Thursday, March 23, 2017

The Bogeyman of Islam


Allah is greater than any other Bogeyman!
Allahu Akbar!
Few things set me off more than an utterly stupid, politically correct statement about Islam; it causes me to tear out what little hair I have left, it causes me to cuss a blue streak and employ a lexicon of purple language, it transforms me into Harvey Wallbanger because it’s so perilously irrelevant. A Harvey Wallbanger, for those unfamiliar with cocktail argot, is a drink, a Screwdriver topped with Galliano

The mascot — named what else but Harvey Wallbanger — was a bleary-eyed, big-footed dude who surfed, skydived, life-guarded and even ran for president, always wearing a vacant expression of distress.

Dumb, cautious statements about Islam also leave me bleary-eyed and big-footed, as well. Here is Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May on the terrorist attack on London’s Parliament and on the citizenry in general, as reported by Fox News:

British officials did not release the attacker's identity or confirm a link with the Islamic State group, though May did say it would be wrong to describe the attack as "Islamic" extremism.

"It is Islamist terrorism," she said. "It is a perversion of a great faith."

Come again? You mean that after countless bombings, stabbings, beheadings, rapes, attacks on Western art, all in the name of the great Islamic Bogeyman in the Sky, Allah, the attacker was “perverting” a “great faith”?

The empty Nerf balls rattling around in George W. Bush’s head are also ricocheting around Theresa May’s. He claimed that on 9/11/01 the hijackers and killers had hijacked a great religion.

"Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn't follow the great traditions of Islam. They've hijacked a great religion."

Islam cannot be “perverted.” It is naturally perverted, by Western standards of moral values and behavior. Islam “vibrates” with death. It worships death. Its adherents dream of death. It is not “extreme,” no more than Nazism or Communism were  “extreme.” They were what they were and did not counsel “moderation.”  They were already “radical.” Islam is Islam. A Bogeyman is a Bogeyman.  As is Islam.

As I noted in A Complete Way of Death”:

Lopez and Lyons score Petreaus on his politically correct verbal soft-shoe about Islam, pointing out that he overlooks or chooses to ignore the fact of the Global Jihadist Movement (GJM), and that Islam is fundamentally not “religion of peace” that was “hijacked” by “extremists.” Jihadists, they write,

…are carrying out the core principles of Islam as specified in the Quran, Shariah and the hadiths.

 Anyone who has bothered to peruse the Koran, Sharia law, and the hadiths, will acknowledge that this is a true statement. I maintain a folder devoted exclusively to violent Koranic verses; there are over two hundred of them I could easily cite here. The core principles reside in those verses and they are taken literally by jihadists of the Sunni and Shi’ite branches of Islam – as they were meant to be taken and which do not leave any room for subtextual interpretation. Those verses do not represent a guide to becoming flower children, but rather to becoming conquerors and killers.

Britain Against Islam has published these politically correct talking points and excuses for Islam that we can expect to hear ad nauseam in the coming days and weeks:

We all know the protocol by now -
1. This has nothing to do with Islam.
2. The guy was a mentally ill 'lone wolf'.
3. Those who object to points 1 and 2 are racist bigots.
4. Change Facebook profile to flag of inflicted country.
5. Light some candles, hold a vigil, and go on a peace march.
6. Wait for the next slaughter to happen.
7. Repeat.

That being said, The New York Times reported this morning, March 23rd:

LONDON — The Islamic State claimed responsibility on Thursday for the deadly attack outside the British Parliament, as Prime Minister Theresa May described the assailant as a British-born man whom the country’s domestic intelligence agency had investigated for connections to violent extremism.

The London police identified him on Thursday afternoon as Khalid Masood, 52, who had a long criminal history but no terrorism convictions. He had been living recently around Birmingham, England, where the vehicle used in the attack was rented. The police released few other details about him…..

Barely an hour after Mrs. May finished speaking, the Islamic State group issued a statement on the messaging app Telegram, declaring that the attacker was a “soldier” who “carried out the operation in response to appeals” to fight Western powers involved in military operations in the Middle East.


Altruism can only succumb to Islam
Will it ever dawn as a supernova in the minds of Theresa May and her reality-challenged cohorts that it won’t matter if Britain is involved in military operations against ISIS in the Middle East? Islam wants to destroy Western civilization and then lord it over the ruins.

Yesterday, March 22nd, Katie Hopkins on the Daily Mail had a few words for all those refugee welcomers, multiculturalists, and reality-resistant politicians like Theresa May.

They lay in the centre of London, face down where they fell. Stabbed by a knife, rammed with a car, flung, broken, into the Thames, life bleeding out on the curb…..

This place is just like Sweden. Terrified of admitting the truth about the threat we face, about the horrors committed by the migrants we failed to deter — because to admit that we are sinking, and fast, would be to admit that everything the liberals believe is wrong.

That multiculturalism has not worked. That it is one big fat failure and one big fat lie.

President Erdogan of Turkey said there is a war being waged between the crescent and the cross. But he is wrong. Because the cross is not strong. We are down on bended knee, a doormat to be trodden on, a joke only funny to those that wish us harm.

The war is between London and the rest of the country. Between the liberals and the right-minded. Between those who think it is more important to tip-toe around the cultures of those who choose to join us, rather than defend our own culture.


A Christian Lamb and an Islamic Wolf
I will say this about the weak cross of Christianity. It is not strong enough to combat the lethal blows of Islam. The blows are lethal because altruism is our current moral gold standard; Islam’s “victories” are by default. If Christ had emerged when Islam began to rise, he would have been slaughtered by Mohammad’s “soldiers.” There would be no “turning the other cheek” for Christ, except when a Muslim took a knife to his neck and severed his head.

I will say this here: no religion is “great,” especially not if it holds a Bogeyman in the Sky as the final moral arbiter and arranger of existence, as all the major religions do.

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Scrubbing the Mind of “Thought Crime”

American politicians – particularly those with an appetite for controlling and regulating human behavior – get their “best” statist ideas from Europe. Trending now is the desire to shut up people who say unwanted things about the things they hold dear, such as homosexuality, transgenders, pedophiles, lesbians, ad nauseam. The list of subjects about which one may not say offensive things is long and arduous.  They want to establish a secular Vatican-style Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Who elected two New York
politicians Vatican Cardinals?


The first catalog of forbidden books to include in its title the word index, however, was published in 1559 by the Sacred Congregation of the Roman Inquisition (a precursor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

The notion of enforcing the deletion and/or punishment of “forbidden” texts or statements in order to implement the “right to be forgotten” amounts to a revival of the Inquisition. New York State assemblyman David I. Weprin and his colleague State Senator Tony Avella, have an appetite for  censorship. Here is their idea. ZeroHedge reported it on March 17th:

In a bill aimed at securing a “right to be forgotten,” introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and (as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella), liberal New York politicians would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others

….Within 30 days of a ”request from an individual,”
….“all search engines and online speakers] shall remove … content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is ‘inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive,’ ”
….“and without replacing such removed … content with any disclaimer [or]takedown notice.”
….“inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ shall mean content,”
….“which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication,”
….“is no longer material to current public debate or discourse,”
…“especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information … is causing to the requester’s professional, financial, reputational or other interest,”
….“with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.”
….Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers [or authors] liable for, at least, statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.

Both Weprin and Avella are Democrats.  Democrats have always had a hankering to regulate or control what individuals may or may not say or do. But what, you may ask, is “the right to be forgotten”?

It is a European Union device originally conceived as a kind of American-style “don’t call” rule by which individuals would request that their names and telephone and/or /Internet addresses be excised from commercial firms’ databases so the individuals are not bothered by “junk” calls, solicitations, or “spam.” But Weprin and Avella have absorbed the notion and expanded it to mean the censoring information.

For example, if Assemblyman Weprin and Senator Tony Avella wished that their names no longer appeared in print or elsewhere in association with the concept of censorship, an enacted law would allow them to bring suit against me or Google for justly linking them with such an association, at least if my remarks wound up in New York under the aegis of New York State law. They could initiate legal action in order that the association be “forgotten” by a public that may not wish to live under censorship.

Not.

Further, the law would stipulate that I could not replace their names with avatars, or apologize for citing their names or pen a “disclaimer,” or even mention that I had been compelled under duress  and  the threat of legal action and financial ruin to “take down” the posting. The posting would simply vanish without explanation.

But Weprin and Avella carried that concept to actions to stifle or suppress any mention of them, misinterpreting or ignoring the EU’s own ruling on the “right to be forgotten.”

The Court in its judgement did not elevate the right to be forgotten to a “super right” trumping other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression or the freedom of the media.

This is not what Weprin and Avella have in mind. They want to censor what they, or their bureaucratic lictors, decide is or is not inappropriate or “forgettable.” Tyler Durden of ZeroHedge quotes Washington Post journalist Eugene Volokh as he elaborates on the significance of the Weprin/Avella bill:

As The Washington Post's Eugene Volokh rages, under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was “no longer material to current public debate or discourse” (except when it was “related to convicted felonies” or “legal matters relating to violence” in which the subject played a “central and substantial” role).

Eugene Volokh “Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy…”

Volokh in his Washington Post article continued:

And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was “no longer material to current public debate.” Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent businesspeople and others.

But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law, and I hope First Amendment law will stay that way (no matter what rules other countries might have adopted).

Remember: There is no “right to be forgotten” in the abstract; no law can ensure that, and no law can be limited to that. Instead, the “right” this aims to protect is the power to suppress speech — the power to force people (on pain of financial ruin) to stop talking about other people, when some government body decides that they should stop.

Who is to determine what is “inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ …. content”? Faceless bureaucrats charged with managing any information you may encounter. You are not to decide for yourself what is ….“inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ … content.”

You can imagine what Islamic “civil rights” organizations, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations ( CAIR) would do with such a law. They would run amok with lawsuits against anyone who seemed to offend or defame Islam or Mohammad or Muslims and demand that someone’s book, column, or remark be removed from print or from online publication. However, as Volokh reminds us, there is no “right to be forgotten.” By the same token, there is no “right not be offended.” Which is not the same thing as having a “right” not to be libeled, slandered, or defamed (that is, if you are a living person and not some mystical deity or over a century deceased).

Weprin and Avella wish to insulate their favorite protected classes from ridicule, defamation, and demonization because they are of the Left, and, not coincidentally, in alliance with Islam. The Left and Islam are partners in the task of chipping away at freedom of speech.

Weprin and Avella would like to issue secular fatwa against speech they disapprove of. Islam Watch has this advisory:

…There are many scholars confirming the consensus on this ruling. For example, Imaam Is'haaq Ibn Raahawayh stated that Muslim scholars unanimously agreed that anyone who insults Allaah The Almighty or His Messenger or rejects anything that Allaah The Almighty sent or killed any of the prophets of Allaah The Almighty would  be considered a disbeliever. This is so even if he acknowledged all that Allaah The Almighty revealed. Muhammad Ibn Sahnoon mentioned that scholars have unanimously agreed that whoever insults or discredits the Prophet is a disbeliever who is promised a severe punishment from Allaah The Almighty. The ruling on such a person, according to the Muslim Ummah (nation), is death. Additionally, anyone who doubts his disbelief or punishment is also a disbeliever.

In terms of forbiding certain kinds of speech or threatening dire punishment for uttering or expressing it, there isn’t much difference  between an Islamic fatwa and the New York Assembly and Senate bills. Both entities want to shut up criticisms of their preferred icons: the Left wants to squelch the

Smash Fascism with Antifa, our brand of Fascism,
which is just a clueless derivative of Communism.
"defamation" of their favorite classes: homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders, obesity, Muslims, and a long, long checklist of other legislatively "protected" classes;  Islam's list of protected classes is much shorter, reserved almost exclusively by Islam, Mohammad and Allah. Both entities wish to have the power to punish offenders financially or physically or in one's profession. It is an alliance of power-lusters that the "hard" left and "Islamists" have actually hammered out over a decade.

Pamela Geller lives and works in New York City. Doubtless her blog, the Geller Report, would be subjected to scrutiny by the “forgotten” speech police. She has inveighed against the proposed Weprin/Avella legislation. In her March 18th column “Democrat Unveils CRUSHING Bill To Suppress Non-Government-Approved Free Speech,” she writes:

The liberals are on a death march. The death of freedom. The death of individual rights. The death of America.

First off, let me say that such a bill would personally benefit me enormously. There is so much hate, lies, defamation directed at me online, it is staggering. But I endure the smears and lies because that is what is required under the First Amendment. That said, I vehemently oppose this bill. We will wage war against this bill. This bill would be the club to silence those who oppose the left. This bill would scrub the information superhighway of their crimes.

Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced. Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.

Let me just say here that Weprin and Avella are the legislative auxiliaries of Antifa and CAIR and every other liberal/Left gang that has arisen over the decades to outlaw and punish freedom of speech. As Antifa relies on physical force and physical intimidation to suppress or extinguish freedom of speech, so do the proposed New York censorship laws rely on threats and intimidation.

Come and get it Mr. Weprin and Mr. Avella!

Friday, March 17, 2017

The Nihilism of Antifa

The average Antifa recruit is a sociopath. He’s in the “resistance” irrespective of the “cause.” He’s in the mob because of his basic nihilism; freedom of speech means nothing to him. He would “oppose,” while carrying a stick or wearing steel-toed shoes or knuckle busters, a speech about the chemical composition of cow paddies. It could be about immigration, Brexit, Trump, pro-Trumpers, or Milo Yiannopoulos. It matters not. He is an empty vessel. There is the chance to chant with countless others to feel “one” with them is that is his driving motive to physically assault demonstrators and be paid for it. Alone he is a non-performer, a non-entity. Antifac gives him a chance to vent his malevolent universe soul, to lash out at anyone who stands for something.
Hamas’s domestic doppelganger: Antifa

The mentality of an Antifa “soldier” is parallel with that of an Islamic jihadist. The latter’s end is his own death, or arrest, or “martyrdom.” They have said that in so many instances. But maybe it is also, if he survives being shot, the five minutes of TV fame as his carnage is televised and he is shown being led away by the police. But it is not “mental illness,” which is what European authorities invariably ascribe to Muslim attacks on non-Muslims. It is plain, unadulterated nihilism. Islam is a nihilist, death-worshipping “creed.”

Antifa “soldiers” are impervious to the charge that their “anti-fascist” mantra allows them to behave like fascists, just as Hitler’s brown shirts behaved.


Antifa’s doppelganger: Hamas
Nihilism is also Antifa’s emotional fuel, just as it is of ISIS. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that:

nihilism encompassed a variety of philosophical and aesthetic stances that, in one sense or another, denied the existence of genuine moral truths or values, rejected the possibility of knowledge or communication, and asserted the ultimate meaninglessness or purposelessness of life or of the universe.


  a :  a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless Nihilism is a condition in which all ultimate values lose their value. — Ronald H. Nashb :  a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

  2a :  a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility;

2b capitalized :  the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination

Destruction of its own sake, and the terrorism of anyone attempting to enjoy his First Amendment right to speak without fear of mob opposition or without fear of mob violence, are the leitmotifs of both Antifa and Islamic jihad. That is the nihilism of Antifa and Islam.
 It is without a doubt that former President Barack Obama, blatantly pro-Islam, is engaged in “Deep State” tactics to nullify President Donald Trump’s pro-America administration or to stage a “coup” against Trump, and it is not  beyond credibility that his actions and his Organizing For America (OFA) are linked beyond public scrutiny to Antifa. If Obama is not providing operational funds directly to Antifa through circuitous channels, George Soros certainly is under his Open Society umbrella. Obama’s OFA could also stand for “Organizing For Action” – action to do what? Mount violent protests, and obstruct Trump’s immigration policies in the federal judiciary on the flimsiest legal pretexts, and to oppose Trump in Congress and in the judiciary.  You can sit in black robes on a court’s bench and still have much in common with the black-garbed, arson-happy Antifa thugs.

The New York Post reported on February 18th:

Protesters, who may or may not be affiliated with OFA, are also storming district offices. Last week, GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher blamed a “mob” of anti-Trump activists for knocking unconscious a 71-year-old female staffer at his Southern California office. A video of the incident, showing a small crowd around an opening door, was less conclusive.

Separately, OFA, which is run by ex-Obama officials and staffers, plans to stage 400 rallies across 42 states this year to attack Trump and Republicans over ObamaCare’s repeal.


Soros reviewing his masked Antifa troops
Daniel Greenfield on Sultan Knish, on March 13th, in his “Obama’s Third Term is Here,” outlines how Obama and his Progressive/Communist allies have set themselves up to sink Trump:

After Trump secured the nomination, Obama’s people filed a wiretapping request. As he was on the verge of winning, they did it again. After he won, they are doing everything they can to bring him down.

It was always going to come down to this.

One is the elected President of the United States. The other is the Anti-President who commands a vast network that encompasses the organizers of OFA, the official infrastructure of the DNC and Obama Anonymous, a shadow government of loyalists embedded in key positions across the government.

A few weeks after the election, I warned that Obama was planning to run the country from outside the White House. And that the “Obama Anonymous” network of staffers embedded in the government was the real threat. Since then Obama’s Kalorama mansion has become a shadow White House. And the Obama Anonymous network is doing everything it can to bring down an elected government.

Valerie Jarrett has moved into the shadow White House to plot operations against Trump. Meanwhile Tom Perez has given him control of the corpse of the DNC after fending off a Sandernista bid from Keith Ellison. Obama had hollowed out the Democrat Party by diverting money to his own Organizing for America. Then Hillary Clinton had cannibalized it for her presidential bid through Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile. Now Obama owns the activist, OFA, and organizational, DNC, infrastructure.


Valerie Jarrett: the other Ma Barker
It’s interesting that Valerie Jarrett, who could be characterized as the “Ma Barker” of the Obama gang, has moved into the alt-White House to better guide and advise Obama in his war against Trump. Obama apparently heeds her advice without question and answers to Jarrett for everything he does.

Greenfield divides Obama’s offensive into a two-pronged assault: one from “no-liberals-or-leftists-left behind” personnel in the State Department, the military, and various government agencies who job it is to sabotage Trump’s policies and legislative initiatives; and the “Deep State” operatives who work to bring down

The original Ma Barker
Trump from outside the government.

After the election, Obama Inc. began to spread out its bets. Some of his people migrated into his network of political organizations. Others remained embedded in the government. While the former would organize the opposition, the latter would sabotage, undermine and try to bring down Trump.

An unprecedented campaign for full spectrum dominance was being waged in domestic politics.

Former Attorney General  of the United States, Loretta Lynch, coyly sanctioned violent opposition to Trump. Daniel Greenfield on FrontPage on March 5th interprets her remarks, which are heavily laden with a verisimilitude that was (and still is) the rhetorical trademark of Obama and his ideological sycophants:

We can expect Obama Inc. to be increasingly blatant in its activism, with the man himself making a public reappearance before long. After Perez's win, Obama controls the Dems and has a large organization in the form of OFA. His people within the government are organized and have proven to be quite dangerous. 

Without offering any specifics, Lynch goes on to say that “our rights” are “being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back.”

“It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.”


Former AG Loretta Lynch: Go out and raise hell!
This is a call to action. All the empty references to our Founding Fathers, a group that her allied racist activists are trying to eliminate from history, or the civil rights movement, whose legacy of unity they rejected, are empty words. The core is an incitement to confrontation and violence.

It is arguably unprecedented for a top member of the previous administration to call for anti-government protests this early in a new administration. But Obama and his crime family have always been unprecedented

Greenfield will not stop connecting the dots, or, so to speak, the slimy, infection-on-contact tentacles of Obama’s shadow government.

There is now a President and an Anti-President. A government and a shadow government. The anti-President controls more of the government through his shadow government than the real President.

The Obama network is an illegal shadow government. Even its “light side” as an opposition group is very legally dubious. Its “shadow side” is not only illegal, but a criminal attack on our democracy.

Obama no longer legally holds power. His Deep State network is attempting to overturn the results of a presidential election using government employees whose allegiance is to a shadow White House. Tactics that were illegal when he was in office are no longer just unconstitutional, they are treasonous. [Italics-bold mine]

Obama Inc. has become a state within a state. It is a compartmentalized network of organizations, inside and outside the government, that claim that they are doing nothing illegal as individual groups because they are technically following the rules within each compartment, but the sheer scope of the illegality lies in the covert coordination between these “revolutionary cells” infecting our country.

While not part of the shadow government, the MSM is complicit in its active, desperate opposition to Trump. It never needed to be cued by Obama to oppose Trump. Dumping fake news, smears, allegations, and innuendoes on Trump and his nominees and allies and against anyone who opposed Obama over eight years has been their mainstay for over a decade. The MSM may as well have seats in Congress across the aisle from the Dems and the RINOs.

The mangy mutts of the MSM

Will we ever reach a day when Obama is no longer a threat and becomes unnewsworthy? Will some intrepid, brave journalist ever delve into the nihilist, subterranean connections between the Obama/Jarrett Kalorama household and that third group of jihadists, Antifa, and expose Obama’s treason?  Obama’s policy from day one of his first administration has been to flaunt the Constitution and “remake” America into his own nihilistic image. Now that he is legally powerless to impose his will on the country, he has chosen to impose it illegally.

Not as a yapping, mangy mutt snapping at Trump’s and America’s heels, but as a rabid Rottweiler.