The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: July 2018

The Untouchables

Ness did not need to deal with Islam

An alternate title for this column is “The Untouchables.” No, it isn’t about Eliot Ness and his team of Treasury Department agents fighting crime in 1930s Chicago. Rather, it is about why the West cannot repel the corroding incursions of Islam.

We’ve seen one country after another submit to Islam and defer to it and to Muslim sensibilities and demands: Germany leading the pack, France, Belgium, the U.K., the Netherlands, Spain, Canada…and now Australia? It’s akin to the domino effect; Islam is for some reason irresistible to the conquest of the West by Islam, per the 1991 memorandum of The Brotherhood:
 “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] 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.”
One can be arrested or penalized for questioning Islam in any of the aforementioned countries or for casting doubt on its state-granted protected status. Responsible for the surrenders is Political Correctness; of publically refraining from criticizing Islam is because it might “offend” Muslims or “hurt their feelings.”  The defenders are afraid to question Islam – ignoring its brutal, blood-soaked history and the life of Mohammad as reported in the Koran, the Hadith, and relevant documents – for the same reason they will not question Christianity’s ethics or history, because Islam is touted first and foremost as a “religion.”
Almost invariably, defenders assert that the West is founded on Judeo-Christian morality of selflessness and self-sacrific; they might even say that Islam is incompatible with Western ideas of freedom of speech, liberty, and other “traditions.”
But I think the real reason Islam can walk all over the West is because the West’s defenders can think of no argument against it. Refuting Islam would take them to where they will not go. Islam can make immigrational beachheads, per the MB memorandum, in countries like Australia, with impunity and get away with it. From these beachheads come the “radicalized” jihadists who kill, stab, blow up infidels, and run them over once they have inculcated the fact that Islam is an anathema to the West. They do not dare question Islam because they will not question Christianity’s religious “heritage,” either, even though historically the Catholic Church was an enemy of the Enlightenment.
Metaphysically, the Western God little differs from Islam’s Allah, or from Casper the Friendly Ghost. In all of Christianity’s history (one of my favorite analogies), and as in Christianity about God, in Islam, the deity’s physical appearance has always been a fanciful conjecture and a figment of imagination. Neither imaginary deity has ever made an appearance among men to prove his existence; one’s belief in God or Allah has always been based on “belief,” or “faith,” as unsubstantiated evidence and constantly elusive from the evidence of our senses. But Islam is more than a “religion,” as it is a political agenda to be imposed, by hook or crook, on the West. God doing a walk-on for men would be an historical event, provided it was even possible.
But is Australia giving in? Read Lauren Southern’s experience in Sydney when confronted with a high ranking police officer.
AU News  Canadian YouTube personality Lauren Southern has broadcast another video fail during her Australian tour. Flanked by seven security guards, Southern visited the area in an attempt to expose the western Sydney suburb, which has a significant Muslim population, as a “no-go zone.”
Southern claimed there were “heads turning” as soon as she and her guards and film crew hit the streets of Lakemba [a Sydney neighborhood, heavily Muslim]. “Men started yelling in Arabic across the street at us,” she said. When she tried to interview passers-by and “criticize Islam” outside Lakemba mosque, the 23-year-old was halted by local police who stopped her, saying they had “grave concerns” about what she planned to do.
Her presence there, the police officer said, would constitute a “breach of the peace,” and were she or her camera crew attacked or harassed, she would be blamed and would be arrested, not the force initiating Muslims. Her presence would “trigger” aggressive and probably violence Muslims, because they’d be “offended” if Southern said anything negative about Islam. It; looks like Southern would be banned from Australia, as she has been from the U.K.
“As far as I’m concerned, this is Sharia, and Lakeamba is a conquered land,” Southern wrote.
Religion is mystical.  Ayn Rand explains it best:
Since religion is a primitive form of philosophy—an attempt to offer a comprehensive view of reality—many of its myths are distorted, dramatized allegories based on some element of truth, some actual, if profoundly elusive, aspect of man’s existence….
In mankind’s history, art began as an adjunct (and, often, a monopoly) of religion. Religion was the primitive form of philosophy: it provided man with a comprehensive view of existence. Observe that the art of those primitive cultures was a concretization of their religion’s metaphysical and ethical abstractions….
It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man’s mind….
The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question.
About Christ, Rand says:
Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used.
Islam’s way of “preaeful” conversion

If the West’s defenders adopted the philosophy of reason, they would have no trouble refuting Islam or its alleged “superiority” over Christianity or any other religion, either, and thus rebuff all attempts to insinuate itself into the West.

To hate something, is to fear it. To see and treat it as a mortal threat to one’s values.  Or not. Most Western defenders do not see Islam as a threat. It buys the whole Islamic package that it is a “religion of peace,” when the historical record shows otherwise.

 Religion is the magic word that stymies the West and its defenders. “We have to respect Islam, they claim, “because it’s a religion. It is untouchable by common reason and morality just as ours is untouchable.”

The Ubquity of Hatred

In my July 7th column, “The Democrats’ Declare a Fatwa on America,” I contend that, for all practical purposes, the Democrats  have declared war, not just on Donald Trump, but also on the U.S.  Just as jihadists assert that their purpose is to impose Sharia on the country, the Democrats wish to impose Progressivism  on the country. America is “deplorable,” and Trump is the most deplorable American of all. 

I have not experienced the magnitude of ranting hatred that was unleashed on Jeanine Pirro by Whioopi Goldberg on “The View”  but my first taste of the mania occurred on Facebook when a former friend  dared insinuate I was a traitor to my series, “Sparrowhawk” and asked me how successful the series would be if one of the heroes obscenely attacked one of the female characters as Donald Trump allegedly said should be done to women,  or had Patrick Henry sit down to negotiate with George III. It was a stupid ruse, and insulting, because I never wrote what he imagined I might have written but in fact never would have and didn’t. The commentator, (there is no point to repeating his remarks here) revealed that he is yet another victim of the Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), probably as bad as Whoopie Goldberg ‘s.

To anti-Trump libertarians and their numerous kin, because I support President Trump, I should be marched behind a dumpster and shot. Trump is vulgar, pragmatic, and a power luster. they say, and likely a “fascist” because he imposed tariffs (which were retaliatory in nature).  Or at least I should be subjected to Maxine Waters’ brand of hatred. Or Goldberg’s.  When you look back at Waters’urging that people harass or abuse Trump supporters wherever they’re found, you have to ask yourself: Did Goldberg take her urgings to heart? Did Goldberg treat them as a sanction? The connection should be quite clear; they are linked.
To hate something, is to fear it. To see and treat it as a mortal threat to one’s values. But Trump is not a threat to anyone’s values, and yet he is hated. He has done nothing but augment the importance of one’s values, one of which is this country. By the haters, he is put in the same box with true value-destroyers such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao (to name but a few murderous tyrants from this century), about whom the Goldbergs and Waters’s know little or nothing.  To the haters, what is it that he threatens?

A controlled world, a ruled society in which everyone deferred to the elitists and took orders. To the libertarians, Trump represents, not just a flawed character, but a dictator in the making. They imagine his shirt lapels are adorned with the SS insignia. Trump has worked assiduously to correct or eliminate the damage done to the country by Obama and eight years of his anti-American presidency. But they are as blind or indifferent to Trump’s achievements as the Democrats and Congressional socialists who endorse violence and yearn to return the country to what it was under Obama, stagnant and in a slow drown in a sinking boat. The Constitution would be turned into a meaningless Scrabble puzzle.
One should wonder why hatred is so common and vociferous in the country today. Is it a plague of socialist salmonella? No. Its cause is the non-acceptance of the fact that Hillary Clinton lost her bid for power. Facts have always been the enemy of collectivists of all stripes . They turn otherwise anonymous non-entities into emotional, raving Whoopie Goldbergs.


In my July 7th column, “The Democrats’ Declare a Fatwa on America,” I contend that, for all practical purposes, the Democrats  have declared war, not just on Donald Trump, but also on the U.S.  Just as jihadists assert that their purpose is to impose Sharia on the country, the Democrats wish to impose Progressivism  on the country. America is “deplorable,” and Trump is the most deplorable American of all. 

The Democrats and the MSM, whose malice for Trump and his supporters knows no bounds, haven’t yet reached the rock bottom essence of their souls, and confine themselves to harassing and yelling at their victims in their homes, at restaurants and movie theaters, and screaming at them and menacing them, but the time is coming when they will take physical action, just as the jihadists have. Just as the Muslim Brotherhood did in its declaration of war against the West and the U.S. 

I had the same experience with “Lawrence of Arabia,” a magnicent film I once admired until I educated myself on the history of the Middle East during WWI and learned that I had been bamboozled by David Lean. Or perhaps he had been bamboozled by his advisors.

One need not be a musicologist, or an authority on 18th century music to argue that Amadeus is not a true retelling of the Mozart-Salieri rivalry, because even a cursory investigation of the lives of the two men and their careers would reveal that no such rivalry existed. Peter Shaffer’s play and Miloš  Forman’s film (for which Shaffer wrote the screenplay) are fraudulent, untruthful, a disgrace, and an injustice to both men. The truth about Mozart and Salieri was as readily available in the pre-Internet period of 1979 and 1984, when the play and film debuted respectively, as it is now. There was no excuse for the studied literary libel of both composers. The enormity of the lie cannot be excused by “artistic license.”

Mozart was “deplorable” was the message of the movie, so he must be cut down. The myth about him must be exploded.  In truth, says the movie, he was exceptional but flawed, but otherwise narcissistic, irresponsible, loony, and scatologically inclined. The “Deep  Culture ” – Hollywood    had has been at work on shrinking the stature of exceptional, accomplished individuals like Mozart for a few decades (at least from 1967), ever since “Bonnie & Clyde, “ murderous criminals who are portrayed as innocent, misunderstood victims of the system.  Mozart must be sliced and diced.  Bonnie & Clyde must be elevated as sanctified “social justice warriors” or as maskless Antifa “freedom fighters.” 

Were there a rumor that Trump preferred to wear socks made in Chinese sweat shops, the MSM here and abroad would take it as a serious subject to obsess about, almost as serious as they have nattered on over charges of Russian collusion between Vladimir Putin and the Trump campaign and his presidency, even though the charges have been proven groundless. Robert  Mueller’s magic hat  trick (I am constantly reminded of Rocky and Bullwinkle, at the cost of millions of dollars and months of yawn time, produced no rabbits. Any lie or incredible fabrication about about Trump will do.

It does not matter what feats of domestic and foreign policy Trump achieves: in economics, in immigration, and even in dealing with Putin and Russia, all far surpassing what he promised, to the Democrats and the MSM, he is, by their definition of success, deplorable and hate-worthy. He is not them, his actions are efficacious, while they suffer from an ideological erectile dysfunction.

Heart of Darkness

I take the title of this column from Joseph Conrad’s novel, not one of my favorites by any means. The title, however, is appropriate.
A treacherous Klingon: Peter Strzok

Recovering gradually from an attack of something that left my legs useless and my mind in a hallucinatory realm for four days, an experience I would be hard put to describe even as a fairy tale (no, I do not use cannabis or any other brand of recreational drug), I am beginning to catch up with my emails and grasp the state of the world – where the Congressional hearings stand and how far Islam has progressed in the West (Islam, the West, and “progress” being mutually contradictory terms). To myself, I jokingly blame the Democrats for somehow poisoning my food and sending me on a hellish roller coaster ride in Wonderland. The doctors in the hospital where I spent a few days could not explain my condition. I could not enlighten them, either. All they could conclude was that it was a combination of dehydration and hypertension. But what triggered the experience is still a mystery.

There were a few items which captured my attention in the Niagara Falls of information that washed over my head, such as President Trump’s visit to Prime Minister Theresa May and the Turnberry paraglider incident in Scotland. Next of interest has been the grilling of  FBI investigator Peter Strzok over, among other things, what he meant when he told Lisa Page he “will stop it” (that is, that he will scuttle Trump’s ascension to the Oval Office with some hopeful evidence that Trump colluded with Russians to win the presidency.) Trey Gowdy gave it the best he could against this deeply planted evas ive scumbag as he worked to get straight answers from the smarmy Strzok, as George  Neumayr relates in his July 13 Spectator  article “A Cocky Liar to the End.” It was in that article that I learned first of the SES – or the Senior Executive Service – a “civil service” organization established to protect high level career bureaucrats as they grow rich ripping off tax revenues and render themselves immune from prosecution even if there is evidence of a crime, which in Strzok’s case there is ample evidence of.  The SES even has its own flag and a symbol (a harp?).
As Neumayr explains:
The Peter Strzok hearing was a travesty, starting with the fact that he testified as a cocooned, lawyered-up government employee still working for the FBI. It is outrageous that he hasn’t been fired yet. He even still has a security clearance! That alone is proof of the deep state’s hold on certain executive branch agencies. If the FBI keeps its so-so employees close, it keeps its worst employees even closer. That Strzok could huddle with FBI lawyers while stonewalling a Republican-led committee speaks to the corruption of official Washington and the comparative impotence of Republican administrations. Does anybody think an FBI agent who had vowed to “stop” the candidacy of Barack Obama would have lasted a week at his job, let alone over a year, after the discovery of his bias?

The cockiness of Strzok at Thursday’s hearing is a reflection of the immunity that ruling-class mandarins enjoy in liberal Washington. He was testifying from the safety of the deep state and thus knew that he could lie his head off without consequence. How else to explain his unrepentant opening statement, with its blatant anti-Trump special pleading? The statement sounded like it had been written by Rachel Maddow, resting on the lamest and hackiest of MSNBC-style talking points, that “today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart.”

My own wish for Strzok is that he should be frog-marched to the nearest penitentiary, measured for stripes, tossed into a drafty cell, and sustained on bread and water for the rest of his life. It’s a wonder that Gowdy did not leave his seat and slap Strzok silly for being such a low, dishonest  creature.

Evil Peter Strzok, who wears his dank malice on his sleeve, is an elitist, a globalist, and a “civil servant,” that is, a Federal  government employee, protected by the SES and his FBI counselors.

Democrats in Cages

From my column, “The Democrats’ Fatwa on America,” on Rule of Reason June 30th:
The Democrats and the MSM, whose malice for Trump and his supporters knows no bounds, haven’t yet reached the rock bottom essence of their souls, and confine themselves to harassing and yelling at their victims in their homes, at restaurants and movie theaters, and screaming at them and menacing them, but the time is coming when they will take physical action, just as the jihadists have. Just as the Muslim Brotherhood did in its declaration of war against the West and the U.S. 
As I wrote yesterday on “The Screams of the Democrats”:
What is their aim? To cause Trump to fail, to back down, to grovel before the decibel power of their shouts and chants, regardless of the issue. They are geckos spitting at the ankles of a giant, Trump. Anything he does drives them to mindless hysterics – from what he puts on his Oval Office desk, to what he wears, what his wife wears – and now the prospect of his having to choose another Supreme Court justice, now that Anthony Kennedy has announced his retirement, which is pressing their buttons and igniting their to-be-expected anti-Trump hysteria.
The MSM and their allies are so easily “triggered,” one must wonder why they       rise in the morning.  It must be because they’ll find something else to hate and rub under their boots and heels. Without something to hate – without something to destroy, without something to prostitute or compromise, without something to spray with their bile – there would be no reason for living. Something with which to push their socialist agenda? That’s just an excuse. They are the “Walking Dead” nihilists, with no appetite except to gorge themselves on the living. They want power and want to retain what little of it they have. They want to destroy Trump – and you. They want you to live for their purposes, to serve “higher” purposes without complaint, but never your own.
The Democrats prefer to view the world from their socialist/collectivist cages to better see the mirages of their imaginary perfect society: children not separated from their illegal immigrant parents; the abolition if ICE, the impeachment of Trump. Having no argument to rebut reason, all they can do is emote noisily from the ugly vortexes of hate that are their souls, to rattle their cages until someone unlocks the doors and lets them loose. They are children who don’t want to be “ripped” from their Marxist ideological arms. Their aim is to force everyone to submit to their ideological mania.
Frankly, SJWs and Democrats are badly in need of mental enemas to cleanse their gray matter of the Marxist and Progressive bile that they have let accumulate over the years; the flushing can be self-administered, or reality can do it for them.
Their ideologies remain unexamined, just as their base, altruism, has never been examined, except by Ayn Rand. She explains the debilitating consequences of al truism as no other thinker has. For centuries, altruism has remained the untouchable philosopher’s stone of moral  worth.
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
The U.S. should have no borders, the SJWs shout, and children should not be separated from their illegal immigrant parents, real or false; essentially, America would no longer be a country, but a dying political entity open to all comers to claim and benefit from while it lasted before descending into anarchy and tribalism, which are the only consequences of political altruism.
To advocate borders and the wall is an act of selfishness, and is a desire condemned by the SJWs and the Democrats.  Related to God and Allah and to the moral codes of most contemporary religions, altruism similarly reflects the metaphysical impossibility and existential absurdity of the notion of any diety.  Altruism cannot be practiced without immolating oneself and sacrificing one’s values. Christ’s Semon on the Mount –which is a litany of “give up, surrender your values” — altruism is the basis of all collectivist ideologies, including Communism and Nazism. Some theologians dispute the relation of the Sermon to Christianity and Judaism, but that is hardly a credible thesis when Christ is a religious icon whose moral philosophy cannot be separated from the Church (see Pope Francis, a more thorough-going Marxist than any other past Pope). It is hardly to be expected that even the brightest politicians will not delve into the philosophical basis of their collectivist proposals.
They treat altruism as a never-to-be given. Tax the rich, surrender your wealth to those who have less, allow countless poor immigrants to swamp the country because they need a “chance” to live better, their needs are “superior” to your values. Altruism is the root of all collectivist notions of “sharing the wealth” and  “loving your brother” because he needs what you have but which he could never create except by becoming a parasite. See the murderous disasters of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany to witness altruism in action: e.g., Kulaks in Russia and Jews in Germany. If you deny your brother his need, the SJWs and Democrats proclaim, you are evil.
If men are ever to rid themselves of the misery of self-sacrifice, they must question and reject altruism as the sole moral guide in their lives. But to most men today, the cage of altruism is the only moral philosophy they prefer, because it does not ask them to think.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén