Monday, March 31, 2014

Hollywood: Sharia-Compliant

Hollywood has rarely produced a trustworthy depiction of historical events. My own philosophy of historical fiction is that historic events should serve as background to the conflicts, aspirations, ambitions, betrayals and destiny of the principal characters in the story. Further, the plot in which these characters move – or, even better, when these characters move the plot itself – should not conflict with the historic events, but be in sync with those events. The principal conflicts should be between the characters, not between the story and history. I obeyed this rule while writing the Sparrowhawk series, and also my period detective novels.

Hollywood adhere to such rules. I don’t think it has even formulated them.

Thus we have such examples as the 1936 Charge of the Light Brigade, in which the sequence of events of the Indian Mutiny and the Crimean War was reversed (the war, 1853-1856; the mutiny, 1857).  Otherwise it would have required Errol Flynn to survive the Charge and travel to India to rescue Olivia de Havilland from Surat Khan's filthy clutches. History was tweaked, but not by much, to accommodate the plot. The lavish 1968 Tony Richardson version, however, was a plotless anti-war statement, complete with animated period political cartoons and caricatured Victorian figures. And, because it was an anti-war statement, it was gorier than its predecessor.

There are innumerable films and TV series grounded in history. I could write a book about the subject. I might do that, some day. What looms largest in my mind, however, and at the moment, is David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia (1962). At the age of 17, when I first saw it shortly after its release, I was literally smitten by it. It got me to read up on World War One. Although I entertained doubts about its accuracy, it was a grand scale film, one of the last. My positive appraisal of it gradually diminished over the years, the more I learned about how and why the Allied campaign in the Middle East was conducted.

Clinching my final negative appraisal was Efraim Karsh's August 9th, 2013 article, "Seven Pillars of Fiction," originally published in the Wall Street Journal and reprinted by the Middle East Forum. It concluded that Lawrence was indeed a consummate charlatan, and that the "Arab Revolt" was a fiction invented by one ambitious Arab potentate and cashed in on by another, the Saudi "king," Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. Saud sat out the war and did not participate in any of the warfare conducted against the Turks by Lawrence under the aegis of Hussein ibn Ali, the putative "Sharif of Mecca," and Prince Faisal, one of his sons. Hussein also sought the title, "King of the Arabs." I provide many more details of this pragmatic episode of "nation building" in my detective novel, The Black Stone.

It also led me to the conclusion that David Lean, one of the finest film directors to ever peer through a camera lens, was just another ingenuous dupe of the legend of Lawrence of Arabia. At the time, questioning the stature of T.E. Lawrence would have been treated as slanderous heresy. His film, which I still maintain is a magnificent example of what films could be, was inspired by and produced as a result of the success of Terence Rattigan's 1960 play, Ross, which was closer to the truth in its depiction of Lawrence than was Lawrence of Arabia.

I've often written about Hollywood's Leftist, anti-American crusade, and its penchant for obliging the sensibilities of offended Muslims in the past, for example, here, here, here, here, and most recently, here, about the Disney/ABC Family Group's capitulation to the demands of the Hamas-connected Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that it cancel a TV program, "Alice in Arabia." Nick Provenzo wrote about the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in 2006, why Hollywood had little or nothing to say about it, and why Hollywood changed the villains from Muslims to "neo-fascists" in the production of Tom Clancy's novel, The Sum of All Fears. Wikepedia has the "low-down" on why the villains' identities were changed. The screenwriter, Dan Pyne, protesteth too much.

The Disney/ABC decision garnered little or no mention in the mainstream media, nor did the announcement that Disney/ABC would work with Muslim screenwriters to produce future programs that would not offend Muslim feelings or invite chares of blasphemy or "slandering" the good name of Islam. The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a Muslim Brotherhood front group, announced also that it would provide Disney/ABC with this "talent."

That boils down to: MPAC wonks voluntarily installed by Disney/ABC as paid censors of its output.  It means: Disney/ABC is willing to submit to Islamic Sharia law, and avoid any criticism of Islam, and the Muslim wonks will be there to ensure that Disney/ABC complies.

(I have sent this column to the executives of Disney/ABC Family Group. It would be interesting to know that they have read the MPAC links provided in the foregoing paragraphs – that is, if they wish to bother to learn with whom they are partnering. As for the history of CAIR, that's pretty much public knowledge, and I'm sure those executives know the history, too.)

Have Hollywood studios no shame? Apparently not, if shame is regret for betraying one's freedom for some tenuous notion of "security." Hollywood has been submitting to all kinds of pressure for decades: to federal pressure, Communist pressure, union pressure, feminist pressure, "gay rights" pressure – and Islamic pressure. This is aside from the Hays Office of censors, which exercised its own moral arm-twisting on Hollywood back in the 1930's.

Islamic dhimmitude is just the latest chapter in Hollywood's submission to threats, regulations, and "social pressure" to produce what is acceptable film fare at the moment. While the Hays Office expired in the 1950's, and beginning in the 1960's the Production Code succumbed to the Left's film philosophy that anything goes and the only stricture is something called "parental guidance," Hollywood remains in thrall to whomever fills the vacuum of "moral uplift" and shakes a vigorous fist at Tinsel Town.    

It's generally thought that it doesn't matter if Hollywood succumbs to self-censorship, to government regulation and censorship, or even to Islamic censorship because, as one reader of a Breitbart article on the tapping of Kevin Spacey to play Winston Churchill in a future production, remarked, "Rational people have the ability to realize it's just a fictional show and don't change their opinions on whom to vote for because of a TV show." (This was in reference to Spacey's hit TV series, "House of Cards.")

Here I expand on my reply to the reader's comments:

Rational people don't denigrate, debunk, or satirize their political affiliations or their political principles. Nor do they wish to see them denigrated, debunked, or mocked – not unless they think it doesn't matter, that they'll come out on top, and people don’t take ideas seriously anyway, they're just a bunch of goofballs.

Kevin Spacey is basically a nihilist. He can dramatize the truth about how Washington works, and believes telling the truth won’t matter. He thinks his Democratic Party will still triumph and continue to put the screws to the American people. He counts on people thinking: Well, it's only TV, it's only actors, and sets, and scripts, no one will take it seriously. It's just "entertainment."

However, fiction and film have a more powerful effect on people's minds and the course of politics than you might realize, especially if they're well done, as "House of Cards" was.  If they didn't, no one would bother writing political fiction or making political films. Why did Oliver Stone make JFK or any of his other political films? To influence viewers. Why do leftists and conservatives blow a gasket when any of Ayn Rand's novels are mentioned? It's because they're afraid her novels will influence readers by showing the evil of statism and the consequences of selflessness.  Why did Khomenei issue a death fatwa on Salman Rushdie and call for the banning of The Satanic Verses? Because he and his mullahs believed his book would damage Islam, so they called it "blasphemous." People do respond to political films, novels, and satire whether or not they realize they're just fiction, and their producers and directors know this.

This is why the executives behind Disney/ABC's cancellation of "Alice in Arabia" at the behest of terrorist front group, CAIR, don't think it matters. It's just a TV show, people won’t take it seriously, and won’t miss it if they never see it. And, besides, we really don’t want to get the Saudis mad at us. Why, they could buy a controlling interest in Disney/ABC. That would be too much. We're willing to cooperate. And our female executives might not want to wear head scarves or Hefty trash bags. We don’t want people thinking ill of the Saudis, or of Islam.

Not allowing TV audiences to see it, however, misses the point. It was a conscious decision to cancel the show. It's as significant an action – moral cowardice – as if a "Gang Busters" radio drama from the 1930's was cancelled on the complaint of Al Capone or Frank Nitti some other gangster, because the show allegedly "stereotyped" gangsters or gave people the "wrong idea" about the character of gangsters. But the truth about Islam is that it is brutal, primitive, and totalitarian in nature. Saudi Arabia is a theocratic monarchy determined to perpetuate itself and corrupt the West, in particular, America. King Abdullah is a grosser caricature, physically and metaphorically, of a gangster than was Al Capone. Forget Batman's nemeses, the Joker, the Riddler and the Penguin. King Abdullah can't be exaggerated.

What happened to the initial motive to produce a show that depicts the efforts of an American girl kidnapped by Saudis to escape her captors? It was regretted, suppressed, and discarded. Disney/ABC waved the white flag. Please don’t accuse us of "Islamophobia"!

To date, Hollywood has not produced a single film or TV series in which the villains are Muslims or Muslim terrorists, not even 24. It's usually "Serbian" nationalists, or South Africa-based neo-Nazis, or some other concocted terrorist group with designs on the U.S. But never Muslims. If Muslims appear on 24 or in some film, they're usually portrayed as blameless "innocents." Daniel Greenfield, in his January 24th column, "Hollywood's Muslim Lies," noted about The Sum of All Fears":

Its writer Dan Pyne dismissed Islamic terrorism as a “cliché”; even though a plot can’t be a cliché when it never appears in movies, only in real life. Pyne however found a more realistic villain. “I think, there was some neo-nationalist activity in Holland, and there was stuff going on in Spain and in Italy. So it seemed like a logical and lasting idea that would be universal.”

Later, about cliché-burdened Pyne, Greenfield wrote;

Instead Dan Pyne went on to write a remake of The Manchurian Candidate in which Communist China was replaced by the “Manchurian Corporation”. He’s currently working on a movie featuring a Syrian rescue worker who gets mistaken for a terrorist while trying to save lives during Hurricane Katrina. It’s a cliché, but it’s the kind of cliché that Hollywood likes.

If a movie is made about September 11 a decade from now, the villains will probably be Serbian nationalists. It would be a cliché to have 19 Muslim hijackers murder 3,000 people. And then the camera will linger meaningfully on a Muslim rescuer wrongly taken into custody by a bigoted NYPD cop who is overlooking the real Serbian/Dutch neo-nationalist corporate villains.

The original 1962 Manchurian Candidate is a taut, suspenseful, knuckle-chewing, unabashedly political film starring Frank Sinatra and Laurence Harvey. Its IMDB synopsis reads: "A former Korean War POW is brainwashed by Communists into becoming a political assassin." The 2004 "remake" stars Denzel Washington (an otherwise fine actor, but who possesses poor judgment about what kinds of films he appears in) in the Frank Sinatra role and is a convoluted, unabashedly politically correct, anti-business mess that blames, not a Communist plot to seize the White House, but a high-tech arms dealer, the "Manchurian Corporation." The purposeful butchery of the original story was called a "reimagining."

"Reimagine" the American Revolution as a French plot to install George Washington as "George the First" of America, or the Civil War as a British plot to dissolve the United States to perpetuate slavery. Or, "reimagine" American history as told by Howard Zinn and "Common Core." And how many times can anyone retell Custer's Last Stand, or "reimagine" The Front Page, The Big Clock, and The Four Feathers to fit the politically correct sensibility of the moment? I guess until there's as little connection between an original film and its latest "remake" as between a trumpet swan and a tomtit. 

Finally, there's that old reliable government-business partnership to fall back on when looking for extra revenue and capitalization, otherwise known as fascism. Dreamworks went to China. The Los Angeles Times reported in February 2012:

The creator of the "Shrek" movies said it was forming Oriental DreamWorks, a joint venture with China Media Capital and Shanghai Media Group in concert with Shanghai Alliance Investment – an investment arm of the Shanghai municipal government – to establish a family entertainment company in China.

With an initial investment of $330 million, the Shanghai studio would develop original Chinese animated and live-action movies, TV shows and other entertainment catering to the China market. The deal was among several business ventures announced in downtown Los Angeles during an economic forum attended by visiting Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, who is widely expected to be the country's next leader….

The new studio, which has been recruiting some staff in Hollywood, plans to begin operations later this year and could eventually surpass the size of DreamWorks' headquarters, which employs more than 2,000 people, Chief Executive Jeffrey Katzenberg said in an interview.   

You can bet that Dreamworks China will not be producing animated films about the freedom of speech, the right of political protest, free enterprise, and individual rights. No, it will be producing more "Kung Fu Panda" films, and maybe a "reimagined" "Shrek" as Chairman Mao.

It had to be the natural course of moral collapse that Hollywood, dominated by the anti-American, anti-business, anti-esthetics, post-deconstructionist Left, would ally itself with anti-freedom, totalitarian Islam. It comports with the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda of sabotaging the West from within.  The Brotherhood's May 22nd, 1991 memorandum details how especially America can be conquered and made Sharia complaint. The Investigative Project reported:

Written sometime in 1987 but not formally published until May 22, 1991, Akram's 18-page document listed the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded "organizations of our friends" that shared the common goal of dismantling American institutions and turning the U.S. into a Muslim nation. These "friends" were identified by Akram and the Brotherhood as groups that could help convince Muslims "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 ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."

Thus the “grand jihad” [….] envisioned was not a violent one involving bombings and shootings, but rather a stealth (or “soft”) jihad aiming to impose Islamic law (Sharia) over every region of the earth by incremental, non-confrontational means, such as working to “expand the observant Muslim base”; to “unif[y] and direc[t] Muslims' efforts”; and to “present Islam as a civilization alternative.” At its heart, Akram's document details a plan to conquer and Islamize the United States – not as an ultimate objective, but merely as a stepping stone toward the larger goal of one day creating “the global Islamic state.”

Hollywood is but one miserable wing of the "house" the Brotherhood and its Islamic terrorist allies wish to bring down and convert to their own brand of totalitarianism. Just as the Soviets infiltrated our government and our culture in the 1930's, including Hollywood, just as Hollywood obeyed Washington and refrained from producing movies during World War II critical of our totalitarian ally, Josef Stalin's Soviet Russia, Islam has made a key beachhead in Hollywood, to guide its Leftist denizens in the Sharia way.

Ultimately, it will not be the Brotherhood's hands that will help to destroy America, but the pragmatic, amoral, manicured hands of Hollywood, busy "reimagining" it.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

An Open Letter to Disney/ABC Family Group

Anne Sweeney, Co-Chair, Disney Media Networks, President, Disney/ABC Television Group 
Albert Cheng, Executive Vice President, Disney/ABC Television Group
Gary Marsh, President and Chief Creative Officer, Disney Channels
Charissa Gilmore, Vice President, Office of the President, Disney/ABC Television Group
Robert Iger, Chairman and CEO
27 March 2014
Re: "Alice in Arabia"
It has come to my attention that, under pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has links to Hamas, a terrorist organization which CAIR refuses to condemn, your organization has shelved or is "not moving forward with" an upcoming drama pilot, "Alice in Arabia."  As a published novelist, author, and columnist, I find this frankly disturbing, although I should not be surprised. Given the nature of the story line of "Alice in Arabia," about an American teen trying to escape the brutal, primitive social conditions which exist in Saudi Arabia, a theocratic monarchy, this is a fact which Hollywood and the news media have evaded or repressed for decades.
What disturbs me is how easy it was for CAIR to raise the alarm about "stereotyping" Islam and its totalitarian character and how swiftly Disney/ABC capitulated. An ABC Family spokesman told The Hollywood Reporter that the controversy, which was instigated by CAIR, is on record as saying that the project was "not conducive to the creative process."  Your organization's craven surrender to Islamists is contemptible, and reprehensible, as well, for it simply encourages others engaged in the "creative process" to adopt a politically correct line of thinking, which is not "creative" at all.
Your capitulation is reminiscent of the time, during World War II, Hollywood caved to Roosevelt administration pressure and refrained from making any movies critical of our ally, Stalin's Soviet Russia, fresh from the show trials and the Moscow-orchestrated famine in the Ukraine, among other depredations.
What is worse, I think, is your voluntary collaboration with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which will "provide screenwriters for future productions by the Disney/ABC Television Group." This organization also has ties with Islamic terrorist organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Communists and Nazis also had "political officers" in their bureaucracies and business entities to ensure "goodthink." This was otherwise called censorship. It still means the same thing, even in CGI-happy Hollywood.  You people can't even make a biblical epic without turning it into an environmental impact statement.
I have had published twenty-six books, most of them novels. See Amazon Books here for a list of them.
It is doubtful whether Disney or ABC Family would ever decide to produce, for example, We Three Kings, which is about an American entrepreneur pitted against a Saudi sheik (with the State Department's sanction to kill the entrepreneur hero), or The Black Stone, set in 1930, which is about a Brotherhood killer on the loose in San Francisco. Nor is it likely Disney/ABC would ever think of producing my Sparrowhawk series of novels set in Virginia and England in the pre-Revolutionary period, unless it was turned into a musical with a full LGBT cast, given Disney's adulterations of classic novels in the past and its saccharine family fare.
You people are not doing America any favors by becoming dhimmis, an Islamic term for people who have been conquered and made to submit to Islam (which means, submission).
You would be doing the country a favor by going ahead with "Alice in Arabia" and telling MPAC that the deal is off. I shall be publishing this missive as an open letter on my political/cultural website, Rule of Reason. It will also appear on other websites. Be on the lookout for it.
Edward Cline
(City and telephone number omitted)

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

The Pathological Roots of Islam

This is not a new subject. It would be to the mainstream media. To the dhimmitudal denizens of this particular subject of enquiry, Islam, as a "religion of peace" and a belief system, is above reproach, even when its true believers and activists are blowing up non-believers by the dozens, hundreds, and even thousands, or machine-gunning them or taking machetes to them. Islam is untouchable. To question its nature leaves news media denizens with dropped jaws one can hear thud on the floor. It leaves them aghast and in horror.

To them, Islam can do no wrong. There's nothing wrong with it that a little patience and interfaith dialogue can't resolve. It's a needless cultural clash that can be reconciled peacefully. A negotiated settlement is possible. Muslims just want to be left alone and not be stereotyped or mocked or defamed. All the mullahs and imams need to do is put a leash on Islam's hotheads to curb their youthful – and oft times middle-aged – exuberance, and then everyone can grab a ribbon and dance around the Maypole of Diversity to the tune of a Tiny Tim song.

But the pathology inherent in doctrinal Islam – and that which inhabits its passive and aggressive adherents – has been discussed in the past in non-mainstream media, sometimes effectively, sometimes not. For example, Soren Kern, in his Gatestone article of March 24th, "UK: Child Sex Slavery, Multiculturalism and Islam," takes to task both the idea of multiculturalism and the British authorities on the sex-grooming Muslim gangs that have apparently been preying on non-Muslim school girls for at least twenty years.

Kern's article is mostly a discussion of Peter McLoughlin's exhaustive report, "Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery," which details how officials in England and Wales were aware of rampant child grooming – the process by which sexual predators befriend and build trust with children in order to prepare them for abuse – by Muslim gangs since at least 1988, with the knowledge of the authorities. The report is 333 pages long and worth reading – as long as you have a supply of Valium on hand and are not susceptible to high blood pressure. Kern writes:

Rather than take steps to protect British children, however, police, social workers, teachers, neighbors, politicians and the media deliberately downplayed the severity of the crimes perpetrated by the grooming gangs to avoid being accused of "Islamophobia" or "racism."

But the festering, metastasizing problem couldn't be contained and hushed up for much longer.

The conspiracy of silence was not broken until November 2010, when it was leaked that police in Derbyshire had carried out an undercover investigation—dubbed Operation Retriever—and arrested 13 members of a Muslim gang for grooming up to 100 underage girls for sex.

Shortly thereafter, the Times of London published the results of a groundbreaking investigation into the sexual exploitation and internal trafficking of girls in the Midlands and the north of England. In January 2011, the newspaper reported that in 17 court cases since 1997 in which groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls, 53 of the 56 men found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, and just three were white.

The overwhelming number of sex-grooming gangs are Muslim in makeup.

One of the defining features of child grooming is the ethnic/cultural homogeneity of the gang members, and the refusal of other members of their community to speak out about them or to condemn their behavior. According to the report, the gangs are often made up of brothers and members of their extended family, many from Pakistan, who take part in the grooming and/or rape of the schoolgirls.

The report states that grooming gangs target young girls, aged between 11 and 16, because the gang members want virgins and girls who are free of sexual diseases. "Most of the men buying sex with the girls have Muslim wives and they don't want to risk infection," the report states. "The younger you look, the more saleable you are."

I left this edited comment on Kern's Gatestone article. It raises the issue of the criminal pathology of the perpetrators and of their "ethnic/cultural homogeneity":

One must ask oneself: If Islam and Muslims consider women the lesser sex, and infidel women as uncovered meat to be consumed by men in the crime of rape, and that "that 'women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground,'" why are Muslim men in these gangs attracted to them? Shouldn't these Muslims, if they are "true believers," be revolted by the prospect of such a physically close proximity as it must occur in sex? Has any one of these barbarians ever asked himself that question, or asked it of others of his ilk? The answer to those questions I think can be found in the fact that Islam is merely a rationale for the criminally minded. Islamic ideology inculcates in the unquestioning a sense of pseudo-superiority of the faithful over anyone outside its boundaries.

The alleged inferiority of women, Muslim or non-Muslim, which doctrinally sanctions especially rape, allows these criminals to put a "moral" cast on their actions. They claim they are acting out the tenets of their religion, when, in fact, their motives are more insidiously pathological and have nothing to do with the creed and ideology. It goes beyond these criminals' taste for the "forbidden."

Whether these criminals can be deemed sociopaths or psychopaths, is a moot question. Islam inculcates and fosters the pathology. It is the only major creed I am aware of that sanctions crime. The murderers of Lee Rigby claimed they were being consistent with Islam. There's no reason to doubt them on that count. The child rapists of these Muslim grooming gangs are also being consistent, but because sex is the object, their libidos have been twisted out of all recognizable human shape.

In "grooming" and raping these young women and children, they are making a statement: We're criminals, and we're conquering your country by raping your women. Islam says it's okay, it blesses our criminality, but it's what we want to do anyway.

No excuses should be admitted in the prosecution of their crimes. Religion should not be admitted as a defense. It isn't in Western law, but that seems to be changing in Britain, given the news that Sharia will now be considered a legitimate means of settling disputes and inheritance issues in British courts.

Islam, horrific an ideology and creed as it is without recalling its 1,400-year-old catalogue of crime (call it a "rap sheet"), serves as a convenient mask of piety for the recidivist criminal. Instead of claiming, "The Devil made me do it," he says, "Allah made me do it. Allah expects me to do it. Allah commands me to do it. So, I am beyond moral judgment. You have no right to judge or punish me."

Treating the systematic assault on non-Muslim women in Britain, Sweden (Stockholm has the highest incidence of Muslim rapes), Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Germany, among other European or Western countries, as an expression of Islamic pathology is beginning to seep into the thinking of individuals searching for an explanation for the phenomenon.

For example, one reader of Daniel Pipes's July 2006 column, "Arabs Disavow Hizbullah," edged closer to a pathological explanation:

As with most cults, research indicates, progressive disassociation with reality is a common trait. To the rational mind, words on paper contain no power in themselves, but are assigned significance by the observer. One may call the book a "Bible" or a "Manifesto" or a "Koran" or the "Times of London", all are simply words on paper. To the mind of the cultist, it is the document itself that has power. To an Islamist, such as yourself, the internalization of the Muhammedian dogma and the "Koran" motivates and animates your life to the exclusion of rational thought processes.

Criminal actions, after all, are not symptomatic of rational behavior or rational thinking. A rational quest for the causes and effects of criminal behavior is not going to discover "rational" causes. But this does not stop some observers from painting irrational Muslim behavior in subjectivist terms. Criminals and their apologists always have an excuse for crime. To wit, Discover the Networks profiled one apologist, Natana DeLong-Bas, an apologist for Saudi Wahhabism, who explained why Islam has a "bad rep":

In a similar vein, DeLong-Bas contends that “extremism does not stem from the Islamic religion,” but rather from “the political conditions in the Islamic world, like the Palestinian issue … [the issue of] Iraq, and the American government's tying [the hands of] the U.N. [and preventing it] from adopting any resolution against Israel.” These, the professor maintains, “have definitely added to the Muslim youth's state of frustration, which then pushes them to—as they understand it—help their brothers do away with the aggression against them, in the various Islamic countries.... That is why I believe that religion has nothing to do with this.”

This is the "academic" version of the "Officer Krupke" number from West Side Story. Jihadists are "depraved because they're deprived," and haven’t been raised in a "normal home." "They're "misunderstood." And etc. Islam has nothing to do with the violence; it's unfair to ascribe to Islam all the murders, rapes, assaults, and destruction committed in its name – as a Koranic imperative.

Barbara J. Stock, in her November 2005 article, "The pathology of an Islamic Mind," which discussed why an unsuccessful female Muslim suicide bomber was willing to kill Muslim children as well as infidel children:

This abnormal mind is the mind of our enemy. It is the mind of a woman who can place herself next to playing toddlers and attempt to blow them up and tear their bodies apart with a bomb containing ball-bearings. It is the mind of a man who can drive a car filled with explosives into a crowd of children eating ice cream with their fathers and kill them. Muslims say that this must be done in the name of Allah for the advancement of Islam….

These warped minds are unable to accept that it is Islam that is responsible for the bombings and the slaughter. Always able to put the blame elsewhere for all of Islam's crimes and problems, Muslims eagerly accept any and all excuses for the sins of Islam, no matter how illogical those excuses may be. If their warped minds can't accept the fact that their "religion of peace" is to blame, the blame is pushed off on the Jews, or justified by claiming it was Islam that was attacked first. Denial is their first line of defense….

Sadly, this is what happens to the human mind when it must be constantly bent and twisted to accept the unreasonable.

But suppose one accepts the unreasonable because it comports with one's unreasonable expectations in life, such as sex with anyone one wishes to have it with, regardless of the other party's willingness or consent? Islam is eminently "unreasonable" – that is, irrational – and if one is told from infancy on up through adolescence and adulthood that Islamic logic is incompatible with infidel or Western logic (in the buffet of relativist philosophy, there's Musim logic, and capitalist logic, and Nazi logic, and two dozen more brands of logic), it "justifies" one's criminal behavior. One's wanting the unearned is justification enough to just take it.

An anonymous blogger on Hesperado also comes closer to a pathological explanation. In his April 2012 article, "Understanding Islam Anthrologically," he noted:

Islam, Allah, Mohammed, the Koran (among other things) are thus in the Muslim psyche to be an inviolable circle of sacred objects to be protected from anything perceived to be negative, whether it's a physical attack or a critique or mockery, or even thoughts. Anything perceived this way is physicalized as an enemy, and the response is biochemical, pre-rational defense.

With Muslims and their Islam, we are thus not dealing with a rational mind here, but with the pre-rational mind.

A "pre-rational mind" is that of a prehistorical farmer who ascribes to deities the success or failure of his harvests and the vagaries of the weather. He is seeking a comprehensible reason for why things happen. His descendents will discover reason and rationality and science and discard the deities and establish a fealty to reality. A criminal mind, however, is not only not "pre-rational," but non-rational and anti-rational. Things just happen, things just exist, and such a mind fundamentally isn't interested in crediting cause-and-effect to anything. Reality is incomprehensible, but that doesn't worry him. Reason? Reality? Free will? Rights?

Perhaps the best extirpation of Islamic metaphysics and how it affects the Muslim mind is offered by Robert R. Reilly, who was interviewed by WND in "Islam: "Spiritual Pathology Based on Deformed Theology,'" in February 2013. Reilly is the author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist. Reilly said in the interview:

The closing of the Muslim mind… is rooted in Ash’arite theology, which denies the God-given human powers of reason and free will. This is precisely the opposite of Christian doctrine, which says that personhood is defined by the powers of reason and free will…. (Italics WND's)

“When I read the account of creation in the Quran, the first thing that jumped out at me was the fact that man was not made in the image and likeness of God. In Islam, it’s blasphemous to suggest in any way that man is like God or can be compared to God,” said Reilly. “The closing of the Muslim mind occurred over a struggle concerning the role of reason in Islam, its relationship to revelation and ultimately to Allah…."
Reilly then introduces the metaphysical chaos inculcated by Islam metaphysics and cosmology.

“What made this worse,” explained Reilly, “is that the metaphysics behind the delegitimization of reason is the thought that Allah is not only the first cause – the primary cause – but He’s the only cause for everything.” According to this school, there are no secondary causes for creatures or actions. This means fire doesn’t burn cotton, God directly burns the cotton; acorns don’t grow into oak trees; animals and human beings don’t beget offspring; man-made machines don’t heat or cool our buildings; and no human persons can choose their own actions.

“Denying cause and effect in the natural world makes the world incomprehensible – unintelligible,” said Reilly. “But anyone who would suggest that natural law has a role in the world would be accused of shirk blasphemy, of somehow demeaning God’s omnipotence.

“In addition to that, the world is constituted by these time-space atoms that in themselves have no nature, but they are agglomerated in any instant directly by the will of God to make something. The fact that acorns grow into oak trees has nothing to do with the nature of an acorn or oak tree,” said Reilly. “This process and all other acts are discreet and independent acts by God and anyone who says that an acorn grows into an oak tree because of its nature would, again, be committing blasphemy.”

So, if God – if Allah – is directly responsible for all acts, then several premises follow for the classical Western thinker: (1) No human acts could be morally wrong; (2) God is directly making some persons Jews, some Christians, some Hindus, others Mormons, still others atheists and so on; (3) Therefore, humans who don’t convert to Islam must be doing God’s will; (4) God would have to be the cause of all conflicts; and (5) God would have to be the author of contradiction, confusion and chaos.

To these objections, Reilly replied, “Ah, but see, you are applying logic to Allah, Who’s above it all.

“And since God is above reason and acts for no reasons, neither can one understand what God does and God Himself becomes unintelligible. Therefore, reality recedes from the Muslim mind. This is what accounts for the dysfunctional cultures you see primarily in the Middle East,” said Reilly. “This is a product of the Ash’arite Kalam, the school of theology for the majority of Sunni Muslims. It predominates in the Middle East, Pakistan and South Asia. So if you wonder why there’s so much unreasonable behavior, it’s simply because reason has lost its status as a normative guide to ethical action.”

As an atheist, I cite this remarkable exposition without endorsing Reilly's Christian premises. However, Reilly has made what I think is a key identification of what moves Islamic jihadists of all stripes: from the killer jihadists to the grooming gangs. Muslim criminal minds – of the members of the Muslim grooming gangs of Britain and other countries – act on what they rationalize is Allah's will, and that is just fine with them, because it is what they want to do anyway. They have been taught – and they never bothered to question what they've been taught – that there is no such thing as the earned or the unearned, just things that people have for no comprehensible reason and which they want and whose origins they don’t wish to fathom. To them, the necessity of thought is a fiction.

Their metaphysical modus operandi is to evade reality and the trader principle that governs most human relationships, a principle that recognizes the reality of those relationships. They know what they do is evil, but evil is what they think universally governs men's thinking and actions, so they attach no moral disapprobation to their own actions, and don’t think anyone else should, either, especially not their victims. The women and girls they rape exist for them to fulfill Allah's ends, that is all.

Their minds are neither slothful nor lethargic. They can plan their crimes. But their intelligence is feral. A predator detects and exploits its prey's weaknesses. This can also be said of the "cultural and civilizational" jihad being waged against the West, as well of the grooming gangsters.

Knowing that they are evil – while at the same time claiming that Allah determines what is evil and what is good – and that what they do is evil, these gangs wish to humiliate, degrade, soil, pervert, and ultimately destroy the good. That is their claim to the efficacy of their Islamic evil. That is the claim of every mullah and imam and jihadist killer. It is the will of Allah; he puts the uncovered meat before them, and they take it. It is unspoiled. We shall spoil it.

Islam reduces all Muslims to ciphers, to interchangeable manqués. The definable criminal among them consequently occupy a rung below that occupied by the passive manqués; they are literally and definably subhuman. Can they be deemed sociopaths, or psychopaths?

One of the outstanding lines from the film Gladiator is spoken in the beginning, before a Roman army attacks a tribe of barbarians: "What we do in life, echoes in eternity."

I would add: What we don’t do – such as think – also follows us in life.  

Is there a clinical name for the pathology of men who refuse to think?