Sunday, November 26, 2017

A Lexicon for Our Time

A necessary read!

Suppose you never “insulted” Islam or Muslims? Or never gave Muslims the “stink eye” in a supermarket or the Mall of America? It wouldn’t matter. Especially if you’re a  white infidel. If accused of Islamophobia or being “racist,” how would you reply? Logically, you couldn’t rebut the accusation. You would be trying to prove a negative.  Hark that hoary old chestnut, asked by a trial lawyer of the defendant, “When did you stop beating your wife?” If it’s a Muslim defendant, the joke would be lost of him. Islam permits the beating of wives (and of dishonorable daughters) with a fist or a vehicle or a hammer or a machete.

I offer here a short list of my own thoughts on the terms gratuitously employed by the MSM and political establishment to sugar-coat the depredations of Islam and of the Left.  As with Islam, because there is no moderate Islam, there is just Islam – Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey – there  is no “alt-Left, or a “moderate Left; there is just the Left. “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” Or, as the banner of FrontPage reads, “Inside every Progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.” The Progressive, writes N. A. Halkides, “believes in precisely two things:  his own magnificence and the constructive power of brute force.  In combination, they lead him naturally from the role of pestiferous busybody to brutal dictator.” 

Islamophobia: Bare Naked Islam has I think the best motto in its site banner concerning Islam: “It’s not Islamophobia if they’re trying to kill you.” Which means that given the countless news stories about jihadist attacks and the number of people murdered in the name of Allah, most people, if they retain some sense and a desire for self-preservation, would naturally develop a phobia or fear of Islam. In 2016, over 11,000 Islamic terrorist attacks were made.

The war on the West is not limited to murdering Westerners. Just the other day Salafist “moderate” Muslims attacked a Sufi mosque in the northern Sinai killing over 300 worshippers. The Sufis are “heretics” according to Salafism’s strict and literal interpretation of the Koran, and deserve to die, as well as all non-Muslims who do not submit. Sufis hate America and the West, too, so no tears for the victims will be shed on my keyboard. Sufi, Salafist, Wahabbist, or Shi’ite, if your’re a member of one of those sects, and feel comfortable swathed, body and soul, in the suffocating “culture” of Islamic traditions and mores, then you’ve already wasted your life. A terrorist’s AK-47 or bomb won’t make a difference.

The OIC Flag
The origin of the term “Islamophobia” dates back as far as 1918 and perhaps earlier. Wikipedia notes that “One early use cited as the term's first use is by the painter Alphonse Étienne Dinet and Algerian intellectual Sliman ben Ibrahim in their 1918 biography of Islam's prophet Muhammad. Writing in French, they used the term islamophobie. Robin Richardson writes that in the English version of the book the word was not translated as "Islamophobia" but rather as "feelings inimical to Islam." [Is there a difference?] Feelings are the only denominator. After Kant, feelings can create reality, or recreate it from a reality one is not copasetic with.

The term today is used by the Left and Islamic spokesmen and organizations (such as CAIR) to denigrate anyone who is critical of Islam and warns of its creeping and steady advance in Western civilization.

Racist and Bigot: If accused of islamophobia or of being “racist,” or a “bigot,” how would you reply? Logically, you couldn’t rebut the accusation. You would be trying to prove a negative. The best defense against such an accusation is to not recognize it as a debatable subject. Short of the accuser owning an X-ray device that could see into your mind to determine whether or not you were racially prejudiced against Muslims or blacks or Latinos, he couldn’t prove the truth of his accusation. He could possibly cite actions or recorded words, as ancillary evidence. But that is all, in which case the accusation would be moot and pointless. And, racism or racist speech has no metaphysical properties to inflict physical hurt or damage on anything or anyone. The written word is also harmless, but has been accused of being able to “incite” hate and racism in others.

Hate speech: I am adamantly opposed to the notion of “hate speech.” It has been proven to be an invitation to censorship, especially by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and more or less lets off the hook anyone susceptible to and is “provoked” to take violent actions “inspired” by it. Wikipedia notes that “Hate speech is speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. In the law of some countries, hate speech is described as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group, or individual on the basis of their [sic, should be his] membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of [sic, should be his] membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics. In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term and in some it is constitutionally protected.” Particularly, in the U.S. where it is protected by the First Amendment which does not mention “hate speech.”

The definition of hate speech varies from country to country, and is often woozy. Key underlying terms in those definitions are “hurtful,” and “dignity.” Those two latter terms are connected. If someone’s speech is deemed to be “hurtful,” it means that a person’s sense of self-worth has been injured. Further, if implies that a person’s “dignity” or sense of self-worth is so shaky and tenuous (or even false) that it can psychologically affect the person. In which case, why should anyone care? As with the accusation of racism, hate speech has no metaphysical properties that can inflict physical hurt or damage on anything or anyone. Hate speech, lik Islamophobia, is not some magical body paint that can be projected on anyone and rob him of his “dignity.”

The OIC “coat of arms”
However, the notion of hate speech is promulgated with an insidious ulterior motive. As Robert Spencer notes in his June 2008 article, George Orwell meets the OIC, Their goal is positively Orwellian.  Replace ‘Big Brother’ with the ‘Organization of the Islamic Conference’ [now the Organization of Islamic Cooperation] and you have the world the OIC wants to impose on us all.” Note also that Islam exempts itself from the charge of having committed “hate speech” against Jews, Christians, and individuals, and commits it in word or image, or against anyone who combats Islamic incursions in word or action. The scholarly discourses of Robert Spencer on Islam, or reporting the news by Pamela Geller of the latest Islamic depredation, or hanging a piece of bacon on a mosque door, are far between in terms of “hate speech,” but they are still deemed “hate speech.” Luckless persons expressing their contempt for Islam or fear of it will be fined or punished by the state, by  non-Muslim authorities, in Britain and in Europe.

Hate crime: Again, this is a notion I am also opposed to. If one commits a violent crime against a person or group, one should be charged with the physical action or the crime itself, not for one’s reasons for committing it. A crime, or initiated force committed against an individual or group, is a crime, regardless of its motive.  

“Safe” place: “Safe” places are areas where men and women congregate – classrooms, cafeterias, restaurants, open air areas, sidewalks, parks, etc. – but are roped off by yellow politically correct police tape, prohibiting entry by anyone with whom one disagrees or whose presence one objects to or fears, and provides a space where one is “safe” from ideas or persons that may disturb a peace of mind. To paraphrase an advisory oft said by the police, “Move on, there’s nothing to see here.” Safely protected individuals live in a mental bubble world they resent being popped by the needle of reason, and there literally is “nothing to see there.” A “safe place” for Muslims is a “No-Go” zone for non-Muslims.  

Insult, defame, offend, denigrate: These terms are meaningless if not accompanied by violence. That is, by themselves, they cannot harm anyone or anything. Vibrations in the air caused by an uttered insult have no metaphysical properties. Nor do pictures, cartoons, or written words.

Another good read
“Confused” and “Mental problems”: When European authorities, and more and more the American, identify a killer as a Muslim, their first explanation of the person’s actions is that he was “confused’ or has “mental problems” allegedly stemming from his having escaped from a war-torn Middle East. “Authorities have ascribed jihad terror to mental illness on numerous occasions,” said Robert Spencer, including the Orlando, San Bernardino and Chattanooga attacks in the United States. Sometimes it sticks, but usually, days, weeks or even months later, when few people are still paying attention, the police will retract their earlier statements and admit it was a terrorist attack…. What could account for this global outbreak of mental illness that always manifests itself in similar ways?” Spencer told WND in an email. “Authorities should start asking themselves why so many mentally ill people embrace Islamic jihad violence. What are.... European leaders doing about this curious epidemic of mental illness among Muslims?”
I don’t think it is something in the water. It is in the Koran.

Violent “extremism”: When Western leaders concede that a jihadist attack was committed by a Muslim who shouted “Allahu Akbar” while committing it, then the new mantra is, together with “mental problems,” that the perpetrator took Islam to “extremes” by resorting to violence.

The “religion of peace” with swords
There are so many Koranic verses that cannot be misinterpreted, such as: “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.” (191-193)

The Koran is replete among its 114 surahs or chapters with incitements to violence. It is quite easy for an aspiring jihadist to ignore the nerdish “peaceful” surahs and “go mental.” He’d rather opt for “extreme” role-playing in emulation of Mohammad in obedience to the wishes of Allah the “most-merciful,” and slice and dice every infidel in sight, by knife, bomb, or gun, and claim with his right hand every Jewish, Christian, or atheist woman at hand as a sex slave, once the males have been decapitated.

The jihdist’s work is never done, not until Islam dominates the world, and there is “peace,” the peace of a global graveyard.

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

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Elite’s Globalist Manifesto of Rules

Here is the unofficial, malign preamble to the globalist takeover of the world. It could just as well suffice as a warning of Islamic conquest, as well. Parodying the Outer Limits intro from 1995, the preamble would go:

There is nothing wrong with your television.
Do not attempt to adjust the picture.
We are controlling the transmission.
We control the horizontal and the vertical.
We can confuse you with a thousand channels.
Or expand one single image to crystal clarity….and beyond.
Or we can blur a single image.
We can shape your vision to anything our imagination can conceive.
We control all that you see, and hear.
We will control everything, and especially your mind.
We will obliterate individual and independent thought.
We will determine the content of your mind.
We will determine what is permissible to speak, write, and express.
We will define what is and is not truth.

All that with the assistance of Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Tom Blumer wrote in his November 19th article, “Twitter to Begin Using ‘Blue Check’ Status As a ‘Big Brother’ Weapon?”:

The growth in online censorship by tech titans Facebook, Twitter, and Google's search and YouTube platform is one of the most under-reported stories of the past two years.

In the latest disturbing development, Twitter, which has been increasingly heavy-handed in censoring center-right content, content providers, and everyday users since last year's general election campaign, has announced that it will unilaterally remove "blue-check" (i.e., "verified") status from groups and users who in its view have violated its Terms of Service — even for offline behavior it considers unacceptable….

So-called "hate speech," assuming anyone can even define it, is protected by the First Amendment. If Twitter is choosing to use the Southern Poverty Law Center's twisted definition of "hate speech" or "hate groups" or is taking a similar posture, a wide swath of legitimate center-right groups' blue checks may disappear. One can be certain that users losing a blue check will be on an internal Twitter "watch list" for supposedly inappropriate online or offline activity that would cause the company to ban them.

Democracy Alliance and Islam want to ban “hate speech.” They want to ban snipe hunts.

On November 17th, Brent Scher and Joe Schoffstall reported in their article, “Secretive Liberal Donor Summit Increases Security, Changes Itinerary Following Free Beacon Report,” in the Washington Free Beacon, that:

Members of the Democracy Alliance, a secretive dark money liberal donor network, appear to have moved to increase security presence and alter its schedule at its fall donor summit following a Washington Free Beacon report released Friday morning based off the group's internal documents.

The high-dollar progressive donors, who each vow to direct at least $200,000 in funding to approved left-wing groups of the alliance, are currently gathered at the posh La Costa Resort located in Carlsbad, Calif., for its three-day fall investment conference to plot their 2018 "resistance" and game plan…

The Free Beacon, who appears to be the only member of the media on site covering the conference, has obtained internal documents meant only for attendees that detail the conference's agenda and those who are currently at the gathering. Janell Ross, a Washington Post reporter, is allegedly at the summit, but is listed as being on a "getting the economic narrative right" panel at the conference.

Islam is insinuating itself into the globalist strategy, or already has, to judge by the numerous Congressmen, billionaires, and Muslim “rights” advocates who have been befriended by CAIR, the ISNA, the MPAC, and other Islamic or Muslim Brotherhood (MB) affiliated groups, and who do not fear Islam but are reluctant to blame Islam for any massacre Islam or ISIS claims credit for (except for Muslims or converts to Islam who are “mentally” troubled). Islam will be the sole globalist power. Not the secular deep state personnel or any secularist, national government. America is the MB’s special target of conquest, per the Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America of 1991.

In part the Memorandum reads:

  • Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic state, wherever it is.
  • In order for Islam and its Movement to become "a part of the homeland" in which it lives, "stable" in its land, "rooted" in the spirits and minds of its people, "enabled" in the live [sic] of its society and has firmly-established "organizations" on which the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization is achieved, the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain "the keys" and the tools of this process in carry [sic] out this grand mission as a "Civilization Jihadist" responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.
  • The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

Islam infests nations just as Progressivism has saddled the U.S. with a welfare/regulatory state. It has frog-marched Europe and is strangling it in the choke-hold of altruist morality. Islam holds Europe and Britain to Christianity’s standard of moral goodness and activism of sacrificing itself to an invasion of hordes of unassimilable Muslims and “respecting” Islam, by incrementally introducing and enforcing Sharia law, and by prohibiting all criticism of Islam, under pain of fines and/or jail. When non-Muslim governments fall down on that job, Islam reserves the option of acting itself to bring about obedience and submission, “Islam” meaning submission.

Progressivism aims for the same goal, a populace subdued and policed by a “higher authority,” in public and in one’s mind. This is why the left and Islam are partners in conquest.

Herbert Croly, soothsayer of
Herbert Croly (1869–1930), was the early 20th century champion of Progressivism. He threaded together all the disparate ambitions and manifestations of Progressive thought (wages, women’s rights, etc.) and presented them in what turned out to be the “biblical” expression of the political philosophy in The Promise of American Life (1909). Croly’s ideas were also instrumental in shaping President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Sidney Pearson, Professor Emeritus, Radford University, of The Heritage Foundation, explains the appeal of Progressivism to the current political and business elites:

What gave the Progressive movement its theoretical unity, in spite of internal quarrels among various writers, thinkers, and politicians, was its uniform opposition to the founding principles of the American regime. Progressives opposed the natural law and natural rights arguments of the Declaration of Independence in favor of a political science founded on historical evolution. The metaphors were typically Darwinian, and the substance was derived from German–Hegelian historicism.

The Progressive movement aimed at nothing less than the total and complete transformation of the American regime. In Croly’s words, “The best that can be said on behalf of this traditional American system of ideas is that it contained the germ of better things.”

In practice, this meant a criticism of the Founders’ idea of limited government with enumerated powers. In electoral politics, as it was expressed by writers such as Herbert Croly, Progressive democracy was built on an increased concentration of political power, primarily in the executive.

The Progressive movement aimed at nothing less than the total and complete transformation of the American regime. From one of freedom of thought, expression, and action and the liberty to pursue, unimpeded, one’s own happiness, to a social environment in which the individual is corralled, fettered, and regulated in a collective for the “public good” or for the Islamic collective. This goal differs little from the Islamic goal of establishing universal Sharia Law overseeing a global Ummah of all Muslims and a state of servitude for all non-Muslims.
Globalist or Jihadist? Wants a bite of you

The Religious Tolerance site a concise definition of Sharia Law:

The term "Sharia" (a.k.a. Shari'a) literally means "the path to a watering hole." The Guardian newspaper in the UK describes Sharia as: "... a religious code for living, in the same way that the Bible offers a moral system for Christians." It is used to refer both to the Islamic system of law and the totality of the Islamic way of life.

Islam in the jihadist sense means perpetual warfare against unbelievers until they are conquered or extinguished. Conquest of the unbelievers is its essential “code for living.” It is not about sacrifice or self-sacrifice, as a Christian duty. Its “struggle” is not, as is commonly assumed, an internal one, but a ceaseless one against a world of unbelievers to achieve “perfection” as a Muslim and to win eternal bliss in an afterlife in Allah’s Paradise.

On the other hand, there is the century-old Progressive jihad against America to “transform” it into a socialist, and, inevitably, a fascist polity in which the individual must submit to the state or the collective or be deemed a “non-person.” As in Islam, there is no “either/or” alternative. And as with Mussolini’s Fascism, All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state,” it is the same with Islam. A global caliphate would demand the same all-encompassing rule. “All within Sharia, nothing outside it, nothing against it.” To Islam, man-made laws are an abomination. The term “democracy” is also an anathema to Islam.  Islam is a totalitarian system, root, branch, and twig. Islam and Progressives want no truck with democracy (or majority rule). Progressivism, too, is totalitarian in nature. It means a rule of “elites,” of self-appointed rulers who believe they know best for everyone, from cribs to diets to careers, to the kind of spouse one marries

Is there a difference between the proposed systems? Between the goals of Islam and the leftist organizations such as the Democracy Alliance?

None that I can fathom. To Progressives the State is Allah. The State is what everyone is expected to worship and swear allegiance to, not some mystical deity.

The Free Beacon noted about the Carlsbad synod of wealthy Progressives:

The DA's agenda, titled "Beyond #Resistance: Reclaiming our Progressive Future," establishes "participation guidelines" that include guests not sharing any of the members' names with the press or on social media. It also asks attendees to refrain from leaving any sensitive materials behind.

Friday's headliners include liberal billionaire George Soros, who was introduced by a video message from Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), and House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is scheduled to speak at the network's dinner. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) also delivered a video message to the group.

David Brock, the former conservative investigative reporter turned Clinton ally and founder of Media Matters, DCCC chair Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D., N.M.), CNN contributor Van Jones, Center for American Progress CEO Neera Tanden, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, California politician Sandra Fluke, and others, are also at the summit, according to the agenda.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmental activist and past prominent member of the alliance, who is currently in the midst of launching a campaign geared at impeaching President Donald Trump, does not appear to be at the gathering. Pelosi, who is in attendance at the summit, previously lambasted Steyer for the campaign.

However, Sky Gallegos, the political director of NextGen Climate, Steyer's group, is listed in the group's documents as having participated in a lunch program Thursday on "mobilizing the electorate for a progressive future."

Soros, of course, is helping to destroy Europe for the sake of destroying it, and is determined to do the same to America and all of Western Civilization, turning it all into one big Islamic hellhole. He is ruled by pure malice. Yet, he is called a humanitarian and philanthropist.

Joe Schoffstall penned a follow-up piece on the billionaire wannabe Caliphs in his November 21st article for the Free Beacon, “Liberal Millionaires Group Seeks to ‘Fundamentally Reset’ America’s Ideology and Economy.”

A group of deep-pocketed progressive millionaires seeks to "fundamentally reset" America's ideology and economy and "expose the dogma of free enterprise, limited government, and traditional family values," according to a brochure obtained by the Washington Free Beacon at a secretive progressive dark money donor conference.

The group, called Patriotic Millionaires, is a Washington, D.C.-based organization that consists of wealthy liberals with an income of at least $1 million. The organization initially formed in 2010 to "demand an end to Bush tax cuts for millionaires" and has launched a recent campaign against the Republican tax cut plan.

Patriotic Millionaires's newest organizational overview, which is not the same brochure that is currently available on its website, was obtained by the Free Beacon at the Democracy Alliance's fall investment conference held last week at the swanky La Costa Resort in Carlsbad, Calif. Each Democracy Alliance member vows to steer hundreds of thousands in funding to approved left-wing organizations the group supports.

The Patrotic Millionaires site boasts:

The group is chaired by Morris Pearl, a former Blackrock executive who retired 3 and a half years ago after a long career on Wall Street to work with the Patriotic Millionaires full time. Patriotic Millionaires members include investors and business owners from across the country engaged in a wide array of industries. Our members include: David desJardins, the #20 employee at Google; legendary venture capitalist Alan Patricof, New York psychologist Gail Furman; filmmaker Abigail Disney; technologist Steve Silberstein; billionaire medical device heiress Pat Stryker; investor Lawrence Benenson of Benenson Capital Partners; textile entrepreneur Great Neck Richman; philanthropist Molly Munger; corrugated cardboard magnate Dennis Mehiel and media investor Leo Hindery, Jr. among many others.

Proud “traitors to their class,” members of the Patriotic Millionaires are high-net worth Americans, business leaders, and investors who are united in their concern about the destabilizing concentration of wealth and power in America. The mission of The Patriotic Millionaires organization is to build a more stable, prosperous, and inclusive nation by promoting public policies based on the “first principles” of equal political representation, a guaranteed living wage for all working citizens, and a fair tax system:
  • All citizens should enjoy political power equal to that enjoyed by millionaires;
  • All citizens who work full time should be able to afford their basic needs;
  • Tax receipts from millionaires, billionaires and corporations should comprise a greater proportion of federal tax receipts.

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

Both sets seek unquestionable power to tell you what to think, what to say, and how to live. They want their Outer Limits.