series, and Richard Burton’s O’Brien, or as deceptively humble and soft-spoken
as Cyril Cusack’s Mr. Charrington in the Michael Radford remake of 1984.

Monsters needn’t be physically grotesque. They can
come in all manner of disguises, as widely divergent as Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton, not to mention the average, anonymous Social Justice Warrior
or ISIS jihadist, who wears a mask, not so much to hide his identity from the
authorities and avoid arrest, as to express his non-identity as an
interchangeable cipher. If you are assaulted, mutilated, eaten, beheaded,
chopped into tiny parts, and killed, they want you the victim to know that you
were terminated by literally nothing.

Nothingness is the goal and state of existence sought
by all current monsters. And they often achieve those goals, but want to take you with them.

College Snitches


An SJA at work on campus:
“I heard what you said!
You’re horse meat now!”
Next year he’ll join Antifa.

The
National Review ran a short piece, which, at first, I thought was a satirical
piece by Katherine Timpf in the spirit of the Harvard
Crimson
: “
U-Arizona
is hiring-students-to tattle on others for ‘bias-incidents
.’”
The University of Arizona is hiring students to be
“social-justice activists,” [SJAs] and the job description demands that they
“report any bias incidents or claims to appropriate Residence Life staff.”

In other words: These kids are being paid to tattle on other kids for anything
they might consider to be a microaggression, and any students who gets these
jobs should probably identify themselves so that other students will know to
never invite them to their parties.
According to the university’s
website, the official title of the position is “social-justice activist,” and
it pays $10 per hour. They can expect to work about 15 hours per week, which,
as the Daily Caller notes, means that they will be making roughly $600 per
month to behave like self-righteous, meddling nightmares.

Before I blinked twice and realized Miss Timpf was reporting a fact, and wasn’t
trying to be humorous, I wondered if the $600 a month stipend would go to
reducing a student’s federal and/or state college loan, which will typically run
in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars, depending
on the campus.

Soon to be flashed by a student
snitch or informant at U. of Arizona,
a “fingerman” ID badge

But, no, Miss Timpf was dead
serious.
The SJA would not act as an
ombudsman to negotiate resolutions between triggered emotionally hurt students
and steely-eyed truth tellers. Nor would he act as a
blockwart,
which was a Nazi rank below gauleiter. He
would be, frankly, a paid, contemptible snitch. 
His job would be to turn in and stamp out individuals, not whole
populations.
The University website, “Social Justice
Advocates Recruitment Information
,” informs us:
The Social Justice Advocates (SJA) Position is one
that is grounded in the multicultural competency framework and allows student
staff to gain the awareness, knowledge, and skills necessary to work
effectively with students and residents across cultures and identities. The
position calls for an understanding of social identity groups, experiences,
histories, and practices as it relates to everyday life and life at the
University of Arizona.
The position also aims to increase understanding of
one’s own self through critical reflection of power and privilege, identity and
intersectionality, systems of socialization, cultural competency and allyship
as they pertain to the acknowledgement, understanding and acceptance of
differences. Finally, this position intends to increase a student staff member’s
ability to openly lead conversations, discuss differences and confront
diversely insensitive behavior. 
The position also requires in a student an eagerness
to accumulate brownie points in correct socialization in all spheres of human
encounters, especially in those that wield political clout. In short, it asks
the job applicant to become an informant, a spy, a back-stabber. It would also demand
a requisite taste for instilling in fellow students a quantum of fear for
having said something like “You guys!” instead of “You humanoids!” To instill
fear in others, is to taste totalitarian power.
And this is something in rigid lockstep with the
perilous and frightening trend on American campuses to discourage and suppress
freedom of speech. The Europeans are veterans of the snitching rule which we
Americans are getting accustomed to it. In Germany,
France,
Sweden,
Britain,
Austria, the Netherlands,
and now even in Canada,
a citizen can be hauled before a “human rights” commission or a magistrate or
some other kangaroo court and charged with “hate speech” if his words have been
reported to the “authorities” by politically correct “fingermen.”
Mark Steyn’s Canadian
experience is a teachable one. He can be assessed a hefty fine or taken to jail
or both in addition to racking up a fortune in legal fees. It’s either that or
the authorities will search for “fingerable” words spoken in a coffee shop or
on the Internet. Totalitarian, bureaucratic drudges must find something to do
to justify their salaries.
Daniel Greenfield on May `12th penned a first-class
article on how the miasma of speech codes and “permissible” speech is turning
universities into totalitarian indoctrination camps (and expensive ones, too),
The
College Blueprint for a Totalitarian America
.”
On campus, as in prison, there is safety in an identity
group. Only the group has the power to protect you. But even within the group
there is never any true sense of security. Intersectional tribalism is always
being negotiated and renegotiated. The microaggression you condemn might very
well turn out to be your own. No matter how oppressed you are, someone is
always more oppressed.
The wrong joke, costume, idea, inference or even lack of eye
contact can make you a criminal.
Innocence is not an option. The very concept of white
privilege indicts you for crimes that you had no idea you were even committing.
At worst, your very existence is an affront. And ignorance is no excuse.
Whiteness, masculinity, femininity, heterosexuality and even Americanism are
pre-existing crimes that require an endless process of atonement which by its
very nature will always be incomplete.
You oppress by existing. To defend yourself is to further
oppress your accusers by rejecting their pain. As in all totalitarian systems,
your claims to innocence only deepen your guilt by challenging the moral
authority of your accusers. The safest response is to confess and learn to love
Big Intersectionality.
For the longest time, I was ignorant of the meaning
of the term “intersectionality.” It was a bizarre neologism that meant little
to me, except that perhaps it meant “transgenderism” to identify whether or
not  one thought one was male or female
or any one of fifty-odd other “genders.” But I found its loaded, top-heavy
postmodern meaning on Wikipedia
and wasn’t too surprised to learn that:
Intersectionality is a term coined by
American civil rights advocate Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw to describe
overlapping or intersecting social identities and related systems of oppression,
domination, or discrimination.
Intersectionality is the idea that multiple identities intersect to create a
whole that is different from the component identities. These identities that
can intersect include gender, race, social
class
, ethnicity, nationality,
sexual orientation, religion, age, mental
disability
, physical disability, mental
illness
, and physical
illness
as well as other forms of identity. These aspects of identity are
not “unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but rather…reciprocally
constructing phenomena.” The theory proposes that individuals think of
each element or trait of a person as inextricably linked with all of the other
elements in order to fully understand one’s identity.
That covers just about every class of contemporary “victimhood”
but that of the multi-sexed lunar icecap-man. But if you are white and also are
mentally disabled or mentally ill or have a speech impediment, then you’re
excluded from the global “includability” class. And then you may be berated,
sneered at, harassed, lambasted, or beaten up by an Intersectional Creature or
by an Illegal Alien from Titan.
Greenfield goes on:
Microaggressions, safe spaces, tone-policing, identity caste
systems, no platforming and the end of truth aren’t just some silly campus
nonsense. They are the blueprint for the future of the United States.
Violence against free speech migrated from the campus to the
city street. The rejection of truth and facts climaxed with rejecting the
outcome of a presidential election. 
Imagine what tomorrow’s leaders would be like if they all
got an education in North Korea. That’s the crisis we face today. The leaders
of tomorrow are coming of age in the totalitarian campus states of today. When
one of those polls emerge showing that 7 out of 10 college students want to ban
offensive speech, it’s not a generational phenomenon so much as it is
environmental indoctrination.
The left’s experiment in college totalitarianism has
normalized an environment in which free speech and individual rights don’t
exist, in which truth and facts were invented by imperialists, and in which a
single cultural misstep can have shattering consequences for anyone who isn’t
part of the right identity clique.

If a U. of Arizona SJA shows you this badge,
you will no longer be allowed to wear a Mexican
poncho at a fraternity theme party. You  will
be reported so you can get your mind
“right.”

But is it campus nonsense? The injection of speech
controls and identity politics into campus life is not nonsense; it is deadly
serious, and intended, savored, and promoted by the Marxist postmodernists in
schools and in academia to prepare young minds to obey and parrot and refrain
from “triggering” anyone by opening his mouth about reality. It is introducing
a constant neurosis of fear as a normal element of existence in daily life. The
mind- and speech-managers want students whose minds have been made “right.”
A student who would want to be an SJA is one whose mind has already been made
“right,” by his grade and high school teachers.
Aristotle wrote that all men are born tabula rasa, that
is, with minds that are blank slates until the man or his teachers write what
is on the slate, from infancy through adulthood. The minds of modern American
students have been scratched on or filled up by his collectivist teachers, with
the main themes being contempt for rationality together with a necessity and
desire to “belong.” Belong to what? To the group, to the collective, to the
herd, whose mind would be a kind of gestalt, with no mind standing alone and
separate from all others.
John Locke, the English philosopher, elaborated in
Aristotle’s observation. Britannica
writes:
A new and revolutionary emphasis on the tabula rasa
occurred late in the 17th century, when the English empiricist John
Locke
, in An
Essay Concerning Human Understanding
(1689), argued for the mind’s
initial resemblance to “white paper, void of all characters,” with “all the materials
of reason and knowledge” derived from experience.
Those 7 out of 10 college students who don’t want to
ban “offensive speech” mentioned by Greenfield are exceptions to the rule
today. They are, by the new campus standards, “fascists,” or “racists” or some
other deplorable species of human being to be despised, ostracized, physically
attacked, and even sneered at and punished by their teachers. They will be the
principal targets of the SJAs.
Melanie Phillips
writes of her experiences trying to speak at American and British universities
in “Universities
have caved in to dogma and thuggery
.”
According to a survey by Spiked magazine, more than nine
out of ten British universities restrict free speech in some way, clamping down
on ideas, literature or guest speakers that fall foul of one shibboleth or
another. The Wall Street Journal reported that in a survey of 800 US
college students, 51 per cent supported speech codes. Dozens of people invited
to speak on campus have had their invitations withdrawn or their presentations
disrupted, while university staff have been harassed with accusations of racism,
micro-aggression or cultural insensitivity.
Overall responsibility for this anarchy rests with
faculty members and university authorities. Many universities have stopped
being crucibles of reason and knowledge and turned instead into ideological
battlegrounds on which protected groups promoting the demonisation of white
society or other presumed “oppressors” suppress any challenge to their dogma.
Tabula Rasa

University authorities have actively assisted the
culture of zero tolerance for opposing views. Lecturers have been disciplined
for teaching ideas that fall foul of prevailing orthodoxies. Universities have
cravenly given in to violence and intimidation. On many US campuses students
are limited to small “free speech zones” in which to exercise the right to
express their views. Failure to observe the limits of such zones can result in
disciplinary action and even arrest….

In their book The Shadow University: the Betrayal
of Liberty on America’s Campuses
, Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate write
that the “shadow university” hands students a “moral agenda upon arrival” and
subjects them to “mandatory political re-education”. Free and unfettered debate
has been replaced by “censorship, indoctrination, intimidation, official group
identity and group-think”.
The universities have steadily
replaced education by the enforcement of dogma and then washed their hands of
the intolerant results. The loss of freedom on campus is nothing less than the
eclipse of reason, intellectual integrity and moral spine.
The U. of Arizona SJA should, as a successful
applicant, fit right into the eclipse of reason, and, as a bright young thing,
do well enough to be promoted to a position of directing that eclipse on campus
and composing his own “moral agenda” to hand to freshmen. He’s got nothing to
lose by being so obedient and eager, because there is no longer anything there
to lose.

Europe’s Death Wish


“Nothing
is creepier than Islam. Challenge Islamic racism, misogyny genocide, and so on.”
I thought it would be just desserts to begin by paraphrasing Linda
Sarsour
and just turn back on her her statement that “Nothing
is creepier than Zionism
,” which has made the rounds on Twitter and
national news. This groomed, but bag-headed, glib, taqiyya-fluent, BDS-champion, and stealth jihadist, has a loud
mouth and is a publicity hound and resolutely anti-Trump.
She was one of the organizers of the Women’s March in
Washington. She has pulled lots of wool over the eyes of the liberal
clueless
.

The doofus Hollande and the photo-friendly
Francophobe Macron,
willing to submit to Merkel and Islam

But
one prominent blogger and spokesman for the West, Bruce Bawer, scratched his
head and asked, following the dismally concluded French election of May 7th, in
his PJMedia article, “What
Happened in France?
”:
 How could Marine Le Pen have
lost in a landslide
?
Why, after the
Brits chose Brexit, and Americans chose Trump, did the Dutch fail Wilders, and
the French fail Le Pen?
How could a country
that has been hit by several major terrorist attacks in recent years, and that
has undergone a more profound social transformation owing to Islamic
immigration, vote for business as usual?
But if you’ve witnessed the reality of Islamization in cities
like Rotterdam and Paris and Stockholm, you may well wonder: what, in heaven’s
name, will it take for these people to save their own societies, their own
freedoms, for their own children and grandchildren?
Bower
reviews the common rationale is that Europeans are still feeling guilty:
One way of trying
to answer it is to look at countries one by one. For example, the Brits and
French feel guilty about their imperial histories, and hence find it difficult
to rein in the descendants of subject peoples. The Germans feel guilty about
their Nazi past – and the Swedes feel guilty about cozying up to Nazis – and
thus feel compelled to lay out the welcome mat for, well, just about anybody.
The Dutch, similarly, are intensely aware that during the Nazi occupation they
helped ship off a larger percentage of their Jews to the death camps than any
other Western European country, and feel a deep need to atone.
Is
it a matter of self-flagellation in the spirit of atonement? “Bible
(Exodus 20:5-6; 34:6-7; Numbers 14:18) portray God as “visiting the
iniquity of the fathers on the children.” Still another part of the Bible (Jeremiah
31:29; Ezekiel 18:2; Job 21:19) rejects this and teach that “sons [shall
not] be put to death for their fathers.” The Bible is rich in such bipolar
maxims.
I
do not subscribe to the moral philosophy of inherited guilt or generational
responsibility. Most imperial history should not be apologized for, especially where
and when it concerns “the descendants of subject peoples” not to mention the
descendants of people who also weren’t even alive during imperial depredations.
Some of that history if awful, particularly the Belgian experience in the Congo.
However,
were it not for imperial colonial policies, much of the known world would still
be in the very Dark Ages, “brutish, nasty, and short.”
In fact, where the West retreated and left indigenous populations at the mercy
of their murderous tribalist leaders and masters, those people have largely reverted
to that condition. (Look at Zimbabwe, formerly
Rhodesia.)The West introduced technology, medicine, literacy, law, longer
longevity, higher standards of living, and even the concept of freedom. Much of
that is now disappearing. Pick any country on the African continent and it’s
the same story, with remaining
Westerners
under attack, their property confiscated, and explicitly threatened
with mass murder and genocidal extinction.

Every
time I read some Third World complaint about Western colonialism, I can’t help
but hark back to that gem of a Monty Python scene in The Life of Brian,
and think, “What has the West given the complainers?”
Bawer
asks: What can account for what ails the French?
Postmodernism,
of course, is a factor. According to postmodern thinking, no culture is better
than any other – and it’s racist to say otherwise. No, scratch that – other
cultures are, in fact, better than Western culture. Whites, by
definition, are oppressors, imperialists, and colonialists, while “people of
color” are victims.
And Muslims are the
biggest victims of all.
Bawer
scoffs at that notion in a very civilized manner.
Not that that
makes any sense. Over the centuries since the religion was founded, Muslim
armies have gained control over much of North Africa, the Middle East, and
large parts of Europe. Islam itself, by
definition, is imperialistic
.[Italics mine]
Islam
is determined to subjugate the West, and not in exchange for “peace.” “Peace,”
in Islamic terms means slavery and dhimmitude, when it will no longer need to
fight the “infidel.”
Europeans
just don’t “get it.”
Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric Macron, the new
president of France, is as he has been characterized a better looking version
of François Gérard Georges Nicolas Hollande,
his failed predecessor, but that’s about it. Macron’s visage doesn’t lend
itself to ridicule as Hollande’s has, there have been no flattering photographs
of Hollande. In every one I’ve seen, I’ve seen the French version of an upper
class twit. Hollande has overseen during his tenure a massive influx of Muslims
and endorses the idea of bring in more.
Marcron, another
Socialist, apparently is even worse. He believes in nothing and has said that French
culture doesn’t exist
, nor does the French
nation
. He is willing to concede the leadership of Europe to Angela Merkel, who is on
a one-woman quest to erase Germany’s identity by seeing Germany saturated to
the bursting point with culturally hostile and unassimilable Muslims.

Celebrating Macron’s Islamic
victory
in Paris
outside the Louvre, scheduled to be
cleansed
of all art offensive to Muslims

Macron is an economist, a Socialist one,
which is a contradiction in terms. Socialist economics has invariably resulted
in starvation and misery. (Look at Venezuela.)
He wishes to erase French identity, as well. During his campaign his confidential emails were hacked and they
reveal just how much of an anti-Francophile he is. His public statements about France
are just so much blather. The MSM, or at least the French version of it, was
cautioned not to publish its contents during the election. Too many people
would likely see just how much of a pretty mama’s boy turncoat he is.
The Macron leaks contain secret proposals that
would lead to the continued Islamization of France and Europe. These are shown
in a PowerPoint presentation which appears to have come from the Institut Montaigne.
Harmonizing education between countries on different sides of the Mediterranean
is one of the key objectives.

Create a common history textbook with Italy,
Spain, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia (3) in order to put in perspective the
historical contributions and religious convergences between the two shores of
the Mediterranean. 
Within the 3+3 framework, we recommend the
creation of a commission of historians responsible for drawing up a common
history textbook. The aim of this work will be: 
-to create a common base of objective historical
knowledge founded on the logic of a historical “draw”
[stalemate] 
– to develop a sense of belonging to a common
history
– to reduce the fantasies of victimization on
one side as well as civilizational superiority on the other
The document also recommends the introduction of
Arabic teaching to French schools, including bi-lingual classes. This is
justified by the claim that Muslims are currently getting their “Arabic
fix” from mosques, where they risk being radicalized. I previously noted
that “soft Islamization” is being advocated as the remedy for
“hard Islamization” and that this represents a kind of de facto
reward being offered to jihad violence. Jihad gets results. It leads to
societies being Islamized, one way or the other.
In short, French and all of European society
must assimilate Islamic social norms, not the other way round. That’s Merkel’s
plan, as well. Sweden
is well on the way to achieving that goal, with the government complicit in the
rise in Muslim crime in the country. Get French schoolchildren used to the idea
of bowing and scraping to Allah, paying jizya,
and letting any random Syrian, Turkish, Somalian, Afghan, Moroccan, or African
feel them up and even rape them, and learn not to resent or resist the assault.
It’s a lesson in imaginary “atonement.” And learn your Arabic well, and know
how to recite the shadada
or else your Muslim teacher will do to you what his colleagues did to young
people in the Bataclan.

Bataclan, 2015: a microcosm of France
when Islam takes over.

Is Europe in the terminal stage of a death
wish? I think so. Its foundational driver is altruism, together with a desire
to let the state establish moral norms. People will not let them go. I don’t
know that Bruce Bawer would agree with that prognosis. He lives in Norway and
has witnessed first-hand the consequences of what a refusal to identify the
aims and methods of Islam, of a willingness to defraud reality, wherever he
goes in Postmodern, expiring Europe which continues to bring in freighter
loads
of immigrants.

Antifa Violence Will End Badly


Fascists
against Fascism: Come again?

A former Marine and blogger by the name of David Risselada
published on Freedom Outpost an
interesting and probing analysis of Antifa, “Antifa:
Useful Idiots Too Brainwashed to Know They are Being Used
.”
They
are so brainwashed, writes Risselada, that they refuse – nay, are unable to see
the contradictions pregnant in their violent actions – because contradictions are
either “white” constructs of the privileged order, or are direct permutations of
Communist/Nazi ideology, and therefore can be dismissed with a fist in the face
or a kick in the head. They do not believe in debate; their only recognized
form of argumentation is physical violence. The brown shirts in training (other
than college students) propose to oppose fascism by adopting fascist activism,
which employs the physical obstruction of freedom of speech (and other civil
liberties) with violent and passive means (but mostly violent). Britannica defines and
discusses fascism:
Although fascist
parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many
characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for
electoral democracy
and political and cultural liberalism, and a belief in natural social hierarchy and
the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft
(German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be
subordinated to the good of the nation.

Hundreds
executed as traitors to Soros?

Ostensibly,
Antifa poses as being an anti-establishment force to contend with, when in
practice and in ideology (what there is of one) it is and will remain part of
the establishment, as a kind of Mafia enforcer. There are no “victims” of Antifa
violence. Only “fascists.” Risselada writes:
Across the nation,
the group Antifa is continuing its call for revolution by staging massive riots
and acts of violence against innocent people. They are pushing the narrative
that they are engaged in a revolutionary struggle against Fascism and that the
time to act is now in order to stand against oppression. They have been
brainwashed to believe that America represents racism and our constitution was
written only to protect the interests of a few privileged white men. They are
demanding an end to constitutional government and the enactment of a communist
system which they believe will be fairer. In this facebook video posted by Columbus Ohio Antifa, they are
asking military veterans to remember their oaths and join their national
militia. Obviously, these people have no idea what they are talking about nor
do they have any clue what it means to take an oath to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States.
Are
they brainwashed at all? Many have been in their education; others of Antifa
are just thugs who are criminals with or without a cause to rationalize their
actions, because reasons to them are irrelevant. Contradictions do not bother
them; they are treated by Antifa, the Democrats, and the federal educational
establishment as “white”
constructs
and the “deplorable” hobgoblins of “reason-clingers.” The U.S.
public school system is dedicated now more than it was in the past to countering,
vilifying, or erasing whatever American values or allegiances a young person
may have grown up with, absorbed from his parents, or absorbed from the culture
at large.
Bertrand Russell, the
anti-war and anti-nuclear energy advocate and very anti-man British
philosopher, long ago championed the brainwashing of children to produce more
“desirable” and compliant citizens. He quoted, very approvingly, Gottlieb Fitche,
the German philosopher who agreed with Immanuel Kant’s anti-mind
and anti-reality philosophy. Russell said himself:
Scientific societies are
as yet in their infancy… It is to be
expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in
totalitarian countries. Fitche
laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their
lives, of thinking or acting
otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . . Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the
sort of character and the sort of
beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. . . .”—-Bertrand Russell,1953
Risselada
had the presence of mind to further quote Russell, who had no objection to
Gottlieb Fitche’s deliberate and conscious mind-sabotaging philosophy of
education:
Education should aim at
destroying free will
so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be
incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise
than as their school masters would have wished … The social psychologist of
the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will
try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black.
When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge
of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects
securely without the need of armies or policemen” Bertrand Russell quoting Johann
Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel
and others – Prussian University in Berlin, 1810 (University of Jena)

Josef
Stalin admired Hitler’s purging methods

Antifa
members would agree with the original Fascist, Benito Mussolini
– without knowing who he was – and only because it sounds right. The sound
bytes would be copasetic with the poisonous glop that passes for an Antifa mind:
The only official
definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in
which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.

1.”Everything in the state”. The Government is supreme and the
country is all-encompassing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body,
often a dictator.
2.”Nothing
outside the state”. The country must grow and the implied goal of any
fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the
government.
3.”Nothing
against the state”. Any type of questioning the government is not to be
tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree
with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the
rest of the good citizens.
That’s
as good a description of the goals of a global
Islamic
caliphate as you can find, as well. Everything in Islam, nothing
outside Islam, nothing against Islam. Is it any wonder that the Left sides with
Islam?
Our
educational establishment has done a thorough job of sabotaging American
children’s cognitive faculties and their sense of their selves as individuals.
Fichte has had industrious successors on this side of the Atlantic, such as
John Dewey (1859-1952), Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), and William James
(1842–1910). They and their disciples have had a lot of time – generations, in
fact – to insinuate anti-conceptual and anti-reason pragmatism in virtually
every realm of pedagogical philosophy.
Many influential followers of Dewey are in
agreement with how to raise and teach children:
“…through schools of the world we shall disseminate
a new conception of government – one that will embrace all of the collective
activities of men; one that will postulate the need for scientific control and
operation of economic activities in the interests of all people.”Harold
Rugg
, student of psychology and a disciple of John Dewey
“Education does not mean teaching people to know
what they do not know – it means teaching them to behave as they do not
behave.” National
Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH) sponsored report: The
Role of Schools in Mental Health

The
latter publication complains:
Periodicals and the press have been
filled recently with attacks on schools. A favorite target has been the
practice of making “life adjustment” and “a healthy personality
for every child” educational goals at the alleged expense of the three
R’s.

Antifa
has yet to place an order with still tailoring
 Hugo
Boss
; until then they will remain masked slobs.

“Alleged?”
It’s a fact. . Fusion
had this revealing article on the failure of public schools to teach “the three
R’s.”
The researchers
asked 3,278 people 12 picture-based or multiple choice questions about science,
including what a light-year measures, what determines the loudness of sound,
and that types of waves were used to make cell phone calls. A mere 6% got a
perfect score. Half of the respondents managed to answer more than eight
questions correctly.  The rest got the equivalent of an F on the
test. Yikes.
Risselada
has some sobering news for all the smug Antifa members. Once the “revolution”
has achieved its goal of bringing down the nation, they will be purged.
Unfortunately,
Antifa fails to realize that they are nothing but useful idiots being used to
accomplish an agenda they do not understand. They are the shock troops being
used to finish the final phase of demoralizing America through a process known
as Ideological Subversion…..
Unfortunately for
groups like Antifa, the need for stricter order and the accomplishment of the
goals they are seeking will bring them to a crashing end. As mentioned earlier,
communists have a history of taking out their own first.
This is done for
two reasons. One, these useful idiots are being taught that communism
represents an utopian paradise where everyone lives in total equality.
Unfortunately, they fail to realize that total equality means the equality of
living in squalor. Once they realize they have been taken for fools they will
surely focus their aggression on their leash-handlers who will then see the
need to make an example out of them. They will be taken out to stop the
undermining of government which of course, groups like Antifa have
already demonstrated a willingness to do.
There
are many precedents for thinning out revolutionary shock troops. The most
prominent one is the “Night
of the Long Knives
”:
A year later, with Hitler’s power
almost absolute, only the excesses of the SA and their bull-necked leader, Ernst
Rohm
 (pictured), troubled the dictator. Their violence, which as a
revolutionary during the 1920s, Hitler would have endorsed, had become an
embarrassment to the Chancellor. Having gained power through the proper process
Hitler wanted to win over the German people and international opinion through
legitimate means not by force.
But Rohm and the SA felt that Hitler
was going soft and had not given them their due reward for helping the Nazis
into power. They started talking of a
‘second revolution’ with Rohm the leader of the People’s Party, greatly
alarming the industrialists and businessmen that Hitler had managed to woo.
Rohm wanted also to merge the army with the SA under his command, which, in
turn, alarmed the army and its chief, Werner von Blomberg.

The
nattily attired predecessors of Antifa

On the weekend of 30 June – 1 July
1934, in what was to become known as the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler acted. Members of the SS
stormed a hotel in the village of Bad Wiessee where the SA had gathered for a
weekend of homosexual debauchery, pulled Rohm and his henchmen from their beds
and had them arrested. Most were promptly executed on the spot, except for
Rohm. Hitler took it upon himself to arrest Rohm personally, marching into his
hotel room and, brandishing a revolver, yelled, “You’re under arrest, you pig”.
Rohm was taken to a Munich prison,
along with other SA leaders, and there awaited his fate. But Hitler, in a fit
of nostalgia, found it difficult to order his murder. Instead, he offered Rohm
the chance to kill himself. On 1 July, a revolver was left on the table in his
cell and he was given ten minutes. Rohm refused, saying, ‘If I am to be killed,
let Adolf do it himself’. When the ten minutes had elapsed and no shot
heard, an SS officer marched in and killed the bare-chested Rohm at point blank
range.
Hitler took the opportunity to purge
anyone whom he disliked or had crossed him in the past, including the last
Chancellor of the Weimar Republic, Kurt von Schleicher.
The Night of the Long Knives claimed over 200 lives. Hindenburg congratulated
his chancellor for having acted so swiftly. The army, relieved to be freed from
its main rival, sided with Hitler…..
 Knowing something about the fates of Ernest
Rolm and his fellow conspirators ought to serve as a warning to Antifa. It may
boast of numbers, skill at terrorism, of “fist-power,” but it would never be a
match for the elites they have kept in power in the “Deep State.” A purge is in
the cards.

Is Western Civilization a Racist Construct?

New
York Magazine says yes. In April, it ran a long, long article on the “Alt-Right,” “Beyond
Alt: The extremely reactionary, burn-it-down-radical, newfangled far right
,”
authored by seventeen contributors (!). The magazine, being one of the leftist
persuasion, attempted to cover the whole gamut of what is called the
“Alt-Right,” (or the Alternative Right), that is, what are considered by the
Left to be “extreme” individuals, publications, and memes that oppose the
welfare state and statism and the Progressive path to full-scale socialism.
Racists and anti-Semites were stuffed into the same bag, which I think the
writers would have been happy to tie and toss into the East River. The
Alt-Right carries a lot of unasked-for baggage, to judge by Wikipedia’s discussion of
the  subject:
The alt-right,
or alternative right, is a loose group of people with right to far-right ideologies who
reject mainstream
conservatism in the United States.
White
supremacist
Richard Spencer appropriated the term in 2010 to
define a movement centered on white
nationalism
, and has been accused by some media publications of doing so to
whitewash
overt racism, white
supremacism
, and neo-Nazism. Alt-right beliefs have been
described as white supremacist, frequently overlapping with anti-Semitism
and Neo-Nazism, nativism and Islamophobia,
antifeminism
and homophobia,
white nationalism, right-wing populism, and the neoreactionary movement. The concept has
further been associated with multiple groups from American nationalists, neo-monarchists,
men’s
rights
advocates,
and the 2016 presidential campaign
of Donald
Trump
.
Quite a grab-bag
of groups in an artificial homogeny concocted by the leftwing political world
view. The New York Magazine’s article and Wikipedia perform a scatter-shot
drive-by shooting intended to discredit and smear legitimate, responsible
spokesmen for reason and Western civilization together with the screaming
meemies, such as Richard
Spenser
, Dilbert, and Jack Donovan.
NY Magazine also
deigned to quote the National Review, which, as a conservative publication,
somehow does not earn its enmity and sarcasm:
In National
Review
in April 2016, Ian Tuttle wrote,
The Alt-Right has evangelized
over the last several months primarily via a racist and anti-Semitic online
presence. But for Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos, the alt-right consists
of fun-loving provocateurs, valiant defenders of Western civilization, daring
intellectuals—and a handful of neo-Nazis keen on a Final Solution 2.0, but
there are only a few of them, and nobody likes them anyways.
National Review does a more
economical job of painting the Alt-Right in almost psychedelic colors than does
New York Magazine.
Curiously, I have
not received any solicitations or invitations via email from any of the groups
mentioned in either the New York magazine article or in Wikipedia, even though
in the ineffable ignorance of Left and Right, my blog columns could easily be
labeled one or the other. I am certainly familiar with Milo Yiannopoulos and
Paul Joseph Watson, but not at all with Allum Bokhari or many of the people
mentioned, such as Rebekah Mercer or Peter Thiel. I have never heard of half
the individuals, organizations, and blog sites mentioned by New York Magazine’s
authors.
However, as
Victor David Hanson points out in one NR column, “You
Gotta Lie
”:
Red/blue, conservative/liberal, and Republican/Democrat mark
traditional American divides. But one fault line is not so 50/50 — that of the
contemporary hard progressive movement versus traditional politics, values, and
customs.
The entire menu of race, class, and gender identity
politics, lead-from-behind foreign policy, political correctness, and radical
environmentalism so far have not won over most Americans. Proof of that fact
are the serial reliance of their supporters on deception, and the erosion of
language on campus and in politics and the media. The progressive movement
requires both deceit and euphemism to mask its apparently unpopular agenda.
Such as “global
warming” (before that it was “global cooling”) being relabeled as “climate
change,” as Hanson points out. The globalists and Progressives could not keep
denying that the Earth has warmed and cooled many times over millions of years
and that man has had little or nothing to do with it. Progressive
verisimilitude went to work. If you can’t risk telling the truth about some
bogus, politically correct “science,” you can lie, jiggle the numbers, draw
graphs, and take arresting photographs of polar bears riding melting icebergs, and
say that the science is “settled” and that climate
change deniers
should be imprisoned.
Except that, truth be told, climate change “deniers” never denied that climate
changed, except over eons.
Ever since the
beginning of my education in political history, I grew increasingly and
incorrigibly skeptical of the designations of “left” and “right.” Early on I
learned of the origin of the terminology, dating from the French Revolution. The
Spectator
writes:
What is the origin of left and right
in politics? The traditional answer is that these ideas derive from the French
National Assembly after 1789, in which supporters of the King sat on one side
and those of the revolution on the other. Yuval Levin in The
Great Debate
, however, argues not for seating but for ideas: that left
and right enter the Anglo-American political bloodstream via the climactic
public clash in the 1790s between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, the prime
movers in a pamphlet war that convulsed opinion and engaged readers on two
continents.
If this is right, then the touchstone
of modern political debate in Britain and America is not capitalism v. socialism,
or religious fundamentalism v. cosmopolitan secularism, but an earlier
and deeper disagreement over the nature of the modern liberal political order
itself.
Another explanation is:
During election seasons the words
left and right denote political affiliation more than spatial direction. But
where do these associations come from?
The left hand has long been
associated with deviance. The word “sinister” originally
meant “to the left” in Latin. The word “left” comes from the Old
English word lyft, which literally
meant “weak, foolish.” To avoid the negative and superstitious associations of
the left side, many languages used euphemisms for it. In Old
English the left side was called winestra,
which meant “friendlier.” In Greek it was called aristeros or “the better one.”
When did the political affiliation of
these two common words arise? In fact, the association isn’t American at all—it
originated during the French Revolution. In the 1790s, King Louis XVI was
fighting with the Legislative Assembly. Like our modern-day House of
Representatives, seating in the French Legislative Assembly was arranged based
on political affiliation. The King sat in front of the assembly. To his right
sat the conservative Feuillants who backed the king and believed in a
constitutional monarchy. To his left sat the liberal Girondists and radical
Jacobins who wanted to install a completely democratic government. Oddly
enough, in the U.S. House of Representatives the tables have turned: members of
the Republican Party sit to the left of the House Speaker and members of the
Democratic Party sit to his or her right.
It wasn’t until the
early twentieth century that Left and Right denoted political
affiliation in Britain and the U.S., and according to Google’s
NGram viewer
, the more politically loaded terms “leftwing” and “rightwing”
were not widely used until after 1960.
The terms today
are now of a topsy-turvy nomenclature. The “right,” as the left employs the
term, means authoritarian, dictatorial, or one-man government with civil
liberties annulled or suspended (a la
Hitler, Mussolini, and a baker’s dozen of tyrannical regimes on a variety of
continents), while the “left” means democratic government, benevolent
regulators, the prancing unicorns of wealth distribution, and guarantees of
civil liberties.
“Right” is commonly
synonymous with German Nazism and/or Italian Fascism. It conjures up the image
of strutting goose-steppers kicking the average man in the pants and otherwise
exploiting and oppressing the helpless and disenfranchised, all victims, they
claim, of a ruthless capitalist system.
In reality – a
realm with which the Left has refused to become intimate – it is the
Progressives and the Left who are the wannabe tyrants and wish to exploit and
oppress. They wish to become the elitist overlords of all that they survey,
including speech, or at least become “caring” and conscientious holders of
bureaucratic sinecures managing everything under the sun for the “public good.”
Discussing a New
York Times opinion piece, “When
Communism Inspired Americans” by Vivian Gornick
(April 29th),
Daniel
Greenfield remarked, in his column, “The
Dirty Red Secrets of May
,” (May 3rd),
Most leftists are dilettantes. They
admired and admire Communism’s commitment to murdering millions of people and
arguing the esoteric dogmas of the party line. It’s this latter that Gornick’s
New York Times piece bleeds with nostalgia for. She tells us, again and again,
that the Communists were wonderfully inspirational because they sat around
kitchen tables arguing about ideas.

So did the Nazis. But the New York Times doesn’t print fond recollections of
debates over whether the Japanese really counted as Aryans and how National
Socialism should approach the rights of workers. Nostalgia for the Third Reich
is rightly regarded as abominable. And the hobby of those who have a soft spot for
its murderous totalitarian ideology.

Curiously, the left never applies this same indictment to its own fondness for
Communism. Instead it traffics in nostalgia for Communism’s idealism, as if its
ideals were any nobler than those of Nazism. But the left believes they were.
And how could it not? Communism is just the left taken to its inevitable
conclusion. And so the left excuses Communism’s excess of enthusiasm for the
cause….
The Left returns, like a dog to its
vomit, to the dream of the true radicalism of a totalitarian leftist state. It
occasionally deals with uncomfortable truths. Circles around them. And then it
lapses back into an opium dream of Marxists sitting around a kitchen table and
debating which windows to smash first and whom to shoot first.
The contributors
to the New York magazine – obviously a committee of them dominated by the most vocal
anti-right obsessed – could not decide who deserved the most dart throws, so
they decided on a potpourri of disliked “rightists.” It was similar to “Whack a
Mole”:
Here in America, in
trying to describe our brand of the reactionary wave currently tsunami-ing the
entire developed world, we’ve leaned on the term alt-right, which had
been coined by white supremacists. Richard Spencer, the most
press-hungry of that group, takes credit for it. For much of last year, the
term was often used as shorthand for “racists, but … young?” Which is helpful,
as far as it goes, but the full reality is much more complicated.
The alt-right — or
the new right, if you prefer to sound more like Tom Wolfe than Kurt Cobain, or
the radical right, to properly acknowledge its break from mainstream
conservatism — is a coalition comprised of movements like neo-reaction, certain
strands of libertarianism, tech triumphalism, and even the extreme-populist
wing of the Republican Party. All share with Spencer’s white-ethno-nativism the
ideals of isolationism, protectionism, and nationalism: a closed nation-state.
Along the way, the coalition swept up “men’s rights” advocates and anti-Semites
and cruel angry teenagers and conspiracy theorists and a few fiendishly clever
far-right websites and harassing hashtags and even a U.S. congressman or two.
Not to mention the White House.
But to approach the
big messy tent of the new retrograde right — the international brigade of
nativist-nationalists, tech-savvy anti-globalists, the porn-loving gender
traditionalists — as primarily a political movement is to wildly underestimate
its scope.
The
contributors’ committee decided to ask a question:
But what if the real cause
is modernity itself, which is just a racist construct?
“Any deep response to modernity is rooted in racism. The
Enlightenment project itself — reason, rationality, scientific inquiry, the
quest for objectivity, are rooted in and indistinguishable from a racist
conception of who wields reason and why. Remember, Thomas Jefferson in Notes on the State of Virginia was skeptical about the
rational capacity of the Negro to engage in serious and critical reflection.
The denial of black reason and humanity and intelligence go hand in hand with
the rise of modernity. So the alt-right amplifies and echoes some of the worst
elements of modernity itself, which is indissolubly linked to the denial of
legitimate rationality among people who are seen as marginal minority in a
subculture. We can’t escape it by saying ‘Those people over there are
horrible.’ The alt-right is merely echoing some of the premises,
presuppositions, and perspectives that have been deeply entrenched in modern
western civilization and profoundly articulated at certain levels across the
spectrum of political and ideological communities. It is the heinous,
disfigured manifestation of a smoother, far more sustained bigotry and polite
racism that have taken root in our culture.” —Michael Eric Dyson, professor
of sociology, Georgetown University
“At least we
know what we’re dealing with in the alt-right. There’s no pretense at
attempting to engage in the politics of tolerance. That’s out the door. [Attorney
General] Sessions stopping all agreements between the Department of Justice and
police departments, that is a severe blow and an expression, although less
polite, of an alt-right ideology.”
Is the Attorney General really “stopping all agreements between” the
DOJ and police departments? No. The
Hill
reported on April 3rd:
Attorney General
Jeff Sessions on Monday
instructed Department of Justice (DOJ) officials to review the agency’s reform
agreements with all police forces nationwide.
“The Department
will use its resources to effectively promote a peaceful and lawful society,
where the civil rights of all persons are valued and protected,” he said in a two-page memo that was first reported on by The
Washington Post.

Arguing
that Western ideas of freedom, of the proper form of government, and even
science and technology, are just race-based “constructs,” evades or overlooks
the fact that Islam, the Pharaohs, the Zulus, and the Incas did not originate
those ideas, but men in northern Europe. There are many books that explain why
civilization advanced in that region and nowhere else. A few of them properly ascribe
the phenomena to a fealty to reason. Others ascribe them to climate. Or to just
dumb luck.
“Beyond
Alt” attempts to “package-deal” all ideas – good, bad, and indifferent,
reason-based or emotion-based – as an intersectional conspiracy of racism.
Observe the lead illustration. And not a word is devoted to the Alt-Left,
represented by Antifa. Too embarrassing
to discuss, because it’s so fascist?

Our Enemy Inside the Gates Revisited