The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: August 2018

Casper the Unfriendly Ghost

The Nothingburger in the sky.
To get to the nub of this column, Allah is a “nothingburger,” a ghost,  much like Robert Mueller’s pursuit of a connection between Donald Trump and the Russians.  Allah is as much a creation of man as is Casper the Friendly Ghost, a cartoon character drawn on boards by illustrators with a shot glass of whisky at hand for films, comic books, and newspaper panels.
As I state in my review of Robert Spencer’s  The History of Jihad,”  Allah is a malign figment of men’s imagination:
My own humble interpretation, as a novelist( (and as an atheist), of the history of Islam, is that it has been fundamentally a work-in-progress, with no finishing due-date contemplated or even in sight.”
This would mean that the Koran, the Hadith, the Sunna, and other Islamic texts, such as Reliance of the Traveler, were composed and expanded the same way Casper’s habits and actions were developed out of whole cloth by cartoonists, building on the original concept as a marketable character. Or, in Islam’s case, creating Mohammad as a marketable deity for the endless population of the gullible and for adults stilll locked in their credulous childhood.  It would be interesting to learn who invented Mohammad as a Robin Hoodish “nice guy” brigand and when it was invented and told tales of him, tales that would eventually be inscribed in the Hadith and have him develop into a sword-wielding Grinch, and then in other “sacred” texts relating to Mohammed. See the handful of Koranic excerpts below on how not to  Win Friends and Influence People .
You will notice that Casper (aka Allah) is always encouraging a fight with infidels and disbelievers. Or recommending that you randomly stab them, or run over them with vehicles, or explode suicide vests on subway trains, or in the middle of concerts, or rape them. I don’t recall Casper ever wanting to be friends with anyone, or offering someone help with a problem with a wife, or how to celebrate Christmas, or how to offer a chocolate brownie without lopping off a person’s head Jacobin style.
Casper (aka Allah), as a ghost, and which can be seen here, does not endorse haunting anyone in jihad. His main shill, Mohammad, insists on immediate and direct action.  
Qur’an Surah 2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”
Qur’an Surah 4:34: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; Allah is All-high, All-great.”
 Qur’an Surah 4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
 Qur’an Surah 5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”
 Qur’an Surah 5:38: “And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah; Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.”
 Qur’an Surah 8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!’”
Qur’an Surah 8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”
 Qur’an Surah 8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”
Qur’an Surah 9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”
 Qur’an Surah 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.”
In lieu of 72 virgins
Qur’an Surah 9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”
Qur’an Surah 9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the god-fearing.”
 Qur’an Surah 47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”
Qur’an 5:3 This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.
Qur’an 9:88 The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah’s Cause.
Qur’an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.
Qur’an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.
Qur’an 9:112 The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.
Casper (aka Allah) is not the one to approach for advice on which party to attend, or the person to solicit a tip from about which get-together to crash to find the hottest girls (Jewish or otherwise) or the best open bar.

Extremism

The term “extremism” is indiscriminately bandied about today, applied usually to “conservatives” or to anything related to the “alt-right,” but rarely to the Left or to the straight-jacketed Trump Derangement inmates of the  MSM.

But, what does it in fact mean?
Wikipedia defines extremism as:
Extremism means, literally, “the quality or state of being extreme” or the “advocacy of extreme measures or views”.
Nowadays, the term is mostly used in a political or religious sense, to refer to an ideology that is considered (by the speaker or by some implied shared social consensus) to be far outside the (acceptable) mainstream attitudes of society.
Extremists are usually contrasted with centrists or moderates. For example, in contemporary discussions in Western countries of Islam or of Islamic political movements, the distinction between extremist (implying “bad”) and moderate (implying “good”) Muslims is typically stressed.[
Political agendas perceived as extremist often include those from the far-left politics or far-right politics as well as radicalism, reactionism, fundamentalism and fanaticism.
Extremism means, literally, “the quality or state of being extreme” or the “advocacy of extreme measures or views.”
Nowadays, the term is mostly used in a political or religious sense, to refer to an ideology that is considered (by the speaker or by some implied shared social consensus) to be far outside the (acceptable) mainstream attitudes of society,[2] but extremism can, for example, also be meant in an economic sense. However, all terrorists are extremists but all extremists are not terrorists. This is because extremism is only a belief or view that is seen as far-fetched by the public. Terrorism is the use of violence/intimidation in the pursuit of mainly political aims.
The term “extremism” is usually meant to be pejorative; that is, to express (strong) disapproval. However, it may also be used in a more academic, purely descriptive, non-condemning sense.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines extremism as:
The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism.
The Compact Oxford goes into more detail:
Tendency to be extreme; disposition to go to extremes.
While extreme ,in the Compact Oxford, has half a page of definitions and usages going back several centuries, it begins  with:
Outermost. Farthest from the center; situated either of the ends.
The upmost point or verge;  an end , extremity.
The upmost imaginable of anything;…
Extremism could be taken as the statement “2 + 2 = 4,” written in secret by Winston Smith in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, in Chapter IV.  “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”  
Which is true. “All else”  includes especially mathematics. Two plus two make four leads to differential calculus and other subfields of mathematics.
He uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare “two plus two equals five” as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes it, that makes it true. Of course, “everybody” believing in the asserted truth of a statement comprises a consensus, a vote of hands to decide what is reality and what is not (true or untrue), not a reflection or expression of a truth.: “Fifty million Frenchmen can be as wrong as right,” as Ayn Rand once quipped. The phrase (“Fifty Million”) by Cole Porter, was popularized by Sophie Tucker in the 1927 musical of the same name.
Accepting a statement as true is not a matter of consensus, either. It is an issue of an individual’s recognition of a thing’s identity, based on the clear, unadulterated evidence of his senses together with the non-contradictory workings of his mind.  For example, a bowl of house keys will not create an edible bowl of Wheaties, no matter how much milk and sugar is added. It’s still a pile of keys. The identity of the keys, as inedible, non-consumable objects, is essential. It requires an uncorrupted mind to make the unqualified identification.  Keys must be recognized as keys, not as chunks of green moon cheese or flakes of wheat.
Virtually all of the definitions of extremism I encountered, while researching this column, employed, specifically or by implication, spatial measures. The term, however, as it is currently used by especially the MSM and the SPLC, to map out the political divisions in the country, is used exclusively to establish or identify the political references of individuals or groups, employing spatial measurements to identify purveyors of “hate speech,” whether or not they are separated by distance, or by the conceptual, normative differences in their ideas. Using only the idea of “hate speech” as a guide to organizations that actually or do not spew “hate speech” results in some correct identifications, but notoriously ridiculous groupings of non-hate speech groups with those notorious for it.
As I remark at the end of “Ignorance is Strength,” “Hate speech, when it applies to individuals or organizations to which the designation justly, actually applies, such as the KKK, the Nation of Islam, or The Daily Stormer, is just a lot of hot air.” Thus normative measures – valid or not – are used to identify individuals and groups the SPLC and the MSM choose to label as “hate groups,” allying the normative with the spatial measure, is invalid.
The SPLC defines a “hate group” as:
A hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society.
Thus, actual purveyors of hate speech are grouped with critical, journalistic individuals and organizations such as Jihad Watch, Pamela Geller, and The Investigative Project  on Terrorism. Thus, a virulently anti-Semitic  group such as The Nation of Islam is equated with any individual or organization noted for the critical examination of, or reportage, of the actions of Islam. The measure is moral; so that the grouping of legitimate critics of Islam, who do not advocate violence or force, with actual “hate groups,” who advocate violence or force, Extremism is about as invalid and nonsensical as passing judgment on the distance between Earth and Pluto.
Extremism, in today’s culture, is something to frown on regardless of whether or not it’s Left or Right, but especially if it’s Right. If the extremism is Right, if it advocates capitalism, then it is to be frowned upon, because it omits socialism or any kind of “planned” economic system in its  recommended social systems. Capitalism is also regularly equated with fascism, by both the Left and Right, even though historically fascism begins and ends with socialism, because fascism calls for a regimented economy, with nominal ownership of property. The SPLC and its yeah-sayers in academia, the MSM, and Hollywood propagate the fallacy insistently with no opposition or with the least evidence of thought.
“Hate speech” is likened to a bullet wound on some individual’s or group’s “self-esteem.” It must be banned or suppressed, the mainstream critics claim, lest it ricochet and harm people. In reality, hate speech has no metaphysical properties, as a bullet or knife does. Someone’s “hurt feelings’ should be that person’s business, with no legal recourse.
 Extremism is empty of meaning, as well,  even if the person or organization labeled as “extremist” is obnoxious (such as the KKK). One will be repelled by the literature or utterings of such an organization without  having to be told or mentally prompted. What must be realized is that both the terms “hate speech” and “extremism” are labels invented to protect one or another protected class:  Muslims, gays, LGBTs, immigrants, and all the other designated “victims.” Extremism is just another emotion charged term with which to smear that which is feared – facts and reality.

Review: The History of Jihad

The initial three quarters of Robert Spencer’s The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS, is so packed with information about the 1,400-year jihad waged by Islam against the world that one can only read it with continuous, stunned astonishment.  You wind up asking yourself: did so many millions die or become enslaved by the sword of Islam, AKA the “religion of peace”?
Well, yes, they did. Whole populations were slaughtered, cities were destroyed, and nations, on all four continents, were erased as though they had never existed (Persia, for example, was never Iran). Spencer meticulously traces the bloody depredations and history of Islam from the 19th century clear back to Mohammad’s time in the seventh century, citing current and contemporary works on the conquests and triumphs of Islam by both Western and Islamic writers and chroniclers. The jihad never stopped, and rarely lost steam, but if it lost impetus, it was only because of infighting between sects of Islam, which temporarily sapped and diverted its energy and appetite for conquest and dominance, but  jihad was rarely forgotten. Jihad
 It continues in our age of jet planes and nuclear power to wreck death and destruction. It guarantees more if the West does not reverse its ludicrously pacific and “tolerant” appraisal of Islam and condemn it as a power-hungry totalitarian “religion,” which it has always been, especially in the actions of the possibly fictive character of Muhammad. Spencer recreates and details Islam’s history as no writer in the past has done before or is likely to replicate. Spencer’s book should become required reading for any government policymaker or foreign affairs specialist committed to understanding our nemesis.  
The beginnings of Islam are shrouded in mystery. There are thousands and thousands of reports (hadith…) of the words and deeds of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, but virtually all of them date from the eighth and ninth centuries, over a century after Muhammad’s death, which is traditionally set in 632. There is considerable reason to believe that the origins of Islam and the lives of its founding figures are quite different from how they are represented in Islamic sacred history. (Chapter1, p. 16)
(My own humble interpretation, as a novelist [and as an atheist], of the history of Islam, is that it has been fundamentally a work-in-progress, with no finishing due-date contemplated or even in sight. The curtain has not yet fallen on this blood-thirsty drama, and won’t until Islam has been refuted, once and for all.)
From Chapter 1 to Chapter 10 – “The West Loses the Will to Live” – one is immersed in the constant carnage and massacres by jihad until one is inured by the sword swinging and head lopping. From the Arabian Peninsula to India, from North Africa to Europe and the high seas, it is Spencer, like the chorus of Henry V, bringing to life – so to speak – the advance of Islam. Personally, I had trouble remembering all the players’ names, except perhaps Vlad the Impaler’s,
In 1461, Mehmet brought the sword of Islam against the Wallachian prince, Vlad Dracula, whose surname meant  “son of the dragon,” after his father, who was known as the Dragon,  or Dracul.
At one point, Dracula’s forces invaded Ottoman territory and then retreated; when Mehmet’s forces entered the area in Targoviste in modern-day Romania, they encountered the horrifying sight of twenty thousand corpses impaled on stakes, Vlad Dracula’s favorite method of execution  — which earned him the named Vlad the Impaler. Mehmet pursued Dracula and finally drove him into exile; upon this victory, Mehmet’s commander presented him with the gift of two thousand heads of Dracula’s men. (Chapter Six, p. 201)
In a side note on the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Spencer remarks:
One consequence of the fall of Constantinople was the emigration of Greek intellectuals to Western Europe. Muslim territorial expansion at Byzantine expense led so many Greeks to seek refuge in the West that Western universities became filled with Platonists and Aristotelians to an unprecedented extent. This lead to the rediscovery of classical philosophy and literature and to an intellectual and cultural flowering the like of which the world had never seen (and still hasn’t). (Chapter Six, p. 200)
Chapter 10 can leave one depressed and outraged. Spencer details just how our political leaders, after 9/11, put their heads in the sand and gave Islam a free pass to continue its jihad. President Bush, after 9/11, said with a straight face that Islam had been “hijacked” by “extremists,” evading the knowledge that Islam is nothing but “extreme,” as its theologians and generals have asserted countless times over the centuries.  Fast forwarding to the 21st century, we can hear the words  of one Muslim activist:
Haitham Ibn Thbait, a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir America, said  [in 2015, in Illinois], that  Islam stands in “total contradiction to what the West represents” – liberalism, democracy, feminism, and movements such as DREAM, #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ, pro-choice groups, and Occupy Wall Street.
Speaking at Hizb-ut-Tahrir America’s annual Khilafa (“Caliphate”) Conference, he said that “we should be working within our own system, not democracy” and warned that “our children might prefer democracy to Islam.”
“But what we need to understand is that the battle between us and the West is an ideological battle. It’s an ideological battle. Everything we represent goes in total contradiction to what the West represents…”
Spencer touches briefly but tellingly on the official, non-intellectual stance of the West on Islam:
On September 17, 2001, U.S.  President George W. Bush appeared at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. , in the company of several prominent Muslim leaders, and said:
These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. [They don’t; the Koran and Hadith repeatedly state that “innocents” are as much as Islam’s enemy as armed soldiers, and can also be slain.] In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end  of those who do evil. For they that reject the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.
The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.
When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that’s made brothers and sisters out of every race…. (Chapter 10, pp. 331-2) [Bush implies the fallacy that Islam is related to race.]
Few Western politicians and champions of “diversity” can grasp the essence of Islam or are willing to wipe the fuzz from their eyes even when it is enunciated so clearly – that the conflict between the West and Islam is an ideological battle.  
Islam is here to dominate. That is the message of Haitham Ibn Thbait. That has been the message of every jihadi offering life, if his prey converts to Islam, or agrees to pay the poll-tax (jizya), or death, from Jerusalem to Paris, to Nice, to New York City, Manchester and London. Those were the only choices offered the victims.   Often the choices have not even been offered, as jihadi assaults occur without warning and people die, in the case of Paris 130 at the Bataclan concert hall in Paris, or in the WTC and the Pentagon, 3,000.
From the butchery at Badr at the beginning of Islam and jihad in 624 to the Armenian Genocide to the beginning of Wahhabism to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in our time (in 1928), Spencer paints a compelling, doleful saga of Islamic ascendancy which the West has opposed either ineptly or with craven cowardice.  
Which brings me to some ancillary issues raised by Spencer. Whatever you think of the movie Khartoum,one of the last “epics” of our time (1966) or of its fealty to fact, (Spencer discusses the Mahdi (Chapter Eight, pp. 281-9), one must concede it is a great movie.  However, a few things throw wrenches in its fealty. It’s doubtful that “Chinese” Gordon (played by Charlton Heston) ever met Sufi sheik Muhammad Ahmed (convincingly played by Laurence Olivier)as it is portrayed in the movie) or that Ahmed forbade his warriors to decapitate Gordon once they had captured Khartoum. As a Sufi, the Mahdi would not have had any affection or respect for Gordon.
The following year [1885], flush with these unexpected victories, the Mahdi’s army besieged Khartoum. Finding a way into the city, the Mahdists found Gordon and cried out, “O cursed one, your time has come!”  They beheaded Gordon and either killed or sold into slavery thirty thousand  men, women, and children. (Chapter Eight, p. 285)
Then there is Lawrence of Arabia. For the longest time, it remained one of my favorite “adventure” films. I first saw it when it debuted in 1962. But after learning more about WWI, my bias for the film dwindled. In 2014 I published “A Reappraisal in which I discussed not a few inaccuracies in it.
The stuff that dreams are made of
For one thing, the Saudis did not fight the Turks, but rather sat on the sidelines sipping tea with the British and collecting from them a regular subsidy. Spencer wrote:
In 1914, the British and the Ottomans agreed to a partition of the Arabian Peninsula with Ibn Saud nominally the viceroy of the Ottomans as the emir of Najd. When the Hashemite Hussein ibn Ali, the sharif of Mecca, rose up against the Ottomans in 1916 with the intention of forming an independent Arab state – the British, including Colonel T.E. Lawrence, who came to be known as Lawrence of Arabia  — supported him.  The British did not, however, support Hussein’s claim to be “King of the Arab Countries” and did not fulfill the promises they had made to him to support the independence of Arab lands.
Ibn Saud did not like “The King of the Arab Countries,” either, and waged war against Hussein, eventually defeating him and driving him out of Arabia in 1924 [I cover this unknown bit of history in my novel The Black Stone]. (Chapter Nine, p. 294)
In the film, there was no Arab charge at Aqaba (the Arabs walked in by agreement with the Turks), there were no Sauds present during the massacre of the Turkish column, and so on. See my Reappraisal column.

It was difficult to choose which subjects Spencer wrote about to feature in the review: the rapes, the executions, from the burning of churches and their conversion into mosques, the destruction of art, the enslavement of populations, the birth and growth of the Janissaries (who eventually became Islam’s “shock troops”)…there were so many of them, hundreds of pages of atrocities — where would I start? When you scan all the incidents of jihad described in the book, you must be additionally astounded by the depth and scope of Spencer’s research and encyclopedic knowledge of not only the character of Islam but also of his grasp of the specific and gory details of each conquest. “The History of Jihad” is a monumental exposé of Islam and its unquenchable appetite for conquest and submission to totalitarian rule.

Speak no evil about Islam

Speak no evil about islam.

Speak no evil about Islam. Or else your so-called allies will roast you and call for your genuflection to political correctness, or insist that you audit a diversity course and absorb some sensitivity instruction. You will be tested upon completion of the course. But nodding off during a diversity lecture would also be offensive, too.
When you mock Muslims or their dress, you automatically mock Islam.  Muslims adhere to Islam. If you say a Muslima looks like a bank robber or a mail box in a burqa, you are making a joke about Islam. But there is no humor in Islam.
Likewise, if you acknowledge that Pakistani Muslims are responsible for the unending rapes of white British girls, you will be charged with Islamophobia. You may even be seized on the street and tossed into prison, as Tommy Robinson was.
Boris Johnson, former British Secretary of State, and Labor Member of Parliament,   Sarah Champion  (for Rotherham), learned too late the negative consequences of freedom of speech in an authoritarian culture.
Champion apologized for her remarks about the Muslim rape gangs in her constituency and resigned from her party’s “shadow cabinet. “ All she said did was make a remark in a newspaper article about the gangs, in which she spoke of the “common ethnic heritage” of the men involved in the town’s sexual abuse scandal. “There. I said it,” she wrote. “Does that make me a racist? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is?”
The “common ethnic heritage” of the rapists is that the rapists are Pakistani, thus missing the fact that they are Muslims. The rapists could just as well be Afghani or Sudanese or Somali.  
But they are all Muslims.  If they’re Pakistani, they’re not visitors from Lancaster County, PA.
Champion subsequently apologized for her “extremely poor choice of words” and stepped down from her role as shadow women and equalities minister, after being accused by activists of “industrial-scale racism”….
The Times says that the “strongest attacks” on Champion have come from a Rotherham-based racial justice charity, Just Yorkshire, which accuses her of “inciting and inviting hatred against minorities”.
The assumption is that Champion, by mentioning the rape gangs, will have somehow “triggered” the reputed latent hostility for Muslims in hordes o non-Muslims people to hate and possibly take action against Muslims, a so-called “minority”  (thus hurting numerous “feelings” or damaging the minority’s collective, tissue-thin “self-esteem”). Had she instead pronounced how to best tat a rug or prepare fish and chips, she would have been blameless.
Boris Johnson, on the other hand, has not apologized, and probably won’t.
Spencer wrote about the teacup storm of outrage by his “joke”:
Boris Johnson has gone off, unfazed, and unapologetic, on holiday abroad.
What did he say in his article in the Daily Telegraph?:
“What has happened, you may ask, to the Danish spirit of live and let live? If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree — and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran. I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes….
Johnson was not trying to one-up the likes of Jerry Seinfeld or Rowan Atkinson, who would say that Johnson’s “letter box” comparison was a joke. Seinfeld said that “jokes are not real.”
Johnson has received support from numerous other quarters:
Allies of Mr. Johnson called the demands to apologize “ridiculous” and an attack on free speech.
He was backed by a leading imam, who said in a letter to The Times that face veils pose security risks and subjugate women, and Mr. Johnson had not gone far enough.
Comedian and free speech champion Rowan Atkinson also backed Mr. Johnson, saying in a letter to The Times: “All jokes about religion cause offence, so it’s pointless apologizing for them.”
Johnson’s “letterbox” joke, however, was not about religion; it was about the burqa. But implicitly it was about Islam.
Theresa May and Angela Merkel: two Islam-friendly peas in a pod,

 willing to erase (“transform”) their countries.

No less an authority on the burqa than an Islamic imam has sided with Johnson. Jihad Watch reports:
Taj Hargey, the imam at Oxford Islamic Congregation, said Mr. Johnson should “not apologize for telling the truth.’
The burka and niqab are hideous tribal ninja-like garments that are pre-Islamic, non-Koranic and therefore un-Muslim.”
“Although this deliberate identity-concealing contraption is banned at the Kaaba in Mecca it is permitted in Britain, thus precipitating security risks, accelerating vitamin D deficiency, endorsing gender-inequality, and inhibiting community cohesion.”
“In reality it is a toxic patriarchy controlling women.”
“Is it any wonder that many younger women have internalized this poisonous chauvinism by asserting that it is their human right to hide their faces? Johnson did not go far enough.”
The burqa is banned in the Islamic Disneyland of Mecca for security reasons, as well.  A veiled Muslim or Musilma may plot to destroy the Black Stone and a few dozen pilgrims sweating to touch the sacred rock.
Stefan Molyneux says the erasure of facts and observation (i.e., by Johnson and Champion) is under an ongoing attack by the Left with the aim of filling our heads with what it wants us to “know.” By the end of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston Smith, the protagonist in the novel, after he has been tortured for thought crime, “knows” that Big Brother is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

“Ignorance is Strength”

When I lived and worked in New York City I would encounter almost every variety of con -artist – from professional beggars who’d utter a plaintive “Please!” with out-stretched palms, to a man who wanted to sell me a rare coin, possibly gold, but obviously a gold-plated lead one.

And there was one who would rake in money by luring people in search of something for nothing and end the day on Fifth Avenue with wads of cash.
He was one of the most successful con-artists. He ran a sidewalk game called “Three Card  Monte.”  It was a one-man game, but often it required a shill who would appear to the onlookers as a player, who usually picked the winning card. This encouraged other players to bet which of the three cards the dealer laid face down was the queen or six of spades or whatever. The player would invariably point to the wrong card, unaware that the dealer was a cardsharp who could probably deal a whole deck of cards from a dozen Jokers. The random player never won the bet.
The Left and its minions operate in the same fashion.
Brendan O’Neill on Spiked remarked on the banning of Alex Jones from Facebook, YouTube, Google, Apple, and other internet sites:
Despite having millions of subscribers, despite there being a public interest in what he has to say, Jones has been cast out of the world of social media, which is essentially the public square of the 21st century, on the basis that what he says is wicked.
Paul Joseph Watson on Twitter remarked:
“The illiberal, intolerant cleansing from public life of ideas judged to be offensive or dangerous has shifted from being the state’s thing to being the business elite’s thing….”
“In essence, so-called liberals and sections of the political class now want corporations to do their dirty work for them. They want the capitalist elites to do what it has become somewhat unfashionable for the state to do: ban controversial political speech.”
Then there is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the go-to source for many Congressmen, SJWs, and even the FBI, for the “truth” about its designated “hate speech” practitioners. However, as Prager University states:
The truth is, the SPLC demonizes any conservative individual or organization that poses a moral and intellectual threat to the Left. Their strategy is to undermine legitimate voices that they oppose by associating them with extremists like the KKK….
The left-wing news media (essentially a redundant term) simply repeat the SPLC’s “hate group” designation ad nauseam.
In addition, Facebook, Amazon, Google, YouTube, and Twitter all rely on the SPLC to help determine which organizations count as “hate groups.” In the past, they have used the SPLC’s “hate group” label as justification to cut back or silence voices on their platforms.
I made a similar point with a Facebook reader who objected to my protest that Facebook had blocked a link to the Alex Jones bannishmnet announcement. A FP reader whined that this was not the case. It turned out the objector was a libertarian who asserted that Facebook was a private venture and could excise anything it wanted. Facebook also blocked my link to a Katie Hopkins talk.
What do these elites want, aside from the power to censor what they do not like? It’s the power to deny readers ready and easy access to information and ideas that are seen to threaten the elites, to deny readers and subscribers the knowledge that certain ideas and suspicions they may have are widespread, common, and vigorously discussed. They wish to keep people ignorant and feeling isolated. For the elites, “Ignorance is strength.” The banned ideas are judged to be “offensive,” “defamatory,” and even “insulting” – but to whom? The tech giants behave like Minitrue in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four, actively banishing truth or promoting falsehoods.
They don’t want people to know that immigration to the U.S.  from Mexico is out of control, and that, among other things, Islamic jihadists posing as Mexicans are filtering into this country. They don’t want people to know that the crime statistics of migrants in Europe are off the charts, and that the victims are mostly Europeans – white Europeans. They don’t want people to know that the North Africans are invading Europe anyway they can to robe, loot, rape, and occupy. They don’t want people to know much about the South African government’s ongoing genocide of whites and white farmers. They don’t want people to know that global warming is a myth and that the global warming “deniers” have been banned and sent to concentration camps. The elite tech giants, briefly, don’t want anyone else to know what is the truth or what is happening in the country or in the world.
The tech giants and the SJWs would prefer that we accept that we live in a Pollyannaish world and that there’s “Nothing to see here,” as a cop would say to crime or accident scene rubberneckers. They want the public to accept that the world is under the hooves of a herd of prancing unicorns, and that the tech giants are shooting the stalking wolves of “haters.”
What psychological legerdemain gives the tech giants the presumption, arrogance, and hubris to decide what people may or may not see or know? It could be called the megalomaniacal version of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, or a narcissist version of Watson’s Pathological Altruism. They must put a hand over our eyes so we don’t see something they think is wicked, and doing so will make them “feel good” about themselves as worthy human beings, they have justified their own existence…I  guess. They will have somehow saved the world from a fate worse than death or being gang raped by Muslims, and that will make them “virtuous” and worthy of the esteem of their ideological kin.  See my column, “The Era of Malice.”
Tech Giants have adtoped a Peter Strozok smirk
The compulsion to censor is governed by a need to redefine reality and eliminate statements uttered by others to make their perception of reality conform to an imaginary vision of what should compose reality. Thus, the world is should be pure and worth occupying if it does not accommodate global warming deniers or Alex Jones or Donald Trump.
This is, basically, the mentality and world view of a Stalin, or of a Mao, or of an Angela Merkel. Or of a Theresa May. Or of an Obama.
Or of a Mark Zuckerberg.
Hate speech, when it applies to individuals or organizations to which the designation justly, actually applies, such as the KKK, is just a lot of hot air.

Our Era of Malice

The MSM beating its chest

The malice shown for Donald Trump before and after his election had always been there. Not just for Trump, but for America.  For the Democrats and their allies in and out of newsrooms, having lost the election in 2016, it had to be expressed, in the news, and in print. It is a necessary urge to vent the venomous lump of hatred in its soul. It didn’t come from nowhere, as a sudden hatred. It had been growing and lurking for years, and awaited the chance to bellow, when its prancing unicorns were being disassembled and dissolved by Trump. The malice is evident in the ubiquity of hate speech, in the rants of Maxin Waters and others in and out of Congress.
Aside from political correctness, “hate speech” is the most pernicious anti-concept in today’s cultural circulation of mental submission.  Today, hate speech is as common as cursing. Separated from the object of its wrath, it is an emotional expression that means nothing. It is vibrations in the wind.  In print, or physically, hate speech of the anti-Western or anti-Semitic kinds, is just bellows in the air, akin to gorillas roaring and beating their chests in contesting superiority as an alpha male.  Unless the gorilla attacked following his roar, it means nothing but a lot of vacuity.
The “tech giants” – Facebook, Google, and others – ban sites such as Alex Jones and others because they  violated some ambiguous and relatively unknown“ rules” of publication of what they deem “hate speech.”
There is no one irrefutable authority that defines the meaning of hate speech. Wikipedia  tries to cover all the usual but unprovable objects of it but does not define the concept itself:
Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
By this “definition,” we can define of the objects of hate speech but not hate speech itself.
Hate speech is treated by most observers as though it had the power of a gun, or had the metaphysical potency to inflict harm, or could cause emotional “suffering.” If someone claims it causes “emotional harm,” that is merely an unprovable assertion. Hate speech is, when one boils it down,  an expression of malice. If the malice does not result in physical action, then there is no significance in it.
Hate speech itself should not be a prosecutable “crime” – only the actions resulting from a bigoted or biased instance of it. Hate speech cannot by itself inflict physical harm. Hate speech, as it has been accepted over the years, is a wedge that allows censorship. If someone or something is offensive to one, one has the choice to avoid it.
Paul Joseph Watson on Twitter could just as well call a designation of a statement as hate speech as reverse “pathological altruism.” “Feel sorry for me, I’ve been offended! See the painful blots in my mind and on my self-esteem!”
The SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) attempts the same Wikipedia blanket association of hate speech, but does not define it. Anything negative said about Muslims, gays, transgenders,  Antifa,  etc.,  is considered “hate speech.”
Jihad Watch reports that a former Mayor of London and current Member of Parliament, Boris Johnson, made headlines for his comments about women wearing the burqa:
He stated that:
He did not want the full-face veil and gown donned by some Muslim women to be banned in Britain but the outfit was “ridiculous” and “weird”. He also said it made its wearers look like letter boxes or bank robbers.
So, the British authorities and the Conservative Party are seriously investigating whether or not Johnson’s “joke” about Mulsimas in burqas as “letter boxes” is a “hate crime.” (There is a better term Johnson could have used, one that is fairly common here in the U.S.: Head- bags, or trash bags.)
  
Gateway Institute reports:
Johnson has refused to apologize, and the Conservative Party has now launched an inquiry into whether Johnson’s comments violated its code of conduct, which states that Tory officials and elected representatives must “lead by example to encourage and foster respect and tolerance” and not “use their position to bully, abuse, victimise, harass or unlawfully discriminate against others.”
Johnson’s full remark is here:
“What has happened, you may ask, to the Danish spirit of live and let live? If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree — and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran. I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes….
“If a constituent came to my MP’s surgery [one-on-one meetings between MPs and their constituents] with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled… to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly. If a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber, then ditto: those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that they are being asked to instruct.”
The Deep State argues
The SPLC is so out to lunch, it is quite possible that if someone verbally expressed his displeasure for the chocolate ice cream served by Dairy Queen, he could be accused of hate speech, because the ice cream implies a resemblance to people of color in the same restaurant (or perhaps not even in the store). So, if “hate speech” is uttered but is in fact criticism of Barack Obama or Elizabeth Warren or Maxine Waters, no matter how vociferous it is, if it does not result in a physical attack on them, it matters not. It’s just vibrations in the air, and may was well have been uttered on Pluto.
But the FBI regularly based its decisions on what the SPLC constituted hate speech. THE FBI for the longest time relied on the SPLC as a guide to identifying “hate” groups.
The Daily Caller reported in February 2017 :
In 2014, the FBI removed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) from the resources page of its civil rights division, telling The Daily Caller at the time that the removal was because the groups were not themselves government-run.
“Upon review, the Civil Rights program only provides links to resources within the federal government,” an FBI spokesman told The Daily Caller in 2014. “While we appreciate the tremendous support we receive from a variety of organizations, we have elected not to identify those groups on the civil rights page.”
The nub of fake news

These are likely “conservative” groups the FBI would rather not identify or give credit to. The designation of “hate speech” is almost exclusively reserved for statements made by “conservatives” or statements or instances of reason breaking through the “glass ceiling” of political correctness.

The SPLC is akin to a backyard gossip repeating the slander and defamation of others uttered by neighbors.
In the end, the guiltiest party of uttering or publicizing hate speech are the Democrats and their allies in and out of office. Nothing they’ve ever accused Trump of has any substance or credibility. We are tired of its nattering.  All we are hearing is the expression of the Trump Derangement Syndrome and evidence of clinical madness.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén