The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: November 2017

A Lexicon for Our Time

A necessary read!

Suppose you never
“insulted” Islam or Muslims? Or never gave Muslims the “stink eye” in a
supermarket or the Mall
of America
? It wouldn’t matter. Especially if you’re a white infidel. If
accused of Islamophobia or being “racist,” how would you reply?
Logically, you couldn’t
rebut the accusation. You would be trying to prove a negative.  Hark that hoary old chestnut, asked by a
trial lawyer of the defendant, “When did you stop beating your wife?” If it’s a
Muslim defendant, the joke would be lost of him. Islam permits the beating of
wives (and of dishonorable daughters) with a fist or a vehicle or a hammer or a
machete.
I offer here a short
list of my own thoughts on the terms gratuitously employed by the MSM and
political establishment to sugar-coat the depredations of Islam and of the Left.  As with Islam, because there is no moderate
Islam, there is just Islam –
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey – there  is no “alt-Left, or a “moderate Left; there is
just the Left. “There
is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
Or, as
the banner of FrontPage reads, “Inside
every Progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
” The Progressive,
writes N. A. Halkides, “believes in precisely two things:  his own
magnificence and the constructive power of brute force.  In combination,
they lead him naturally from the role of pestiferous busybody to brutal
dictator.” 
Islamophobia: Bare
Naked Islam
has I think the best motto in its site banner concerning Islam:
“It’s not Islamophobia if they’re trying to kill you.” Which means that given
the countless news stories about jihadist attacks and the number of people
murdered in the name of Allah, most people, if they retain some sense and a
desire for self-preservation, would naturally develop a phobia or fear of
Islam. In
2016, over 11,000 Islamic terrorist attacks were made
.
The war on the West is
not limited to murdering Westerners. Just the other day Salafist “moderate”
Muslims attacked a Sufi mosque in the northern Sinai
killing over 300 worshippers
. The Sufis are “heretics” according to
Salafism’s strict and literal interpretation of the Koran, and deserve to die,
as well as all non-Muslims who do not submit. Sufis hate America and the West,
too, so no tears for the victims will be shed on my keyboard. Sufi, Salafist, Wahabbist,
or Shi’ite, if your’re a member of one of those sects, and feel comfortable
swathed, body and soul, in the suffocating “culture” of Islamic traditions and
mores, then you’ve already wasted your life. A terrorist’s AK-47 or bomb won’t
make a difference.

The OIC Flag
The origin of the term
“Islamophobia” dates back as far as 1918 and perhaps earlier. Wikipedia
notes that “One early use cited as the term’s first use is by the painter Alphonse
Étienne Dinet
and Algerian intellectual Sliman ben Ibrahim in their 1918 biography
of Islam’s prophet Muhammad. Writing in French, they used the term
islamophobie. Robin Richardson writes that in the English version
of the book the word was not translated as “Islamophobia” but rather
as “feelings inimical to Islam.” [Is there a difference?] Feelings
are the only denominator. After Kant, feelings can create reality, or recreate
it from a reality one is not copasetic with.
The term today is used
by the
Left
and Islamic spokesmen and organizations (such as CAIR) to denigrate anyone who is
critical of Islam and warns of its creeping and steady advance in Western
civilization.
Racist and Bigot: If accused of
islamophobia or of being “racist,” or a “bigot,” how would you reply?
Logically, you couldn’t rebut the accusation. You would be trying to prove a
negative. The best defense against such an accusation is to not recognize it as
a debatable subject. Short of the accuser owning an X-ray device that could see
into your mind to determine whether or not you were racially prejudiced against
Muslims or blacks or Latinos, he couldn’t prove the truth of his accusation. He
could possibly cite actions or recorded words, as ancillary evidence. But that
is all, in which case the accusation would be moot and pointless. And, racism
or racist speech has no metaphysical properties to inflict physical hurt or
damage on anything or anyone. The written word is also harmless, but has been
accused of being able to “incite” hate and racism in others.
Hate speech: I am
adamantly opposed to the notion of “hate speech.” It has been proven to
be an invitation to censorship, especially by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and
YouTube, and more or less lets off the hook anyone susceptible to and is
“provoked” to take violent actions “inspired” by it. Wikipedia notes that “Hate speech
is speech which attacks a person or
group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic
origin
, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. In
the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or
conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or
prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of
their [sic, should be his] membership of the group, or
because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the
basis of [sic, should be his] membership of the group. The law
may identify a protected group by certain characteristics. In some countries,
hate speech is not a legal term and in some it is constitutionally protected.”
Particularly, in the U.S. where it is protected by the First Amendment which
does not mention “hate speech.”
The definition of hate
speech varies from country to country, and is often woozy. Key underlying terms
in those definitions are “hurtful,” and “dignity.” Those two latter terms are
connected. If someone’s speech is deemed to be “hurtful,” it means that a
person’s sense of self-worth has been injured. Further, if implies that a
person’s “dignity” or sense of self-worth is so shaky and tenuous (or even
false) that it can psychologically affect the person. In which case, why should
anyone care? As with the accusation of racism, hate speech has no metaphysical
properties that can inflict physical hurt or damage on anything or anyone. Hate
speech, lik Islamophobia, is not some magical body paint that can be projected
on anyone and rob him of his “dignity.”

The OIC “coat of arms”
However, the notion of
hate speech is promulgated with an insidious ulterior motive. As Robert Spencer
notes in his June 2008 article, George
Orwell meets the OIC
,
Their
goal is positively Orwellian.  Replace ‘Big Brother’ with the
‘Organization of the Islamic Conference’ [now the Organization of Islamic Cooperation] and
you have the world the OIC wants to impose on us all.” Note also that Islam
exempts itself from the charge of having committed “hate speech” against Jews,
Christians, and individuals, and commits it in word or image, or against anyone
who combats Islamic incursions in word or action. The scholarly discourses of Robert Spencer on Islam, or reporting
the news by Pamela Geller of the latest
Islamic depredation, or hanging
a piece of bacon on a mosque
door, are far between in terms of “hate
speech,” but they are still deemed “hate speech.” Luckless persons expressing
their contempt for Islam or fear of it will be fined or punished by the state,
by  non-Muslim authorities, in Britain
and in Europe.
Hate crime: Again, this
is a notion I am also opposed to. If one commits a violent crime against a
person or group, one should be charged with the physical action or the crime
itself, not for one’s reasons for
committing it. A crime, or initiated force committed against an individual or
group, is a crime, regardless of its motive.  
“Safe” place: “Safe” places are areas where men and women congregate –
classrooms, cafeterias, restaurants, open air areas, sidewalks, parks, etc. – but
are roped off by yellow politically correct police tape, prohibiting entry by
anyone with whom one disagrees or whose presence one objects to or fears, and
provides a space where one is “safe” from ideas or persons that may disturb a
peace of mind. To paraphrase an advisory oft said by the police, “Move on, there’s
nothing to see here.” Safely protected individuals live in a mental bubble
world they resent being popped by the needle of reason, and there literally is
“nothing to see there.” A “safe place” for Muslims is a “No-Go
zone for non-Muslims.  
Insult, defame, offend,
denigrate
: These terms are meaningless if not accompanied by violence. That is, by
themselves, they cannot harm anyone or anything. Vibrations in the air caused
by an uttered insult have no metaphysical properties. Nor do pictures,
cartoons, or written words.
Another good read.
“Confused” and “Mental
problems”:
When European authorities, and more and more the American,
identify a killer as a Muslim, their first explanation of the person’s actions
is that he was “confused’ or has “mental
problems
” allegedly stemming from his having escaped from a war-torn Middle
East. “Authorities have ascribed jihad terror to mental illness on numerous
occasions,” said Robert
Spencer
, including the Orlando, San Bernardino and Chattanooga attacks in
the United States. Sometimes it sticks, but usually, days, weeks or even months
later, when few people are still paying attention, the police will retract
their earlier statements and admit it was a terrorist attack….
What could account for this global
outbreak of mental illness that always manifests itself in similar ways?”
Spencer told WND in an email. “Authorities should start asking themselves why
so many mentally ill people embrace Islamic jihad violence. What are….
European leaders doing about this curious epidemic of mental illness among
Muslims?”
I don’t think it is something in the water. It is in the
Koran
.
Violent
“extremism”:
When Western leaders concede that a jihadist attack
was committed by a Muslim who shouted “Allahu Akbar” while committing it, then
the new mantra is, together with “mental problems,” that the perpetrator took
Islam to “extremes” by resorting to violence.

The “religion of
peace” with swords
There are so many Koranic verses that cannot be misinterpreted, such as: “And
kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have
expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at
al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then
kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. Fight them until there
is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But
if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the
oppressors.” (191-193)
The Koran is replete among its 114 surahs or chapters with incitements to
violence. It is quite easy for an aspiring jihadist to ignore the nerdish “peaceful”
surahs and “go mental.” He’d rather opt for “extreme” role-playing in emulation
of Mohammad in obedience to the wishes of Allah the “most-merciful,” and slice and
dice every infidel in sight, by knife, bomb, or gun, and claim with
his right hand
every Jewish, Christian, or atheist woman at hand as a sex slave,
once the males have been decapitated.
The jihdist’s work is never done, not until Islam dominates the world,
and there is “peace,” the peace of a global graveyard.

According
to Islam
, peace is not simply an absence of war.” Come again? Excuse me,
but all we can see is war.

Elite’s Globalist Manifesto of Rules

Here is the unofficial,
malign preamble to the globalist takeover of the world. It could just as well suffice
as a warning of Islamic conquest, as well. Parodying the Outer
Limits
intro from 1995, the preamble would go:
There is nothing wrong with your television.
Do not attempt to adjust the picture.
We are controlling the transmission.
We control the horizontal and the
vertical.
We can confuse you with a thousand
channels.
Or expand one single image to crystal
clarity….and beyond.
Or we can blur a single image.
We can shape your vision to anything
our imagination can conceive.
We control all that you see, and
hear.
We will control everything, and
especially your mind.
We will obliterate individual and
independent thought.
We will determine the content of your
mind.
We will determine what is permissible
to speak, write, and express.
We will define what is and is not
truth.
All that with the
assistance of Facebook,
Twitter, and Google
. Tom Blumer wrote in his November 19th article, “Twitter
to Begin Using ‘Blue Check’ Status As a ‘Big Brother’ Weapon?
”:
The growth in online censorship by
tech titans Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s search and YouTube platform is one
of the most under-reported stories of the past two years.
In the latest disturbing development,
Twitter, which has been increasingly heavy-handed in censoring center-right
content, content providers, and everyday users since last year’s general
election campaign, has announced that it will unilaterally remove
“blue-check” (i.e., “verified”) status from groups and
users who in its view have violated its Terms of Service — even for offline
behavior
it considers unacceptable….
So-called “hate speech,”
assuming anyone can even define it, is protected by the First Amendment. If
Twitter is choosing to use the Southern
Poverty Law Center
‘s twisted definition of “hate speech” or
“hate groups” or is taking a similar posture, a wide swath of
legitimate center-right groups’ blue checks may disappear. One can be certain
that users losing a blue check will be on an internal Twitter “watch
list” for supposedly inappropriate online or offline activity that would
cause the company to ban them.
Democracy Alliance and
Islam want to ban “hate speech.” They want to ban snipe hunts.
On November 17th, Brent Scher and Joe
Schoffstall
reported in their article, “Secretive Liberal Donor Summit
Increases Security, Changes Itinerary Following Free Beacon Report,” in the Washington Free
Beacon
, that:
Members of the Democracy Alliance,
a secretive dark money liberal donor network, appear to have moved to increase
security presence and alter its schedule at its fall donor summit following a Washington Free Beacon report released Friday
morning based off the group’s internal documents.
The high-dollar progressive donors,
who each vow to direct at least $200,000 in funding to approved left-wing
groups of the alliance, are currently gathered at the posh La Costa Resort
located in Carlsbad, Calif., for its three-day fall investment conference to
plot their 2018 “resistance” and game plan…
The Free Beacon, who appears
to be the only member of the media on site covering the conference, has
obtained internal documents meant only for attendees that detail the
conference’s agenda and those who are currently at the gathering. Janell Ross, a Washington Post
reporter, is allegedly at the summit, but is listed as being on a “getting
the economic narrative right” panel at the conference.
Islam is insinuating
itself into the globalist strategy, or already has, to judge by the numerous
Congressmen, billionaires, and Muslim “rights” advocates who have been
befriended by CAIR, the ISNA,
the MPAC,
and other Islamic or Muslim
Brotherhood
(MB) affiliated groups, and who do not fear Islam but are
reluctant to blame Islam for any massacre Islam or ISIS claims credit for
(except for Muslims or converts to Islam who are “mentally” troubled). Islam
will be the sole globalist power. Not the secular deep state personnel or any
secularist, national government. America is the MB’s special target of conquest,
per the Explanatory
Memorandum
on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North
America of 1991.
In part the Memorandum reads:
  • Enablement of Islam in North
    America, meaning: establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement
    led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically
    and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at
    unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization
    alternative, and supports the global Islamic state, wherever it is.
  • In order for Islam and its
    Movement to become “a part of the homeland” in which it lives,
    “stable” in its land, “rooted” in the spirits and
    minds of its people, “enabled” in the live [sic] of its society
    and has firmly-established “organizations” on which the Islamic
    structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization is achieved,
    the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain “the keys” and the
    tools of this process in carry [sic] out this grand mission as a
    “Civilization Jihadist” responsibility which lies on the
    shoulders of Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this
    country.
  • The process of settlement is a
    “Civilization-Jihadist Proecess” with all the word means. The
    Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad
    in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and
    “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of
    the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made
    victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding,
    we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad
    yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and
    wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from
    that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers
    and the Mujahedeen be equal.
Islam infests nations just as Progressivism has saddled the U.S. with a
welfare/regulatory state. It has frog-marched Europe and is strangling it in
the choke-hold of altruist morality. Islam holds Europe and Britain to Christianity’s
standard of moral goodness and activism of sacrificing itself to an invasion of
hordes of unassimilable Muslims and “respecting” Islam, by incrementally introducing
and enforcing Sharia law, and by prohibiting all criticism of Islam, under pain
of fines and/or jail. When non-Muslim governments fall down on that job, Islam reserves
the option of acting itself to bring about obedience and submission, “Islam”
meaning submission
.
Progressivism aims for the same goal, a populace subdued and policed by a
“higher authority,” in public and in one’s mind. This is why the left and Islam
are partners in conquest.

Herbert
Croly, soothsayer of

Progressivism

Herbert Croly (1869–1930), was the early 20th century champion of
Progressivism. He threaded together all the disparate ambitions and
manifestations of Progressive thought (wages, women’s rights, etc.) and
presented them in what turned out to be the “biblical” expression of the political
philosophy in The
Promise of American Life
(1909).
Croly’s ideas were also instrumental in shaping President Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s New Deal.
Sidney Pearson, Professor
Emeritus, Radford University, of The
Heritage Foundation
, explains the appeal of Progressivism to the current
political and business elites:
What gave the Progressive movement
its theoretical unity, in spite of internal quarrels among various writers,
thinkers, and politicians, was its uniform opposition to the founding
principles of the American regime. Progressives opposed the natural law and
natural rights arguments of the Declaration of Independence in favor of a
political science founded on historical evolution. The metaphors were typically
Darwinian, and the substance was derived from German–Hegelian historicism.
The Progressive
movement aimed at nothing less than the total and complete transformation of
the American regime.

In Croly’s words, “The best that can be said on behalf of this traditional
American system of ideas is that it contained the germ of better things.”
In practice, this meant a criticism
of the Founders’ idea of limited government with enumerated powers. In
electoral politics, as it was expressed by writers such as Herbert Croly,
Progressive democracy was built on an increased concentration of political
power, primarily in the executive.
The Progressive movement aimed at nothing less than the total
and complete transformation of the American regime.
From one of freedom of thought,
expression, and action and the liberty to pursue, unimpeded, one’s own happiness,
to a social environment in which the individual is corralled, fettered, and
regulated in a collective for the “public good” or for the Islamic collective. This
goal differs little from the Islamic goal of establishing universal Sharia Law overseeing
a global Ummah of all Muslims
and a state of servitude for all non-Muslims.

Globalist or Jihadist?
Wants a bite of you

The Religious Tolerance
site a concise definition of Sharia Law:
The term
“Sharia” (a.k.a. Shari’a) literally means “the path to a
watering hole
.” The Guardian newspaper in the UK describes Sharia as:
… a religious code for living, in the same way that the Bible offers
a moral system for Christians.
” It is used to refer both to the Islamic system of
law
and the totality of the Islamic way of life.
Islam in the jihadist
sense means perpetual warfare against unbelievers until they are conquered or extinguished.
Conquest of the unbelievers is its essential “code for living.” It is not about
sacrifice or self-sacrifice, as a Christian duty. Its “struggle” is not, as is
commonly assumed, an internal one, but a ceaseless one against a world of
unbelievers to achieve “perfection” as a Muslim and to win eternal bliss in an
afterlife in Allah’s Paradise.
On the other hand,
there is the century-old Progressive jihad
against America to “transform” it into a socialist, and, inevitably, a fascist
polity in which the individual must submit to the state or the collective or be
deemed a “non-person.” As in Islam, there is no “either/or” alternative. And as
with Mussolini’s Fascism, All
within the state, nothing outside the state
, nothing against the state,” it
is the same with Islam. A global caliphate would demand the
same all-encompassing rule. “All within Sharia, nothing outside it, nothing
against it.” To Islam, man-made
laws
are an abomination. The term “democracy” is also an anathema to Islam.  Islam is a totalitarian system, root, branch,
and twig. Islam and Progressives want no truck with democracy (or majority rule).
Progressivism, too, is totalitarian in nature. It means a rule of “elites,” of
self-appointed rulers who believe they know best for everyone, from cribs to
diets to careers, to the kind of spouse one marries
Is there a difference between the proposed systems? Between the goals of Islam
and the leftist organizations such as the Democracy Alliance?
None that I can fathom. To Progressives the State is Allah. The State is
what everyone is expected to worship and swear allegiance to, not some mystical
deity.
The Free Beacon noted about the Carlsbad synod of wealthy Progressives:
The DA’s agenda, titled “Beyond #Resistance: Reclaiming our
Progressive Future,” establishes “participation guidelines” that
include guests not sharing any of the members’ names with the press or on
social media. It also asks attendees to refrain from leaving any sensitive
materials behind.
Friday’s
headliners include liberal billionaire George Soros, who was introduced by a video
message from Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), and House Democratic Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is scheduled to speak at the network’s dinner. Sen.
Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) also delivered a video message to the group.
David
Brock, the former conservative investigative reporter turned Clinton ally and
founder of Media Matters, DCCC chair Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D., N.M.), CNN
contributor Van Jones, Center for American Progress CEO Neera Tanden,
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, California politician Sandra Fluke, and
others, are also at the summit, according to the agenda.
Tom Steyer,
a billionaire environmental activist and past prominent member of the alliance,
who is currently in the midst of launching a campaign geared at impeaching
President Donald Trump, does not appear to be at the gathering. Pelosi, who is
in attendance at the summit, previously lambasted Steyer for the campaign.
However,
Sky Gallegos, the political director of NextGen Climate, Steyer’s group, is
listed in the group’s documents as having participated in a lunch program
Thursday on “mobilizing the electorate for a progressive future.”
Soros, of
course, is helping to destroy Europe for the sake of destroying it, and is
determined to do the same to America and all of Western Civilization, turning
it all into one big Islamic hellhole. He is ruled by pure malice. Yet, he is
called a humanitarian and philanthropist.
Joe Schoffstall penned a follow-up piece on the
billionaire wannabe Caliphs in his November 21st article for the Free Beacon, “
Liberal Millionaires Group Seeks to ‘Fundamentally
Reset’ America’s Ideology and Economy
.”
A group of
deep-pocketed progressive millionaires seeks to “fundamentally reset”
America’s ideology and economy and “expose the dogma of free enterprise,
limited government, and traditional family values,” according to a
brochure obtained by the Washington Free Beacon at a secretive
progressive dark money donor conference.
The group,
called Patriotic
Millionaires
, is a Washington, D.C.-based organization that consists of
wealthy liberals with an income of at least $1 million. The organization
initially formed in 2010 to “demand an end to Bush tax cuts for
millionaires” and has launched a recent campaign against the Republican
tax cut plan.
Patriotic
Millionaires’s newest organizational overview, which is not the same brochure
that is currently available on its website, was obtained by the Free Beacon
at the Democracy Alliance’s fall investment conference held last
week at the swanky La Costa Resort in Carlsbad, Calif. Each Democracy Alliance
member vows to steer hundreds of thousands in funding to approved left-wing
organizations the group supports.
The Patrotic
Millionaire
s site boasts:
The group
is chaired by Morris Pearl, a former Blackrock executive who retired 3
and a half years ago after a long career on Wall Street to work with the
Patriotic Millionaires full time. Patriotic Millionaires members include
investors and business owners from across the country engaged in a wide array
of industries. Our members include: David desJardins, the #20 employee at
Google; legendary venture capitalist Alan Patricof, New York psychologist Gail
Furman; filmmaker Abigail Disney; technologist Steve Silberstein; billionaire
medical device heiress Pat Stryker; investor Lawrence Benenson of Benenson
Capital Partners; textile entrepreneur Great Neck Richman; philanthropist Molly
Munger; corrugated cardboard magnate Dennis Mehiel and media investor Leo
Hindery, Jr. among many others.
Proud
“traitors to their class,” members of the Patriotic Millionaires are high-net
worth Americans, business leaders, and investors who are united in their
concern about the destabilizing concentration of wealth and power in America.
The mission of The Patriotic Millionaires organization is to build a more stable,
prosperous, and inclusive nation by promoting public policies based on the
“first principles” of equal political representation, a guaranteed living wage
for all working citizens, and a fair tax system:
  • All
    citizens should enjoy political power equal to that enjoyed by
    millionaires;
  • All
    citizens who work full time should be able to afford their basic needs;
  • Tax
    receipts from millionaires, billionaires and corporations should comprise
    a greater proportion of federal tax receipts.

Globalist or Jihadist?
Telling you what to think

Those points are but window dressing, the labored calligraphy of
Progressivism meant to dazzle the gullible and guilty among “the little people.”
The members of Democracy Alliance and Patriotic Millionaires are but limousine
social justice warriors. Again, I discern no political-end difference between the
virtue-signaling members of Democracy Alliance and Patriotic Millionaires and
the belligerent hubris of Islam. As Anne Coulter once said, the limousine
social justice warriors are but modern “Druids” who worship a
pagan god and fly thousands of miles in gas guzzling private jets to speak about
global warming. Islam worships an imaginary “superior” god made out of the
whole cloth of a hijab or kufi.  
Both sets seek unquestionable power to tell you what to think, what to
say, and how to live. They want their Outer Limits.

Pamela Geller: A Warrior of the Mind

I can’t say enough about
Pamela Geller’s FATWA:
HUNTED IN AMERICA
, previously reviewed on

Rule of Reason (Pamela
Geller: Wonder Woman of the Counter-Jihad
). I could pen a column for each
chapter in the book, and it still wouldn’t do it justice. Geller is an
Amazonian warrior without equal, at least in our time.

Ayn Rand was an Amazonian
warrior in her time (1905-1982), and endured and survived the same level of smearing,
defaming, and character assassinations at the hands of the MSM as Geller has
and continues to endure now. Rand was opposed to Communism and alerted Americans
to the insidious and stealthy campaign to insinuate the ideology into the
culture, especially by academics and Hollywood. She was hated because of her
opposition to any brand of collectivism and for her willingness to expose the sneaksbies.
Islam was not an overriding concern to her or to just about everyone else in
Rand’s time.
Geller has amply
demonstrated how Islam is being insinuated into American politics and culture, and how it should be fought, and not merely
resisted.
Rand was an
indefatigable warrior of the mind. Geller is a warrior of the mind, as well. She
insists that it is the ideology of Islam that must be repudiated, defeated, and
extinguished. It is not just its uncounted instances of barbarism over the
centuries and its totalitarian nature that must be exposed and opposed. For
more people to grasp the death-worshipping nature of Islam, it must be addressed
as an ideology. Nothing but a preemptive intellectual strike against Islam will
disintegrate it as a “moral” system. Islam, like the Left, has no moral
argument in its defense. It cannot call on the truth about itself without
implicating itself. Geller is leading that strike.
If you have an ounce of self-esteem, when someone
comes at you with a gun, you answer with force. If he is out to destroy you,
you owe it to yourself to defend yourself. We need to understand that the left
is as dangerous, if not more so, than the suicide bomber, for obscuring this
basic fact. Because leftists have the legitimacy of the mainstream, the imprimatur
of respectability, they wield this spurious legitimacy like a club to destroy
all opposition to their totalitarian agenda. (p. 226, FATWA)
Geller’s detractors
and enemies on the Left are like the Komodo Dragons of Indonesia. These
prehistoric creatures are content to merely bite a victim, and inject a
bacterial poison into it. They will wait until the victim dies from the poison
or is helplessly paralyzed by it before consuming it. So it is with the Left
and Islam. That is how the Left and the so-called “religion of peace” have
worked. The First Amendment has been bitten, and it is dying. The Islamic Komodo
Dragons are drooling.
Security at the Draw Mohammad Garland event

Quoting from my
first review of FATWA:

To those who do not
wish to think about the essence of Islam, but would rather cowardly slink
behind George Bush’s mantra that Islam
is “a religion of peace,”
Geller has a prophetic warning:
“You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the
consequences of avoiding reality” (p. 87).
Those consequences
keep piling up the bodies and victims in jihadist attacks inspired
by Islam, almost weekly.
The bigger lizard, Islam,
will sooner or later come after the smaller ones. Journalism has been bitten.
It is practically dead.
The Investigative
Project on Terrorism (IPT) reported a 1991 document of the Muslim Brotherhood,
the “Explanatory
Memorandum
,” that explains Islam’s methods and goals of conquest:
The
process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all
the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind
of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from
within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the
hands of the believers…
Steve
Emerson of IPT prefaced that startling revelation of strategy with:
This May 1991 memo was written by Mohamed Akram,
a.k.a. Mohamed Adlouni, for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the
introductory letter, Akram referenced a “long-term plan…approved and
adopted” by the Shura Council in 1987 and proposed this memo as a
supplement to that plan and requested that the memo be added to the agenda for
an upcoming Council meeting. Appended to the document is a list of all Muslim
Brotherhood organizations in North America as of 1991.
Geller cites the
Memorandum in FATWA. The MSM is the palsied (such as the New York Times), “miserable”
hand that is aiding the enemy in its quest to destroy Western civilization.
Geller writes:
After years of doing battle, I would
later come to understand the evil of the left and its dogma of superiority of feelings
over reason…It was not until years later that I understood that the left was as
big a problem, perhaps bigger, than the jihad. For the left was all about control,
which is why they are aligned with the jihad forces. There is no better system
of control than Sharia.
It isn’t Democrat versus Republican.
It is the eternal struggle of mankind. Individualism versus collectivism. The state
versus the individual. The left despises the individual, which is why they are
so deeply at odds with America, why they stand with Islamic supremacists. There
is no unique soul under Islam, no “individual.” America, on the other hand, was
the first moral government in history to be based on individual rights (p. 15
FATWA).
The systematic sliming
of the defenders of the freedom of speech is nothing new. It began shortly
after the American Revolution and soon after the Constitution was ratified in
1788 (by the 9th state, New Hampshire, meeting the 2/3rds requirement), when
President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. From my September
2016 column, “Hate
Speech: Then and Now
”:
What went on in the mid- to
late-1790s has reverse parallels today. Where the Mainstream Media (MSM) today,
by its own admission, intervened to slander, libel, and smear presidential
candidate Donald Trump (now the President-Elect), to aid in and guarantee the
election of a criminally irresponsible, scandal-rich, unstable Hillary Clinton,
the Democratic candidate, the writers and newspapers of the 18th century came
under vicious attack from the government and the Federalists, the party of John
Adams, who as President signed the Alien and Sedition
Acts
passed by Congress. The MSM failed ingloriously in its efforts. But
Adams, who was the main target of criticism by “Republican” (the name of the
early Democratic Party) writers and newspapers, unleashed the dogs of
censorship on them when he
signed
the Alien and Sedition Acts on June 18th, 1798.
The Sedition Act outlawed what one
could call the 18th century equivalent of “hate speech.” It was impermissible
and punishable now to hate President John Adams (the second President after
George Washington) and the Federalists and their national and foreign policies,
and to voice one’s anathema for them in print or vocally. Those who did so and
drew the attention of large numbers of people, were arrested and jailed. Adams
and the Federalists would not otherwise have heard or read the dissatisfaction
but for informers who reported the transgressions to Adams and his political
allies.
This section of the
Sedition Act may sound familiar to you. Google, Facebook, and YouTube are the
heirs and practitioners of this brand of censorship:
SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print,
utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to
be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly
assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false,
scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the
United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the
President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or
either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or
either of them, into contempt or disrepute
; or to excite against them,
or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States….
Substitute Islam for
the “government of the United States,” Congress, or the President, and you will
get the point. In this instance, it was the government suppressing any
criticism of itself by criminalizing words printed in what was then a free and raucous
press. Writers and editors were arrested for having printed, written, or spoken
those words; they were tried, and served time in prison. By the time Adams left
office in 180 to make way for Thomas Jefferson, only two of those victims languishing
in jail were the sole survivors of the persecution, out of possibly dozens.
Jefferson immediately pardoned them.
Today, however, it is
that new “free press,” not the government (not yet), that has become the judge
and jury of any anyone speaking out against Islam, for holding it in contempt,
disrepute, or ridicule, and for inciting “hatred” for it in people (“Islamophobia,”
bigotry, and racism, even though Islam is not a race and has follower and
converts from every ethnic group), and feels free to defame and denigrate anyone
who speaks the truth about Islam. Our “free press” has become a tool of a
totalitarian ideology that tolerates no criticism (as the Nazis did not), and so
is no longer “free.” If Islam will not tolerate the freedom of speech, neither
will the MSM. The MSM has become the despised “running dog” of Islam. And we
know that, at its core, Islam
and Muslims hate dogs
.
Geller writes in
FATWA:
For years, the left and its media
lapdogs have created narratives out of whole cloth about the impending violence
from the right…(p. 222, FATWA).
(For example, the “backlash”
in the U.S. against Muslims that never happened or ever happens after a
particularly vicious and bloody jihadist attack, e.g. 9/11, Orlando, Boston,
New York) is a violence that the left hopes will happen so it can argue for
more gun control, and speech controls. I can only say that this species of
malevolent hope of the MSM is evidence of a sociopath. But when the violence
occurs, it is usually the work of jihadists, and when the MSM is forced to
concede it, the jihadists are excused because of “mental illness” or imaginary
persecution or discrimination. Or they are “excusably” provoked by the actions
and words of Geller and other “right-wingers).
The left always blames us for
violence, no matter how nonexistent the ties. Even when I was the target of an
assassination plot in Garland [with some FBI connivance], the left blamed me because
I would not adhere to the blasphemy laws under Sharia (p. 223; brackets mine;
Geller discusses the FBI’s connivance in Chapter X: “Garland, Texas: ISIS
Attacks the Homeland”).
In short, she would
not bend to Sharia. And never will. So she had to die.
In short, the MSM narrative
asserts that Geller “provoked” the jihadists by exercising her right to speak
freely and to display a gallery of Mohammad images. Speakers and writers of the
truth are today accused of “hate speech,” when in fact it is the MSM and Islam that
indulge freely in “hate speech.”
Geller is a moviemaker,
aside from being a prolific writer (Can’t
We Talk About This?)
, and a tireless champion of the freedom of speech. In FATWA:
HUNTED IN AMERICA
she details her fight against knock-kneed transportation
authorities to get her many ads put on buses and in subway

Winner of the Draw Mohammad Garland event

stations. One of her
billboards is prominently displayed in Times Square. She an advocate of the
victims of Muslim honor-killings, and a public speaker when she is allowed to
speak and even allowed to appear anywhere. Almost single-handedly, she defeated
plans to erect the Ground
Zero Mosque
. She is a founder, with Robert Spencer,
and a prime mover behind the American Freedom  Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop
Islamization of America (SIOA). The Wikipedia entries on Geller, Spencer, and
the AFDI are prime examples of the lop-sided kinds of pro-Islam “journalism”
that is the norm today.

Before the dhimmis of
the MSM go to sleep, they first check their closets or look under their beds
for the boogeyman jihadists of Islam they fear will behead them. But all they
find is stern-eyed,
indomitable Pamela Geller. And they fear her more than they do jihadists.

A Gallery of Prophetic Phizs II

Phiz is old British slang for a human face or facial expression,
derived from visage or physiognomy.
.
This is the second part of a two-part column on the forbidden images of
Mohammad. I am doing it because it can and will be done in defiance of Islam and
of the Left.
Many of these images are old and uncredited, dating back centuries.
Many of them are from the 19th and early 20th centuries, a few are from the Draw Mohammad
Day in 2010
, or are otherwise contemporary. And a few, to judge by their
styles, crudity, and character, are of Medieval origin.  But, regardless of the period in which they
were created, they are all fanciful representations of Mohammad, because he is
a person no one living or dead had ever seen, whose historic existence is
doubtful (see Robert Spencer’s Did
Mohammad Exist?)
l, but whose image per Sharia is prohibited on
pain of death
. There are more than you could imagine; this is but a
handful. Some are benign and adulatory, some are tasteless, some are humorous,
and subject specfic. All “objectify” various, individual perceptions of
Mohammad. So-called “Islamists” would have everyone believe that the depiction
of Mohammad is a recent phenomenon, when in fact, according to Robert Spencer,
his image was depicted on Middle
Eastern coins over a thousand years ago.
Practically the only renderings of Allah are glowing pentagrams with
embedded Arabic inscriptions, or they are just the name,  Allah, in Arabic, which suffices for Islam as
a representation
of Allah
. Christianity traditionally has portrayed God as a bearded old man
in a nightgown, sandals or flip-flops. Islam refuses to attempt any human
objectification of Allah, because doing so would be “blasphemous” and worthy of
a death fatwa.
Enjoy the freedom of speech.
As a precedent, I am dedicating this column to a partial roster of the
tireless, courageous, and dogged fighters for freedom and the freedom of
speech:
Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, Anne Marie
Waters, Katie Hopkins, Daniel Greenfield, Bosch Fawstin, Diana West , Ibn
Warraq, Bat Ye’or, Lars Vilks, Salman Rushie, Milo Yiannopoulos (whose original surname, Hanrahan, is the
surname of one of my detective heroes). It is also dedicated to the scores of
men and women who have been silenced (permanently) in their opposition to Islam
and its campaign for global supremacy and the annihilation of the West and
Israel, or who are outspoken but still invisible to the Sharia-compliant MSM
and our dhimmi governments, or are suppressed, defamed, or ignored by them.  It is also dedicated to  all the victims and escapees of Islamic
honor-killing in the U.S., Canada, and the world over. Au contraire, Mr. Obama, the future belongs to them, not to you
or to Islam.

In 1997, the fledgling Council
on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) brought their wrath to the Court,
petitioning then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist to remove the sculpture from a
marble frieze in the Supreme Court. CAIR outlined their objections as thus:
1. Islam discourages its followers from
portraying any prophet in artistic representations, lest the seed of idol
worship be planted.
2. Depicting Mohammad carrying a sword
“reinforced long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant
conquerors.”
3. Building documents and tourist
pamphlets referred to Mohammad as “the founder of Islam,” when he is,
more accurately, the “last in a line of prophets that includes Abraham,
Moses and Jesus.”
(Quite the contrary, CAIR. Mohammad
[if he existed] was the founder of
Islam. There was no Islam before him, and no other “prophets” of it. Abraham,
Moses, and Jesus were copped from Judeo-Christian texts by tongue-in-cheek
scribes long after Mohammad was pushing up daisies.)
Rehnquist dismissed CAIR’s
objections, saying that the depiction was “intended only to recognize him
[Mohammad] … as an important figure in the history of law; it was not
intended as a form of idol worship.” He also reminded CAIR that
“words are used throughout the Court’s architecture as a symbol of justice
and nearly a dozen swords appear in the courtroom friezes alone.”
Rehnquist did make one concession, though, and promised the description of the
sculpture would be changed to identify Mohammad as a “Prophet of
Islam,” not “Founder of Islam.” The rewording also said that the
figure is a “well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Mohammed,
and it bears no resemblance
to Mohammed
.” Rehnquist more or
less told CAIR to go suck an egg.

FINIS

A Gallery of Prophetic Phizs I

Phi z is old British slang for a human face or facial expression,
derived from visage or physiognomy.
.
This is the first part of a two-part column on the forbidden images of
Mohammad. I am doing it because it can and will be done in defiance of Islam and
of the Left.

Many of these images are old and uncredited, dating back centuries.
Many of them are from the 19th and early 20th centuries, a few are from the Draw Mohammad
Day in 2010
, or are otherwise contemporary. And a few, to judge by their
styles, crudity, and character, are of Medieval origin.  But, regardless of the period in which they
were created, they are all fanciful representations of Mohammad, because he is
a person no one living or dead had ever seen, whose historic existence is
doubtful (see Robert Spencer’s Did
Mohammad Exist?)
l, but whose image per Sharia is prohibited on
pain of death
. There are more than you could imagine; this is but a
handful. Some are benign and adulatory, some are tasteless, some are humorous,
and subject specfic. All “objectify” various, individual perceptions of
Mohammad. So-called “Islamists” would have everyone believe that the depiction
of Mohammad is a recent phenomenon, when in fact, according to Robert Spencer,
his image was depicted on Middle

Eastern coins over a thousand years ago.
Practically the only renderings of Allah are glowing pentagrams with
embedded Arabic inscriptions, or they are just the name,  Allah, in Arabic, which suffices for Islam as
a representation
of Allah
. Christianity traditionally has portrayed God as a bearded old man
in a nightgown, sandals or flip-flops. Islam refuses to attempt any human
objectification of Allah, because doing so would be “blasphemous” and worthy of
a death fatwa.
Enjoy the freedom of speech.
As a precedent, I am dedicating this column to a partial roster of the
tireless, courageous, and dogged fighters for freedom and the freedom of
speech:
Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, Anne Marie
Waters, Katie Hopkins, Daniel Greenfield, Bosch Fawstin, Diana West , Ibn
Warraq, Bat Ye’or, Lars Vilks, Salman Rushie, Milo Yiannopoulos (whose original surname, Hanrahan, is the
surname of one of my detective heroes). It is also dedicated to the scores of
men and women who have been silenced (permanently) in their opposition to Islam
and its campaign for global supremacy and the annihilation of the West and
Israel, or who are outspoken but still invisible to the Sharia-compliant MSM
and our dhimmi governments, or are suppressed, defamed, or ignored by them.  It is also dedicated to  all the victims and escapees of Islamic
honor-killing in the U.S., Canada, and the world over. Au contraire, Mr. Obama, the future belongs to them, not to you
or to Islam.

____________________________________________________________________________

                                                                                                                 

Pamela Geller: The Wonder Woman of the Counter-Jihad


If she did not exist,
she would need to be invented in fiction. But Pamela Geller is real, and is one of the bravest, most
incorrigible, most courageous women in America, and in the West.

Pamela Geller: Political weasels and
MSM dhimmies don’t mess with her

And she has an Islamic
price on her head, or a fatwa. Islamic supremacists want to behead her.
On October 18th, Fox
News reported “The
Latest: Target of beheading plot praises guilty verdict
.”
Twenty-eight-year-old
David Wright was convicted Wednesday of conspiring to kill Pamela Geller and
other Americans on behalf of the Islamic State group.
The  MSM also has a price on her head. It initiated
its fatwa soon after she began studying and then  inveighing against Islam (after 9/11) and its
mealy-mouthed shields and shills in the West, such as Geraldo
Rivera
.
Recently, Geller
revealed that criticism of Islam
is taboo in Hollywood
and that TV and movie scripts are vetted by the Muslim
Public Affairs Council
(MPAC) to ensure they are Sharia-compliant. An
instance of this compliance occurred in an episode of The
Walking Dead
, when a second Muslim character is introduced and also a quotation
from the Koran
. No film or TV series is immune from the MPAC’s scissors of
sensitivity. All of Hollywood has submitted to Islam, which means literally “submission.”
 There is a handful of her caliber of woman in
America and a few in Britain and Europe – Katie Hopkins, Elisabeth
Sabaditsch-Wolff
, Brigette
Gabriel
, and Bat Ye’or,
to name but a few of the few – and they are all collectively branded,
stigmatized, and persecuted by the MSM and the political elite as “haters,
“bigots,” “Islamophobes” and the like. They are protested and maligned without
thought or the pretence of civil behavior.
The MSM fatwa against
Geller brandishes not the knife or the truck or the sword, but the smear, the
defamation, the character assassination, and ample slings of mud. In that way
the MSM partners with CAIR and all its affiliated Muslim Brotherhood sired organizations
in a constant campaign to denigrate her and her sisters in arms.

the MSM and dhimmi establishment

To those who do not
wish to think about the essence of Islam, but would rather cowardly slink
behind George Bush’s mantra that Islam
is “a religion of peace,”
Geller has a prophetic warning:
“You can avoid reality, but you
cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality” (p. 87).
Those consequences
keep piling up the bodies and victims in jihadist attacks inspired
by Islam, almost weekly.
I am principally a
novelist. I have over fifty titles on Amazon. These include Sparrowhawk, a six-title series on the
origins of the American Revolution (in which there are no Muslims), three
detective/suspense series, and a handful of nonfiction titles, most of them
featuring critiques of Islam. My first fictional foray against Islam was We Three Kings, published years ago and
still selling. In it, an American entrepreneur is pressured by the State
Department to give a rare gold coin to a Saudi sheik (he doesn’t). My second
major foray was The Black Stone, in
which a New York reporter steals the Black Stone from the Kaaba in Mecca (in
1930) and is pursued by agents of The Muslim Brotherhood,
all the way to San Francisco. (It’s a better story than Hammett’s The Maltese Falcon, if I must say to
myself).
I have several
heroines in my fiction. I must admit that, regardless of their stature, none of
them holds a candle to Pamela Geller. I could not invent a heroine like Geller.
Had I invented one, readers would paraphrase Cyrano about his nose, “you must
be exaggerating!”  But I don’t need to
invent her. She’s real. I don’t need to exaggerate. She is tireless. She wakes
up in the morning, and it’s back to work, reporting on Islam and its latest
atrocities. Informing her large readership of the most recent developments in
the increasing dhimmitude and submission to Islam of American and Western
authorities

A striking resemblance:
Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman

Her magic bracelets, Wonder
Woman’s, do not repeal bullets. Geller’s bracelets are reason, logic, and a
love of America. They do, however, repel the smears and malignity of her
critics in government and in what she calls regularly the “enemedia.” Her
“lasso of truth” captures numerous MSM dhimmi lights, and Muslim spokesmen, in
their lies and taqiyya.
FATWA’s foreword was
written by that blonde giant of the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, who is a
kind of Ragnar Danneskjöld hated by Dutch government officials, and by those
super-sensitive social justice warriors in nijabs,
thobes, abayas, and kufis
, a.k.a. Muslims. In Atlas Shrugged,
Ayn Rand’s novel, Danneskjöld is a pirate who raids the looters and seizes the
cargos of the looting governments. In one episode, he sinks rather than seizes
a shipload of copper ore appropriated by American  looters.  
She has also
campaigned against Islamic honor killings; a subject she feels strongly about and
even launched a bus and subway ad for and has followed surviving escapees from the
Islamic practice until they were free. She has battled municipal transportation
authorities for the right to place her ads, which match each cause she has
pursued, on buses, in subways, and in other public venues. She has sued the
authorities when they rejected her ads as “demeaning” to Islam and Muslims and
has won almost every case when a judge has ruled in her favor on First
Amendment and freedom of speech grounds. When reading FATWA, pay special attention
to her chapter “The Ad Wars.” You’ll learn more about the dhimmification of America,
and the erosion of our First Amendment rights, than you thought you knew.
Geller wrote on page
102:

Geller
with one of her titles

The enemies of freedom invoked
freedom of speech to kill freedom of speech. Free speech is for them and them
alone….It spoke to the heart of the matter and the reason why we fight. Those who
enforce free speech restrictions expose who and what they really are. The enemies
of freedom mean to destroy the founding principles of this nation. [Parenthetically,
Geller in her columns and in FATWA often echoes Ayn Rand when she refers to the
U.S.
having the only moral government in history
.]
On a final note, Geller,
ever the fashion plate, brings glamour and style to reason and rationality.
Wonder Woman’s origin
story
relates that she was sculpted from clay by her mother Queen Hippolyta and given life by Aphrodite,
along with superhuman powers as gifts by the Greek
gods
.
Pamela Geller may be a
fashion plate, but she definitely is not made of clay.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén