Edward Cline's Blog, page 6
December 3, 2018
Ventriloquism in the Global Compact
Here is more commentary as an adjunct to my last column, “The Blob and Fake News,”, about the master plan of the UN for world governance, “The “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.”
Michael Redgrave in Dead of Night (1945)
Michele Blood at Lifezette, as so many others have, notes that Criticism of Migration Could Become a Criminal Offense, and under U.N.’s Global Pact there will be certain consequences:
But the agreement, if ratified, would actually threaten national sovereignty, criminalize anti-migration speech, thwart freedom of the press, and maybe even establish a problematic legal framework.
Among other things, governments are asked to “promote independent, objective and quality reporting … and [to stop] the allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants,” as the Express also noted.
The text of the Global Compact (GC) is here:
What the Lifezette quotation means is that if you are a journalist or just an individual expressing disapproval and disdain of your government’s immigration policies as defined by the UN, you can be punished, silenced, or otherwise whipped by the UN, or by your own government, if it signed the GC. Otherwise, if you abide by the GC’s rules, you will become, in effect, a ventriloquist’s dummy and be told what has been approved for you to know, as long as it’s something minor or trivial and of no consequence. If you observe that others have been silenced, you won’t care, because those others will have “asked for it,” and they ought to have known better than to break the rules.If Alex Jones or Lauren Southern or Robert Spencer or Stefan Molyneux have been duct taped, or financially broken by the tech giants, you shouldn’t care?
To quote from the GC:
The Global Compact requires the media outlets of member-states to adhere to the objectives and refrain from any critical discussions of these objectives that would be deemed as not “ethical” and against UN norms or standards consistent with the ideology of globalism.
That is, if you don’t become a mealy-mouthed shill or quivering parrot of the GC, you will be shut up and agree to be made “ethical.” You won’t mind having a closed mind, or a closed mouth. Not being able to speak your mind is something you won't miss, if you even had it.
It will make no difference to you if you will sit alone and mutter to yourself, or sit on the UN’s lap and let the artist flap your gums with a string.
Freedom of Speech? Nah, you'll think. That's just swollen-headed, self-important talk by nobodies trying to sound profound and “deep.” Me? Start a critical discussion, and offend some group or a religion? Don’t make me laugh. I'd never become xenophobic, or intolerant, or racist, or anything so nasty. My limit is my golf scores. I'll say anything that needs saying.
Michael Redgrave in Dead of Night (1945)
Michele Blood at Lifezette, as so many others have, notes that Criticism of Migration Could Become a Criminal Offense, and under U.N.’s Global Pact there will be certain consequences:
But the agreement, if ratified, would actually threaten national sovereignty, criminalize anti-migration speech, thwart freedom of the press, and maybe even establish a problematic legal framework.
Among other things, governments are asked to “promote independent, objective and quality reporting … and [to stop] the allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants,” as the Express also noted.
The text of the Global Compact (GC) is here:
What the Lifezette quotation means is that if you are a journalist or just an individual expressing disapproval and disdain of your government’s immigration policies as defined by the UN, you can be punished, silenced, or otherwise whipped by the UN, or by your own government, if it signed the GC. Otherwise, if you abide by the GC’s rules, you will become, in effect, a ventriloquist’s dummy and be told what has been approved for you to know, as long as it’s something minor or trivial and of no consequence. If you observe that others have been silenced, you won’t care, because those others will have “asked for it,” and they ought to have known better than to break the rules.If Alex Jones or Lauren Southern or Robert Spencer or Stefan Molyneux have been duct taped, or financially broken by the tech giants, you shouldn’t care?
To quote from the GC:
The Global Compact requires the media outlets of member-states to adhere to the objectives and refrain from any critical discussions of these objectives that would be deemed as not “ethical” and against UN norms or standards consistent with the ideology of globalism.
That is, if you don’t become a mealy-mouthed shill or quivering parrot of the GC, you will be shut up and agree to be made “ethical.” You won’t mind having a closed mind, or a closed mouth. Not being able to speak your mind is something you won't miss, if you even had it.
It will make no difference to you if you will sit alone and mutter to yourself, or sit on the UN’s lap and let the artist flap your gums with a string.
Freedom of Speech? Nah, you'll think. That's just swollen-headed, self-important talk by nobodies trying to sound profound and “deep.” Me? Start a critical discussion, and offend some group or a religion? Don’t make me laugh. I'd never become xenophobic, or intolerant, or racist, or anything so nasty. My limit is my golf scores. I'll say anything that needs saying.
December 2, 2018
The Assisted Suicide of Europe
I devoted too little space in my last column, “The Blob and Fake News,”, to the master plan of the UN for world governance, “The “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration,” which Canada will sign on to. Or, rather, the boy Wonder, JustinTrudeau, will sign on to it.
Trudeau, premier of Canada, opined that national borders are an anachronism and obsolete, and should be abolished. In “The Blob,” I wrote:
According to Gatestone, in 2015, he said,
"There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada. There are shared values –openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state."
Two years later, Salim Mansur at Gatestone reported,
The Canadian government's recent announcement that it will be providing more than CDN $600 million (USD $455 million) over the next five years to bail out the country's financially strapped media outlets -- as part of the fall fiscal update about the federal budget ahead of the 2019 federal election -- is not as innocent as it may seem.
In response to the announcement, the heads of Canada's media organizations promptly popped open the proverbial champagne and raised their glasses to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Unifor, a national union that represents Canadian journalists, was even more jubilant. It felt vindicated that its slogan of "Resistance" -- which it touts as Conservative Party opposition leader Andrew Scheer's "worst nightmare" -- had so swiftly resulted in opening the government's wallet, and handing out taxpayers' money, to an industry that should actually be fighting to remain steadfastly independent of any form of government backing.
In effect, Canadian “journalists,” and journalists everywhere, will become the paid shills of the government and its policies of not saying critical things about Islam or Muslims. Furthermore, rolls of duct tape will be readied to silence any such criticism or to quash it before it's even thought of:
The Global Compact requires the media outlets of member-states to adhere to the objectives and refrain from any critical discussions of these objectives that would be deemed as not "ethical" and against UN norms or standards consistent with the ideology of globalism.
In short, journalists must refrain from pointing out the contradictions, failings, and outright lunacy of the Global Compact, or face punitive consequences. And there will be, of necessity, many failings and anti-reason policies that highlight the irrationality of the GC (Global Compact), given the nature of its “feel good” collectivist altruism. Here is a link to the whole gobbledegook patois word salad. It is written in UNese.
And here is how the GC “plan” opens:
GLOBAL COMPACT FOR SAFE, ORDERLY AND REGULAR MIGRATION
FINAL DRAFT 11 July 2018
Excellency:
We, the Heads of State and Government and High Representatives, meeting in [Marrakesh] Morocco on 10 and 11 December 2018, reaffirming the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants and determined to make an important contribution to enhanced cooperation on international migration in all its dimensions, have adopted this Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.
“Migration”? Migrants? Refugees? Immigrants?
Austria, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, will not sign the Compact, and the prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, says he will not sign it. The U.S. withdrew from the Compact in 2017. Stefan Molyneux delivers a thorough parsing of the Compact and what it means, and exposes its hidden meanings, such as the populations or indigenous populations of the countries to which the theoretical 59 million migrants (or immigrants) will be “pulled (to their welfare states), together with the fact that these populations were never consulted about the alleged one-world imperative of signing onto the Compact. Molyneux calls the “Implementation” section of the Compact document a “Doberman-laced wish list.”
He points out that nowhere in the GC is mentioned such things as the infrastructure of the signatory countries, housing, roads, medical facilities, education, translation services, electricity, that is, how are these millions of economic “migrants” are going to be accommodated. Nowhere in it anywhere either is how the billions of dollars will be paid to upkeep and to accommodate the “migrants.” Although it is just assumed that national governments will burden indigenous populations with more taxation or simply skimp on or do away with what they are already paying for, to underwrite the upkeep of millions of “migrants” and the provision of “free stuff.” Speaking from observation, most of the invading migrants are not expected to contribute to the “sustainability” of any Western nation once once the migrants are on the welfare rolls.
Molyneux emphasizes that while there is a difference between “migrants” – which are illegal and who are basically economic border crossers (“irregulars”), according to international law – “refugees” seeking asylum from war and oppressive governments are excluded from any concern in the GC. The focus of the GC is almost wholly “immigrants”
Molyneux stresses that the GC “squishes” together the terms “migrants” and “refugees” and makes no real effort to distinguish between the two. The GC states that migration has always been a part of the “human experience,” and that the invasion of “migrants” has always been opposed by indigenous peoples, such as Native Indians, when Europeans settled into North America and revisionist historians focus on how Indians were subjected to persecution and diseases. One instance I would cite is the four separate times Rome was invaded and sacked (in 390 BC, 410, 455, and 546) by barbarians (except that this time they were invited by Angela Merkle, the Swedish government, and Theresa May; “They’re not dangerous!”).
The GC states that:
Refugees and migrants are entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms, which must be respected, protected, and fulfilled at all times. However, migrants and refugees are distinct groups governed by separate legal frameworks. Only refugees are entitled to the specific international protection as defined by international refugee law. The Global Compact refers to migrants and presents a cooperative framework addressing migration in all its dimensions.
But the GC’s focus is on the state of migrants, not on the real or imagined plight of refugees (such as that of Asia Bibi).
In short, the Global Compact is a detailed master plan to swamp Western civilization with a non-stop flow of migrants into our world, and to whom we must defer, sustain and never upbraid or punish for their crimes and parasitism.
November 29, 2018
The Blob and Fake News
First, let us imagine that in Othello, Iago, the villain, invented the “fake news” (or lie) that Desdemona was having an extramarital affair, and that Othello, her husband, believed the lie, and then in a fit of rage, murdered his wife, realizing the lie was a falsehood, only after it was too late to recognize it as “fake news.” Desdemona dies.
That is the story line of Shakespeare’s play, and it ended in tragedy.
What in real life will end as a tragedy? Several current developments, including the ravenous appetite of the European Union for total submission of nations to its totalitarian plan for a unified, “borderless” world, submission to Islam, and an abandonment of the victims of Islam and the wolf packs of Sharia.
As I read the dreary and depressing instances of Western countries submitting to the EU’S attempted and/or successful extortion around the world, and to the EU’s and Islam’s arm-twisting, a horror-science fiction movie I saw at the age of twelve came to mind, “The Blob,” from 1958. Its storyline is fairly simple: ”it concerns a growing, corrosive, alien amoeboidal entity that crashes to Earth from outer space inside a meteorite. It devours and dissolves citizens in the small communities….” Steve McQueen, in his first feature film, saves the day. His character recommends that the Air Force fly the Blob to the Arctic and drop it into the ice and cold, because The Blob recoils from the cold, and stops it from spreading.
The Blob of world collectivism, however, hasn’t been sunk into the Arctic. It continues to corrode and eat nations. It does not recoil from the cold.
"The “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration,” which Canada will sign on to, is akin to the Blob, but rather an amoebiodal political entity. A perfect title for a plan to empower “globalists.” Or shall we call it “The Blob Contract”?
Justin Trudeau, premier of Canada, opined that national borders are an anachronism and obsolete, and should be abolished.
According to Gatestone, in 2015, he said,
"There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada. There are shared values -- openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state."
Two years later, Salim Mansur at Gatestone reported,
The Canadian government's recent announcement that it will be providing more than CDN $600 million (USD $455 million) over the next five years to bail out the country's financially strapped media outlets -- as part of the fall fiscal update about the federal budget ahead of the 2019 federal election -- is not as innocent as it may seem.
In response to the announcement, the heads of Canada's media organizations promptly popped open the proverbial champagne and raised their glasses to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Unifor, a national union that represents Canadian journalists, was even more jubilant. It felt vindicated that its slogan of "Resistance" -- which it touts as Conservative Party opposition leader Andrew Scheer's "worst nightmare" -- had so swiftly resulted in opening the government's wallet, and handing out taxpayers' money, to an industry that should actually be fighting to remain steadfastly independent of any form of government backing.
In effect, Canadian “journalists” will become the paid shills of the government and its policies of not saying critical things about Islam or Muslims. Furthermore, rolls of duct tape will be readied to silence any such criticism or to quash it before it even thought of:
The Global Compact requires the media outlets of member-states to adhere to the objectives and refrain from any critical discussions of these objectives that would be deemed as not "ethical" and against UN norms or standards consistent with the ideology of globalism.
Do as I say, and as I do. Or else.
Meanwhile, back in the mother country, in not-so-Great anymore Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May has outperformed Francis Urquhart of House of Cards (the British version) in the realms of political pragmatism with no evident principles or scruples. She will not allow Asia Bibi, hiding from the slobbering, murderous wolf packs of Pakistani Islam, to find asylum in Britain. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch reported on November 25:
The fate of Asia Bibi has pitted Home Secretary Sajid Javid against the Prime Minister, with Mr. Javid arguing passionately that she should be given refuge in the UK.
But sources say that his plan was thwarted after May was persuaded that letting Bibi claim asylum here would ‘stoke tensions’ among British Muslims….
Our investigation reveals that on the day she was seized by villagers and accused of blasphemy she was paraded through her village with a leather noose around her neck, beaten with sticks by a baying mob during a ‘court’ hearing and told that her life would be spared only if she converted to Islam.
Bibi’s conviction was quashed last month following eight years in solitary confinement after Pakistan’s Supreme Court said the case was based on ‘inconsistent’ evidence.
The acquittal prompted days of demonstrations by thousands of hardline Islamists who demanded she be hanged. Ms Bibi is now in hiding after Imran Khan’s government agreed to allow a petition against the court’s decision as part of a deal to halt the protests….
Some newspapers reported the half-truth about May’s decision.
However, the Sun newspaper reported Mrs May had decided against offering her asylum over fears for the safety of diplomats in Pakistan.
May has been bought by the EU but paid for by the British taxpayer, given her surrender of Brexit to the autocratic elitists of the EU. Freedom Outpost reports that May is in tacit agreement with Angela Merkle of Germany:
Merkel encouraged countries to prepare themselves to make concessions in an "orderly procedure," referring to the EU as the "greatest parliament in the world. The event titled "Parliamentarianism Between Globalisation and National Sovereignty" didn't draw a very big crowd. Take a look. She told the event, titled ‘Parliamentarianism Between Globalisation and National Sovereignty’: "In this day nation states must today – should….
"But of course in an orderly procedure.”
Mrs Merkel said that countries who think “they can solve everything on their own” are simply nationalistic and not patriotic because they “only think about themselves.”
She said: "Either you are one of those who believe they can solve everything on their own and only have to think about themselves. That is nationalism in its purest form.
“This is not patriotism. Because patriotism is if you include others in the German interest and accept win-win situations."
Finally the House of Commons in Britain will debate the totalitarian idea of punishing anyone guilty of committing “Islamaphobia.
Several titled persons debated the question, as reported by Hansard (the official journal of the British Parliament beginning in the 18th century, I discuss it in Sparrowhawk) . Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, said:
My Lords, we are clear that hatred and intolerance against Muslims have absolutely no place in our society. Any criminal offence that is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s religion or perceived religion is a religious hate crime. The Government do not currently endorse a particular definition of Islamophobia. Previous attempts by others to define this term have not succeeded in attracting consensus or widespread acceptance.
Lord Singh of Winbledon volunteered his two pence worth:
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, has rightly drawn our attention to the vagueness of the term Islamophobia. I add a point that concerns me: the culture of victimhood that it can easily lead to, which is not very healthy. There is also the way in which figures for crimes against other people are included in the statistics for Islamophobia—up to one-third, according to a freedom of information request. But the greatest concern is that this sort of thing does not really tackle the underlying issue of hate crime, which arises out of ignorance and prejudice. It is there at all levels of society, and we are doing very little to combat it. [Baroness Warsi is a Muslim. My brackets]
It is a common notion today that victims of “hate crime” must “perceive” it as such. And also that SJWs hostile to Ice and other Trump insist that spokesmen “perceive” reality through a subjective lens, preferably of those making an accusation of wrong-doing.
Observe how Senator Kamala Harris grills a candidate head of ICE:
After a brief history lesson on the tactics of the Klan, Harris grilled the acting director of ICE on his ability to notice the "perception" of the agency he is charged to run.
"Are you aware of the perception of many about how the power and the discretion at ICE is being used to enforce the laws? And do you see any parallels?" Harris asked.
"I do not see a parallel between the power and the authority that ICE has to do its job and the agents and officers who do it professionally and excellently with lots of compassion," Vitiello said. "There’s a lot of perceptions in the media and in the public that are incorrect about the agency and what it does."
Harris also lashed out at Vitiello for interrupting her.
Perception is a Kantian notion bandied about at every opportunity in current politics. Things can be whatever one wants them to be. But they will be whatever an accuser says they must be. If you disagree with my perception, you must be a racist.
Flesh-eating Blobs like Kamala Harris can be great fellows, they say. The concept of “hate crime,” or “hate speech” can be a boon and an asset in anyone’s quest to destroy freedom of speech and reality. Her perceptions can never be incorrect. Incorrectness, after all, is just a “perception.” So are facts.
November 23, 2018
Universal Censorship
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch posted an interesting article about how a Pakistani UN member is proposing that a war on “islamophobia” be waged to eradicate this form of “hate speech” for good and forever and ever.
Make no mistake: by “defamation of religions,” the Pakistanis mean “criticism of Islam,” as neither they nor anyone else care when Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion is criticized. And make no mistake about another point as well: once anything — anything at all — is established as off-limits to criticism, you are not living in a free society, but in a tyranny, for those who adhere to the ideology that cannot be criticized can do anything they want to you and others, and you won’t be able to say a word about it. So what Pakistan is trying to do with this initiative is establish over the entire world the tyranny of Sharia and its blasphemy laws that forbid criticism of Islam.
Make no mistake: by “defamation of religions,” the Pakistanis mean “criticism of Islam,” as neither they nor anyone else care when Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion is criticized. And make no mistake about another point as well: once anything — anything at all — is established as off-limits to criticism, you are not living in a free society, but in a tyranny, for those who adhere to the ideology that cannot be criticized can do anything they want to you and others, and you won’t be able to say a word about it. So what Pakistan is trying to do with this initiative is establish over the entire world the tyranny of Sharia and its blasphemy laws that forbid criticism of Islam.
She also stressed the importance of countering “Islamophobia” and incitement to violence and hatred that is being witnessed in some parts of the western world by the negative depiction of Muslims.
One must ask oneself: Where and when have the “denigrators” of Islam run riot, attacked mosques, beaten up Muslims, raped Muslim women, or otherwise incited anti-Islam and anti-Muslim violence?
Of hatred of Islam there is aplenty, especially when individuals grasp the totalitarian nature of Islam and Sharia law; naturally they would hate Islam as much as they would Nazism and Communism. They do not want to live under it, nor do they want it next door in a submissive country like Canada. “Peace and harmony” are not analogous or equivalent to Islam’s 1400 year record, as Robert Spencer writes in detail in The History of Jihad .
Ambassador Lodhi also called for greater respect for each other’s religious beliefs, symbols and revered personalities.
The Express Tribune, on November 22, 2018, reported:
Pakistan informed the United Nations (UN) on Thursday of Prime Minister Imran Khan’s initiative for an international campaign against defamation of religions.
In a free society, which Ambassador Lodhi is certainly not proposing, “respect” for other religious beliefs would go hand-in-hand with the ability to criticize those other beliefs and the critics would not expect to be attacked or killed, and would not be. It is only in the suffocating miasma of politically correct speech, or PC, and fear of reprisals that criticism of Islam would be policed or outlawed. “Tolerance” of other religions is not “tolerated” by Islam. PC has made it possible for political leaders to evade openly criticizing Islam.
Lodhi’s proposal fits like a glove with aims of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which is also to erase all criticism of Islam, by extorting Western governments to regulate any speech when its subject is Islam.
Wikipedia notes:
At the 34th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM), an OIC section, in May 2007, the foreign ministers termed Islamophobia "the worst form of terrorism."
It isn’t the butchery of thousands by Jihadis that is regarded by the OIC as “the worst form of terrorism,” but rather pointing out that Mohammad was a rapist, a murderer, a thief, and a pedophile that is called “terrorism.” In fact, the butchery by islamist Jihadis is sanctioned by the OIC in conformance with the Koran, Hadith, and other Islamic texts.
The 11th Conference on Islamophobia in May of 2018 stated:
“Submitted to the Council of Foreign Ministers, the report aims to raise global awareness of how Islamophobia impedes Muslims’ coexistence with their host communities and
perils peace and harmonious togetherness in the world. No less malevolent than terrorism,
Islamophobia shatters the social, religious and cultural fabric of communities. Islamophobia
and violent terrorism are equally destructive, being intrinsically interrelated. More
terrorism generates more Islamophobia, in a reciprocal relationship. The less intense is Is-
Islamophobia, the less terrorism do we have.”
Not necessarily. Was Islamophobia responsible for the Manchester, Nice, or Berlin attacks? Far from hardly. Britain, France, and Germany have established police states that punish “hate speech” or “Islamophobic” statements in public.
“The OICI statement continues: In this 11th report we shall see that Islamophobia has exhibited a downward trend over the past year, amid disintegration of racist rhetoric that rode the wave of Trump’s presidency, and following electoral failure of several populist, right-wing political factions in Europe, particularly in France, the Netherlands and Germany. These major political changes were not without benefit to Islam and to Muslim populations in western countries. This phenomenon, the report demonstrates, has been diminishing considerably.”
He must be thinking: “Gee! Our campaign against freedom of speech must be working!” Maybe. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has formalized Sharia restrictions on speech, as reported by the Gatestone Institute:
In 2011, free speech and anti-jihad activist, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, was convicted by an Austrian court of "denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group" after she gave a series of small seminars: "Introduction to the basics of Islam", "The Islamization of Europe", and "The impact of Islam".
No Muslims appear to have attended Sabaditsch-Wolff's seminars. The court case against her came about only because a magazine, NEWS, filed a complaint against her after secretly planting a journalist at her seminars to record them.
Wolff was convicted of having said that Muhammad "liked to do it with children" and "... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?"
That is the kind of submission to Islam its advocates seek. It has reached a point now in the West that even inveighing against paedophilia – whether or not one is speaking about
The "spiritual" founder of Antifa and friend of Islam
Mohammad – will be considered a “hate crime.”
The ECHR appears to be advocating a permanent pussyfooting to avoid the truth that can only lead to total self-censorship and the total cessation of freedom of expression, as the proponents of global sharia law have been urging for years….
"... Mrs S. [Sabaditsch-Wolff] must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue." [emphasis added…
"Untrue facts"? There is no such thing. The words are an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.]
Judith Bergman, author of the Gatestone column, puts her finger on the phenomenon of the ongoing corruption and/or destruction of the concept of objective reality. “Facts” are a subjective “perception” of reality. This is a view of reality promulgated by Immanuel Kant.
He is one of the authors of today’s insanity, including the push for global censorship.
November 22, 2018
Asia Bibi vs. Islam
My dander goes sky high when I read about how a lone individual is being threatened, hunted, and harassed by particularly Muslim mobs – nay, promised a grueling death – for having “blasphemed” Islam, and receives no help from the West. This is the situation facing Asia Bibi and her family, a Pakistani woman who spent several years in prison for having “blasphemed’ Islam, but has received no offers of asylum from Western countries, only sympathy, which will not protect her from maniacal mobs bent on stringing her up.
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller have a detailed story of Bibi’s plight. Time magazine however, has a nuts and bolts description of her “crime.”
Asia Bibi, a mother of five believed to now be in her 50s, was accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad after a quarrel with fellow farm laborers in 2009. Muslim laborers who worked alongside her claimed she drank water from the same cup as them, in what they argued was an affront to Islam. She was sentenced to death by hanging in 2010 — becoming the first woman ever dealt capital punishment for blasphemy in the predominantly Muslim country.
What the story omits is that Bibi was known to her fellow workers to be a Christian. They took brain-stunting exception to having to share the cup with her, after she refused to convert to Islam.
Now, I am an atheist. I don’t sympathize with believers in any form of ethereal ghost, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever. I was raised by a Catholic family, which saw fit to burn my books, when I was 15, after I told it I was an atheist, and then evicted me from the family.
Lahore Muslims chanting for Bibi's death
Harriet Sherwood, writing for the British newspaper, the Guardian, notes;
Bibi’s family have been in hiding since her acquittal by the country’s supreme court. She is in protective custody as part of a deal between the government and a hardline Islamic party, under which violent protests were called off while a review of the court ruling was undertaken.
Bibi’s lawyer, relatives and supporters have appealed for the family to be given asylum in a European or north American country. Several countries have indicated their willingness to offer a home, but nothing concrete has emerged.
But in a Muslim interpretation, Sharia law trumps secular law, because it is “superior” to man-made law (it comes from the assertions of a ghost) and is based on the textual narrative found in the Koran and the Hadith.
Wikipedia describes Sharia:
Sharia law, or Islamic law is a religious law forming part of the Islamic tradition. It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. In Arabic, the term sharīʿah refers to Allah's immutable divine law and is contrasted with fiqh , which refers to its human scholarly interpretations. It has been described as "one of the major intellectual achievements of Islam" and its importance in Islam has been compared to that of theology. The manner of its application in modern times has been a subject of dispute between Muslim traditionalists and reformists.
About Asia Bibi, the Guardian reported:
Christian farm labourer Bibi, a 47-year-old mother of five, was sentenced to hang for blasphemy in 2010. She had angered fellow Muslim farm workers by taking a sip of water from a cup she had fetched for them on a hot day. When they demanded she convert to Islam, she refused, prompting a mob to later allege that she had insulted the prophet Mohammed.
Justice Asif Khosa, in a verdict widely praised for its courage and rigour, noted that the two sisters who accused Bibi “had no regard for the truth” and that the claim she smeared the prophet in public was “concoction incarnate”.
“It is ironical that in the Arabic language the appellant’s name Asia means ‘sinful’,” Khosa went on, “but in the circumstances of the present case she appears to be a person, in the words of Shakespeare’s King Lear, ‘more sinned against than sinning’.”
The Guardian further notes that:
Blasphemy carries an automatic death penalty in Pakistan’s legal system, and although the state has never executed anyone for the offence, vigilante mobs have killed at least 65 people since 1990, according to the centre for research and security studies. Ahead of the verdict, the third witness in the trial, a cleric, told the BBC that “reversing the two previous decisions in the case [is] encouraging people to take the law into their own hands”.
But what really riles me is that Western countries have remained hesitant and iffy about offering Bibi asylum from the mobs. Even Donald Trump has deferred because he has let a Saudi Sheik off the hook over the Jamal Khashoggi murder, supposedly committed with the knowledge of the Saudi crown prince and ruler, Mohammed bin Salman. He has placed the U.S.’s relationship with Saudi Arabia over the safety of Asia Bibi.
A friend commented:
Wish the media would pay this poor harmless woman who is being hunted down by Muslims like wolves after prey a fraction of the attention they've heaped on that Muslim Brotherhood skunk Kashoggi who got sliced and diced by his fellow slaves of Allah. Apparently no country will offer her safety and no, I don't expect Trump to do so either. Fear of "offending" our "ally" no doubt prevents that.
Britain has refused Bibi refuge for the expected and scurrilous reasons. The Telegraph reports:
Britain has not offered asylum to a Pakistani Christian woman freed after eight years on death row for blasphemy because of fear it would prompt “unrest” in the UK and attacks on embassies, her supporters claim….
Wilson Chowdhry of the British Pakistani Christian Association, said: “Britain was concerned about potential unrest in the country, attacks on embassies and civilians.”
A spokeswoman for the Home Office said it could not comment on individual cases, but Whitehall sources added that: “We welcome the assurances the government of Pakistan has given on keeping her and her family safe.
“It is important that all countries seek to uphold the rule of law and afford security and protection for the rights of all citizens irrespective or faith or belief.”
Except when the Prime Minister is beholden to countless Muslims and voters in Britain who want to uphold Sharia law as supreme, and who promise riot and mayhem if Britain offers Bibi asylum. Britain would rather punish its own “blasphemers” rather than bring another one in.
In the end, it is Asia Bibi vs. craven Islam-zombies..
November 21, 2018
Surrendering to Islam
Duct-taping blasphemy
Why are Western nations succumbing to Islam, one after another? Britain, Australia, France, Germany – is it because they are afraid, if they oppose or object to Islamic policy or “traditions,” they will be accused of “Islamophobia,” or “racism,” or “discrimination” by “world opinion.”? It’s either from fear of being branded, or because it’s what the elitists want. After all, Islam is basically a political ideology that requires complete and unthinking submission to it. It is perfectly ideologically compatible with Islam.
Or is it a fear of name-calling and social condemnation that saps the moral resolve and rationality of the leaders of countries, makes the leaders afraid to oppose mass immigration, combined with the necessary and concomitant negation of values by Altruism? It is a deadly cocktail of surrendering to nihilism to barbarity and primitivism.
Why do we see a stubborn denial that Muslim killings are motivated by Islam, and instead excused as “mental illness” or a personality disorder or some other convenient malady that would explain a jihadi’s actions?
And what does Ayn Rand say about altruism? She had the best construction of the core motives of altruism:
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice — which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction— which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
Rand distinguishes between the essentials of altruism as a moral code, and its incidentals; between. e.g., self-sacrifice (including the sacrifice of values, such as one’s country) and benevolence, kindness, and good will, e.g., allowing Muslims into one’s country to start anew without the miasma of Sharia law.
Not a member of the House
And here is a story that forecasts the slow Islamization of the U.S.: a Somali Muslima, elected to the House of Representatives for Minnesota in the midterms, will become the poster child of Muslims and will force the House to abandon its no-hats rule by wearing a hijab.
The ban, which was enacted in 1837 for a then all-white male Congress, was meant to prohibit indoor hat-wearing, described by a member at the time as a “really harmless but apparently indecorous practice,” writes NBC News.
The responsibility of enforcing the House dress code falls to the speaker, meaning whoever the Democratic leader is come January can decide whether to permit religious headwear. In practice, members of Congress, their staff and religious leaders have already worn head coverings on the floor, notes NBC, but Omar’s election has drawn additional scrutiny to the rule and the need for a permanent amendment.
As the Washington Post (h/t People) reported on Friday, Omar, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Rules Committee ranking Rep. Jim McGovern drew up a proposal that would legally allow religious headwear on the floor, as well as head coverings due to illness and loss of hair.
This is creeping Sharia in the guise of challenging a tradition and a superficial rule and point of decorum. It is not surprising that the Dems would preemptively role over on the issue. The Glowup article anticipates the reverberations of allowing a hijab in the House.
Far more than correcting an outdated rule, overturning the head covering ban would help normalize headscarves and the hijab in different sectors of American life, especially at a time when religious discrimination and animus is still present. This summer, a group of Muslim children in Delaware were asked to leave a pool after a manager said they weren’t allowed to swim with clothing on (the problem, officials said, was wearing cotton)….
Peek-a-boo: I will conquer your
“Normalizing” the hijab presupposes “normalizing” all manner of Islamic practices in public, such as forcing supermarkets to establish halal food sections. Doubtless CAIR will do a Muslim jig to celebrate the abandonment of the House hat rule (is there such as thing as a Muslim jig?). Will Jewish members of the House be permitted to wear kippahs or yarmulkes? Or will Ilhan Omar raise a stink if they are allowed to? She is as much an anti-Semite as Louis Farrakhan.
CNN Politics reports the growing Islamic “normalization” of American politics:
Omar, in addition to being one of the first Muslim women in Congress, will also be the first Somali-American member. She came to the US more than two decades ago as a refugee. Tlaib actually campaigned with Omar ahead of the latter's primary race earlier this year.
Omar also had the backing of Ocasio-Cortez in her primary race, and she will come to Congress having been an open critic of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians.
Omar will take the seat vacated by Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress. Ellison is leaving Congress as he vies to become Minnesota attorney general.
Rashida Tlaib will fill the seat formerly occupied by Michigan Democratic Rep. John Conyers, who left office last year amid accusations of sexual misconduct. She ran unopposed on the general election ballot following her primary win.
Tlaib is the daughter of Palestinian immigrants and became the first Muslim female member of Michigan's state legislature a decade ago. A self-styled progressive, Tlaib is a vocal critic of President Donald Trump and was arrested two years ago for disrupting a Trump speech in Detroit.
Omar and Tlaib both endorse the BDS movement and the destruction of Israel. Liberty Headlines reports:
During her campaign, Tlaib published several anti-Israel tweets and retweeted one user who wrote that the “first fight was for Palestine, always Palestine.”
She has called for the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel, advocating for a unitary Palestinian government to take its place. Palestine has never been a legal entity with land as a nation.
Her views are so radical that the leftist group J Street, which is often anti-Israel itself, withdrew its endorsement of her campaign.
In her victory speech, Tlaib credited the Palestinian cause: “A lot of my strength comes from being Palestinian.”
Omar, who won her seat in Minnesota, has also attacked the state of Israel, saying that she advocates for Palestine “because we know right from wrong.”
No, you don’t. You and Tlaib and the majority of Dems in Congress are as insipidly clueless as Ocasio-Cortez. Welcome to the House of Representatives, an exclusive club of the reality challenged.
The pair will probably endorse legislation that would legitimize female genital mutilation (FGM) in the U.S., because it’s an Islamic “tradition.” Or they could speak against granting Asia Bibi asylum because she “blasphemed” Islam. I’m sure they’d find allies in the House among Dems and Republicans. After all, Islam is a religion which many people find “comfort” in, and we mustn’t mock it by calling it savage and Stone Age primitive, or else Omar and Tliab will sanction riots in the streets, just as Dems look the other way when Antifa “protests” reason and freedom of speech. And never mind all the women in Iran jailed for refusing to wear the hijab.
Lest we forget, and also Bataclan
The willing abandonment of the “no hat” rule in the House heralds the first important step to arm-twist the U.S. into submission to Islam, per the Muslim Brotherhood’s memo of 1991:
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
It is not just an important step. It is an ominous one. Based on a trivial "hat rule."
January 14, 2017
Triggering: A Sharia State of Mind
TRIGGER
WARNING!!!
An emblem for a Sharia state of mind
This column can be deemed Trigger Warning-worthy
because it t mocks trigger warning addicts and others dependent on
post-adolescence pacifiers.
Short of declaring reality off-limits, the number of things
being declared persona non grata by
college students seems to be multiplying.
However, is it my
imagination or are today’s college students establishing a kind of secular
Sharia, sans a mystical deity,
without possessing an inkling of knowledge of Islamic law? It could go under
another name most college students would be horrified by but unable to refute: Fascism. Historically, Fascism
as a collectivist movement, relied on physical force to propagate and impose
its various statist agendas, from Hitler’s racist supremacism, to the Perons’
class warfare against the upper and middle classes.
Sharia
is a code of Islamic “law” that defines acceptable behavior and “codifies” do’s
and don’ts for the average, gullible, brain-stunted Muslim. By its nature, and
because of its purpose, it is totalitarian;
it prescribes and governs virtually every action, decision, and choice of an
individual.
Like Nazi ideology
(and it is no coincidence that Islam is compatible with Nazism [National Socialism],
and vice versa), Islam erases the individual, requiring him to live, breathe,
and eat for Allah in across-the-board submission. It even prescribes his bodily
functions and behavior in the bathroom.
In the totalitarian regimes,
as the Germans found out after only a few months of Hitler's rule, every detail
of life is prescribed, or proscribed. There is no longer any distinction
between private matters and public matters. "There are to be no more
private Germans," said Friedrich Sieburg, a Nazi writer; "each
is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find
complete self-fulfillment in his service." "The only person who is
still a private individual in Germany," boasted Robert Ley, a member of
the Nazi hierarchy, after several years of Nazi rule, "is somebody
who is asleep."
Your life purpose
and goal as a Muslim is to join the Ummah,
or the whole collective of Islam, around the globe, and you can join it by
advancing the spread of Islam. (I’ve always nicknamed it “The Borg.”)
Substitute the
state with Allah, and there is no fundamental difference between Islam and
Nazism. Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been right all the long.
Geert Wilders: Always standing tall for Civilization
So many things
upset or offend a Muslim. So many offences may get you, a non-compliant Muslim
or an infidel killed. That has happened countless times, everywhere, and
counted tens of thousands of victims. Here is a short list of permissions and
prohibition from Billionbibles:
• Theft is punishable by amputation of
the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is
punishable by death.
• Criticizing Muhammad
or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the god
of Islam is
punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim
[an apostate] is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away
from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a
Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and
consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's
words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251). [Columbia
University students recently polled said they were comfortable with female
genital mutilation, or FGM]
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can
have up to 4 wives; Muhammad
can have more.
• A man can beat his wife for
insubordination.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his
wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all
children over 6 years of age, or when they exceed it.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses
are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot
testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court,
allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a
man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what
a male heir inherits.
• A woman may not drive a car, as it leads to fitnah
(upheaval). [or accidents?]
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man
who is not her husband or relative.
•Edible meat must come from animals that
have been sacrificed to Allah, i.e., be "Halal."[“Edible
meat” does not include pork, or any by-product of it; pork is verboten to
Muslims]
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to
non-Muslims to advance Islam.
In July 2012, Dr. Hans Jansen
wrote in his excellent and comprehensive FrontPage article, “What
is Sharia?”:
The Islamic Sharia is a system of law. It
is a collection of prohibitions, admonitions and commands about human behavior.
The Sharia is not an internal matter that only concerns Islam and Muslims. The
Sharia includes a large number of provisions about people who are not Muslims.
These rules are usually prohibitions that carry severe penalties if violated.
These provisions of the Sharia make life unsafe and uncertain for someone who
lives under Sharia law and who is not a Muslim.
Under Sharia law, someone who is not a
Muslim possesses no inalienable rights. If I am wrong here, I will be relieved,
and happy to stand corrected and receive your e-mails pointing out why I am
wrong. But if I am right, a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay possesses more rights
than a Jew or a Christian who lives under Sharia law…..
Muslim theology claims that Sharia law is
divine. If unfamiliar new questions arise for which the Sharia has to provide
an answer, Sharia specialists, at least in theory, put forward a solution that
is based upon the four principles or ‘roots’, of the Sharia. These four
principles will reemerge again and again in all discussions concerning the
Sharia. They are Koran, Hadith, Analogy and Agreement.
Obama kicked him out of the Oval Office
I wrote in “Trigger
Happy,” that “Cashing in on their students’ prenatal Progressive
upbringing, and on their potty-training, modern educators patronize and
encourage the bewildering universe of the modern college student, who has been
taught that nothing is real and that therefore reality is anything you want it
to be. If you think a thing is dangerous
or offensive, you deserve a “safe place” from it, and more, that you should be
warned of its proximity and that steps should be taken to expel it from reality
– or at least from a snowflake’s consciousness.”
University
students studying the death of Christ are being given trigger warnings
before being shown images of the Crucifixion. Theology undergraduates studying
an introductory Bible course at the highly-regarded University of Glasgow are
being warned that the execution may distress them.
They are given the opportunity to skip lectures entirely if they are
too fearful that the Biblical imagery may upset them.
Those triggers also extend to such worrisome
things as forensic evidence, dead animals, and urban rioting.
Warnings are also given to the university’s veterinary students who
work with dead animals, and those studying ‘contemporary society’ who will be
discussing illness and violence.
Students of forensic science at Strathclyde University in Glasgow are
given a ‘verbal warning… at the beginning of some lectures where sensitive
images, involving blood patterns, crime scenes and bodies etc are in the
presentation’.
Muslims, of course,
are already granted dozens of mandatory “trigger warnings.” In fact, they are
demanding that the whole country – or all of Europe – be converted, in
conformance with Sharia, into a “safe space,” which now, in Muslim-occupied
sections of major European cities, goes under the appellation of a “no go zone,”
where they can express their outraged hurt feelings or plot their latest
depredation against “infidel” without worry about the police. Barring that,
they’ll exercise their right to riot and stab and rape and set fire to their
own mosques and call it someone else’s “hate crime.”
White "supremacists" who trigger the Sharia-minded
In sum, a kind of campus-defined
brand of Sharia, has
effectively been established and regulated by the trigger fingers of
hypersensitive students. “You can’t show that! It’s offensive and upsetting!”
Often, without even a cue from their professors (but too often in accordance
with an academic, Marxist agenda), students will identify a trigger-worthy
pariah, these students have been well-trained and brainwashed: Cecil Rhodes,
Thomas Jefferson, Brexit, Israel, Jews, Winston Churchill, and the list could
go on. God, as he is depicted in Western lore, is “white,” and so can be
protested, claim the Black Lies Matter fascists. The major Western
philosophers, from Socrates and Aristotle, up to the West’s major philosophical
nemeses who gave rise to it all, Immanuel Kant and Georg F. Hegel, were
“white,” so “off with their heads, too,” and exorcize them out of the syllabus! We
don’t want to know who laid the intellectual groundwork of what we want NOW and
what we want banished!
Jefferson: a bête noire on many campuses
University
officials are succumbing to, or are encouraging, a “Sharia state of mind” in
their faculties, in their classrooms, and in their students. It is a
totalitarian “state of mind” eerily similar to that which existed in Nazi
Germany (a “state of mind” being revived in modern Germany to the benefit of
Muslims there) and in the Soviet Union.
In the classroom, a
student who questions the assertions of a leftist teacher, or who doesn’t hove
to the PC line of “safety,” will be trashed, mocked, ridiculed, and subjected
to gales of laughter on cue from the teacher. And outside the classroom,
physically threatened and likely attacked. As Jews and Trump supporters are
now.
“Western Civ’s Got
to Go!” “Reason is just an arbitrary construct, it’s got to go! It’s Offensive!
Racist! Oppressive! It’s anti-Muslim, anti-gay, anti-LGBT, anti-Hispanic,
anti-Black….!”
Today’s
“snowflakes” are today’s black and brown shirts. They are today’s yearners for
an educational and cultural Kristallnacht. They adhere to their Sharia-like state of
mind. They don’t need to don uniforms made by Hugo
Boss. We witnessed their actions and antics during the Trump/Clinton
presidential campaign. They have discarded reason and all rational values. All
they have left to act on are their emotions; the sweeping Trump victory, has
left then nothing but their malice and vitriol stoked by their leaders in
academia and out. They are the
violent, careening, activist Fascists, pulling real triggers and wielding clubs
and bricks. Or neo-Nazis. Or secular Jihadists. Or the political cannon fodder of
the Democrats.
January 7, 2017
Trigger Happy
TRIGGER WARNING!!!
I want my safe place!!!!
The ultimate earner of a Trigger Warning is
having to read a column that mocks trigger warning addicts and others dependent
on post-adolescence pacifiers.
Doxing and dwelling on the progressive
gangrene of Western society, the topic here is “trigger warnings.”
There have been so
many reports lately of the implementation of “trigger warnings,” especially in
universities, that one might well ask oneself: Why bother putting police scene-of-crime
tape around a particular animus? Why not declare everything off limits, reality in fact. Everywhere a
snowflake turns anymore he seems to encounter something troubling, unsafe, and
perilous to his piece of mind – or did I mean “peace” of mind? No sooner is the
issue raised, then some industrious guidance counselor or an academic can be
heard hammering and sawing as he or she builds a “safe space” for the uninitiated
college snowflake.
What?? No trigger warning?? I feel violated!!
Cashing in on their
prenatal Progressive upbringing, and on their potty-training, modern educators
patronize and encourage the bewildering universe of the modern college student,
who learn that nothing is real and that therefore reality is anything you want
it to be and if you think it’s dangerous or offensive, you deserve a “safe
place” from it, and more, that you should be warned of its proximity and that
steps should be taken to expel it from reality.
But is there a “safe space” from reality,
from facts? From “A is A”? but that statement is racist. “A” standing for a
dead white male, Aristotle. Snowflakes must be protected from it.
No. You may as well
try to find fresh air on Titan
or Mars.
The cultural hypochondriacs
have nowhere to hide, nowhere to cower and lick their wounds, hug their puppies,
and open their Cry-on Crayons
An absence of trigger
warnings
will trigger a swarm of
moon bats
Don’t say trigger in front of snowflakes! Guns
have triggers, and guns make them nervous, they make them feel unsafe! Trigger
was also the name of Roy
Rogers’s horse, and they’re against animal exploitation, too; it makes them
feel queasy and nauseous!
Don’t expose them to depictions
of the crucifixion! It’s so depressing! It’s only tolerable if the
narrative is that Christ died for our “sins” against Mother Earth, and against
Muslims, and against oppressed minorities. And then they can feel something
about it. They might even weep. They’ll put up with it and not gag if the
narrative is that Christ has been made an honorary member of Black Lives
Matter, even though he isn’t black! Graham Grant writes:
University
students studying the death of Christ are being given trigger warnings
before being shown images of the Crucifixion. Theology undergraduates studying
an introductory Bible course at the highly-regarded University of Glasgow are
being warned that the execution may distress them.
They are given the opportunity to skip lectures entirely if they are
too fearful that the Biblical imagery may upset them.
Those triggers also extend to such worrisome
things as forensic evidence, dead animals, and urban rioting.
Warnings are
also given to the university’s veterinary students who work with dead animals,
and those studying ‘contemporary society’ who will be discussing illness and violence.
Students of
forensic science at Strathclyde University in Glasgow are given a ‘verbal
warning… at the beginning of some lectures where sensitive images, involving
blood patterns, crime scenes and bodies etc are in the presentation’.
To a correspondent
I remarked that the crucifixion trigger is one of the most laughable trigger
warnings I've ever read about. I wonder how many of these snowflakes watch The Walking Dead. Maybe TWD should have
a trigger notice. WARNING: SIMULATED BLOOD SPATTERINGS, GUTS, BEHEADINGS, DECAYING
ZOMBIES, AND MUTILATIONS AHEAD! NOT
TO BE CONFUSED WITH ISIS VIDEOS OF
THE REAL THING! STEEL YOURSELVES FOR NAUSEA AND OFFENDED FEELINGS! Not to
worry! You will get credit for this course anyway if you become uneasy and can’t
continue to attend it.
But make sure you
secure a note from the school mental health counselor excusing you from the
class.
Muslim students demonstrating for a safe place
Muslims,
of course, will be granted dozens of mandatory “trigger warnings.” In fact,
they are demanding that the whole country – or all of Europe – be converted, in
conformance with Sharia, into a “safe space,” which now goes under the appellation
“no go zone,” where they can express their outraged hurt feelings. Barring
that, they’ll exercise their right to riot and stab and rape and set fire to
their own mosques and call it someone else’s “hate crime.”
What on earth will
happen to the disciplined professions if trigger warnings are regularly
established as preambles to taking a college course? Here’s a preview.
In
May,The
Daily Mail reported in its article, “Oxford law students too ‘fragile’ to hear about violent crime:
Undergraduates given 'trigger warnings' before traumatic material”:
They are destined to be barristers and
judges – but undergraduates studying law at Oxford are being told before
lectures on cases involving violence or death that they can leave if they fear
the content will be too ‘distressing’.
The revelation marks the arrival from the
US of ‘trigger warnings’ – the politically correct notion that students should
be warned before they encounter material that could elicit a traumatic
response.
Lecturers have been asked by the director
of undergraduate studies for law to ‘bear in mind’ using trigger warnings when
they give lectures containing ‘potentially distressing’ content.
Even Indiana Jones needed trigger warnings: about snakes
Nor are “lovely
bones” a draw to archeological students. They might make them tremble and so
they’re in need of trigger warnings. John Petre of the Daily Mail reports in
his article of September 2016, “Warning
to archeology students that ‘bones can be scary’ sparks fresh fears over
cosseted generation of students”:
For archaeology students, the opportunity to dig up important
historical remains is an enticing prospect.
But astonishingly, students at one of Britain’s leading
universities have been given permission to walk out of classes if they find
dealing with the past too traumatic.
Do I have a "safe place" for you! It's called a grave.
“Forget the bones, mate! I’m only
interested in digging up pottery shards and stuff like that! I’m not into finding,
touching, and cleaning old bones. They give me the willies. I can’t even watch
an Indiana Jones
excavation without barfing up my breakfast! Can I get full credit?”
The move at University College London (UCL) is the latest example
of controversial ‘trigger warnings’, where academics caution students about
some potentially disturbing material.
Trigger warning
mandates and “safe places” insulated from the real world are a distinctly American
export. They have proliferated in virtually every American university campus.
American students
are now “trigger happy,” and their minds and cognitive faculties are as dull as
butter knives.
January 4, 2017
Europe’s Amazing Vanishing Act
“Now you see it! Now you don’t!” the Super Star Magician recites the magic
words, “Allahu Akbar!” (in lieu of “Presto!”).
The Islamic magician, sporting a
magnificently bejeweled turban (in lieu of a top hat), and a handlebar moustache
(not strictly halal) with lascivious grins, first gropes the prone near-nude
form of Europa in its intimate parts to prove to the audience that it is a real
person and not a mannequin. Then the lights dim, he waves his baton, and sweeps
his cape with its blood red lining before the table, and snaps it once with a
deft flick of the wrist. When he jerks the cape away, the table is empty. In
fact, the table itself has even disappeared.
How did he do that?? The audience applauds
and wonders.
No one suspects that the table and its
captive assistant vanished through a stage trapdoor.
It’s not exactly rocket science. Every week
or so we read of another episode of Europe’s Amazing Vanishing Act. I also call
it – and I’m sure I’m not alone in this characterization – The Great
Self-Erasure. Europe, the alleged apogee of Western civilization, is rapidly
erasing itself from existence. Why? It’s the altruist thing to do. Without the
act of immolation and penance, it could accrue no “virtue.” The catch is that
by the time Europe fades completely from existence, nothing will be left to claim
any virtue.
I do not envy the chroniclers of this drawn-out
Western-style act of cultural Hari Kari, such as Soeren Kern and George Igler
of Gatestone, who have for some time provided us with details of this suicide
where the MSM has not and refused to. It’s not an inspiring task they’ve taken
on.
George Soeren reports in his January 2nd
article, “The
Islamization of Germany in 2016” the pathetic dhimmi actions
of Western governments in the face of the Islamization of Europe, and especially
of Germany, which brought on the phenomenon and is paying the price:
Mass migration
from the Muslim world is fast-tracking the Islamization of Germany, as
evidenced by the proliferation of no-go zones, Sharia courts, polygamy and child marriages. Mass migration has also been responsible
for a host of social disruptions, including jihadist attacks, a migrant rape epidemic, a public health crisis, rising crime and a rush by German citizens to purchase
weapons for self-defense — and even to abandon Germany altogether.
"There are written instructions ... today we are not allowed to
say anything negative about the refugees. This is government journalism, and
this leads to a situation in which the public loses their trust in us. This is
scandalous." — Wolfgang Herles, Deutschlandfunk public radio.
In Germany, and also in Sweden, Germans and
Swedes are not allowed to get a glimmer of the peril their governments have put
them in, in the name of multiculturalism, even though Muslims especially laugh at
and dismiss the vaunted value of multiculturalism, and proclaim that Islam will
dominate and that Sharia-defined “culture” will set the terms of a country’s
existence. Muslim committed crime rates are not to be reported or publicized
for fear of “offending” Muslims, or for creating a prejudice against Muslims and
all “migrants” (a.k.a. invaders).
A Cologne police superintendent revealed that he was ordered to remove
the term "rape" from an internal police report about the mass sexual
assaults in Cologne on New Year's Eve. He said that an official at the
North-Rhine Westphalia Interior Ministry told him in an angry tone: "This
is not rape. Remove this term from your report. Submit a new report."
January 6. Former Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said it was "scandalous that it took the mainstream
media several days" to report on the sexual assaults in Cologne. He said
public media was a "cartel of silence" exercising censorship to
protect migrants from accusations of wrongdoing.
What was I saying about erasures? “Your
clothes were never ripped off of you, you were not held down and several smelly
migrants had forcible sex on you, you were not robbed, spit on, beaten up, and
left naked in the cold. You were being ‘culturally enriched.’ Don’t laugh. That’s
now a hate crime. Five hundred Euros!”
So “rape” is no longer a reportable crime? Especially
if a migrant commits the crime? To report a rape is now considered a form of “Islamophobia”?
Europeans are no longer permitted to express a fear of violence against them.
It’s not “patriotic.” They are no longer allowed to say anything “negative” about;
Islam or Muslims in public without penalty. They are no longer allowed to even
discuss the subject among themselves, for fear of being accused of “Merkelphobia.”
January 26. In an interview with Deutschlandfunk public radio, retired
public media personality Wolfgang Herles admitted that public broadcasters
receive "instructions from above" when it comes to reporting the
news.
February 16. Migrants committed 208,344
crimes in 2015, according to a leaked police report. This figure
represented an 80% increase over 2014 and worked out to around 570 crimes
committed by migrants every day, or 23 crimes each hour, between January and
December 2015.
The actual number of migrant crimes is far
higher, however, because the report included only crimes that have been solved
(aufgeklärten Straftaten). Statistics show that only around half of all
crimes committed in Germany in any given year are solved (Aufklärungsquote).
This implies that the actual number of crimes committed by migrants in 2015
exceeded 400,000.
Soeren sounds Germany’s death knell in many more instances in just this
one article. On the whole it is a very depressing and terrifying read.
George Igler reports on the refusal of the European Union and many of
its member states to face the apocalyptic consequences of their “come one, come
all” migrant policies. In “The EU vs. the
Nation State?” he writes:
The question remains, however, why any nation
would want to throw out its sovereignty to institutions that are fundamentally
unaccountable, that provide no mechanism for reversing direction, and whose
only "solution" to problems involves arrogating to itself ever more authoritarian,
rather than democratically legitimate, power.
The Netherlands' Partij Voor de Vrijheid,
France's Front National and Germany's Alternativ für Deutschland
are each pushing for a referendum on EU membership in their respective nations.
Given that the EU's institutions have been so
instrumental as a causal factor in the mass migration and terrorism that are
now dominating the minds of national electorates, some might argue that the
sooner Europeans get rid of the EU, which is now doing more harm than good, the
better.
The European Union was intended in the beginning to be a solution to
European problems and to be a “Great Unifier” of the disparate European
nations. But the EU over a period of decades evolved into an authoritarian
overlord that caused more problems than it ever solved and which overrode
virtually any and all claims of national sovereignty, which were viewed by its
unelected “Politburo” as challenges and threats to the “common good.” Europeans
are reluctant less and less to sleep in the bed they made.
For all the discussion of a populist revolt in European politics, the parties agitating
for change against the continent's open borders, and its centralized,
unaccountable and un-transparent law-making – originating from the institutions
of the EU – continue to face an uphill climb.
In Germany, despite the calamities associated with the decision of its Chancellor,
Angela Merkel, to accept 1.5 million Muslim migrants into her nation in 2015,
she is seeking re-election.
Never mind the fact that Merkel (and her opposite numbers in France, Scandinavia,
Southern Europe, and even in Canada) has made her country dangerous to live in
now, her bubble world view has fueled a hubristic confidence in her, in spite
of the carnage and misery she caused, that she can be reelected.
The increasing levels of support being
enjoyed by Europe's populist Eurosceptic parties are clearly associated with
issues which are coming to dominate popular concern. Previous worries over
unemployment and the economy have been side-lined: the issues now vexing
European voters the most, according to the EU's own figures (pp.4-5), are mass immigration (45%) and
terrorism (32%).
Breaking these Eurobarometer numbers down
further, country by country (p.7), Dutch voters picked immigration
as their greatest concern by a startling 56%, with terrorism following at 33%.
French voters, despite being subjected to
more recent
terrorist atrocities than any other European nation, picked immigration and
terrorism by a margin of 36% and 35%, respectively, according to the latest EU report. The parlous state of the French economy continues to be a major concern to French voters.
The elections scheduled next year in the
Netherlands, France, and Germany, are doubly significant in that they make up
three of the six original signatory nations of the founding treaty which
eventually gave rise to the EU.
The
Local reports that it’s significant that Hitler’s Mein Kampf, now available
in Germany after decades of censorship, is rising in popularity. It has been
popular among Muslims
and Arabs since WWII. No surprise.
For 70 years after the end of the Second
World War, the brutal dictator’s manifesto remained unpublished in Germany.
Its copyright was owned by the state of
Bavaria, which prevented new editions from being printed in Germany for fear of
reinvigorating Nazi sentiments.
But when its copyright expired - 70 years
after the death of the author, as is standard - an annotated version was
printed for the first time again last year by the Institute of Contemporary
History (IfZ) in Munich. And the publisher quickly began to sell out, rushing to print more copies to
meet the high demand.
What Obama would like to do to America and Israel;
make
them disappear.
Over the past year, around 85,000 copies have
been sold, much to the surprise of the institute. The IfZ had at first only
printed 4,000 copies, and now it's heading for its sixth print run.
In April, the book become number one on
Spiegel’s bestseller list.
“The number of sales has overwhelmed us,” the
director of the IfZ, Andreas Wirsching, told DPA on Tuesday. “No one could have
really predicted it.”
No one could have predicted it – except a philosopher who understood
why Germany is still mesmerized by and hankering for “strong leadership,” else
why would Merkel have ever been elected or feel confident now that she could be
reelected?
So, who sired the EU juggernaut?
Signed in March 1957, by Italy, France, West
Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, the Treaty of Rome established both the European Economic
Community – proposing a single market for goods, labour, services and capital
within the bloc – and also, crucially, brought the European Commission into
existence.
The executive body of the EU, which also has
the sole remit for initiating legislation at the European level, is led by the controversial Jean-Claude Juncker, whose own grim opinion
of the nation state's role in the likely future of the European continent was
made clear in a speech on December 9.
The paramount issue, writes Igler, is why any nation would wish to
become or remain under the thumb of faceless, power-wielding bureaucrats.
The question remains, however, why any nation
would want to throw out its sovereignty to institutions that are fundamentally
unaccountable, that provide no mechanism for reversing direction, and whose
only "solution" to problems involves arrogating to itself ever more
authoritarian, rather than democratically legitimate, power.
It must be a strain self-eradicating sadomasochism. “We are not worthy
of preservation. We must atone for our sins. Therefore we will allow millions
of savages and primitive peoples to invade us and transform us into tolerant
maquettes of nations. Our people will suffer and even die, but, “On ne fait pas
d'omelette sans casser des oeufs.”
A Muslim having a
breakfast omelet of Europeons,
spiced with German mustard, quark,
and Swedish smaktillsats
Despite voters' concerns about mass
migration, in the absence of presenting their electorates with a compelling economic
vision outside of the EU, polling numbers still favour the political
mainstream.
Given that the EU's institutions have been so
instrumental as a causal factor in the mass migration and terrorism that are
now dominating the minds of national electorates, some might argue that the
sooner Europeans get rid of the EU, which is now doing more harm than good, the
better.
The EU’s metaphoric rule of thumb saying is
attributed to either Robespierre or Napoleon. It is appropriate that the EU
would adopt it from two of the most egg-breaking tyrants in recent history. And
then they had their cheerleaders.
As Fascism
rose in Europe, and Japanese jingoism emerged in the East, Duranty (Walter Duranty, the Communism-loving
reporter of the New York Times) wrote glowing accounts of Stalin's Five-Year
Plan. Almost single-handedly did Duranty aid and abet one of the world's most
prolific mass murderers, knowing all the while what was going on, but
refraining from saying precisely what he knew to be true.
He had
swallowed the ends-justifies-the-means-argument hook, line and sinker. Duranty
loved to repeat, when Stalin's atrocities were brought to light, "you can't make an omelet without breaking a
few eggs." Those "eggs" were the heads of men, women and
children, and those "few" were merely tens of millions.
Stalin was another kind of magician. He made
people disappear. Hitler made people disappear. Duranty made the truth
disappear. No one should be awed, no one should be surprised if they have
examined their agendas.
Merkel, Hollande, and others are all birds of
a feather, magicians who belong to the same elitist union. Their passion is to
pull the wool over everyone’s eyes and pick your pocket at the same time.
Allahu Akbar! First you are free, and then you’re not! For
my next trick, First you exist, and then you don’t!
words, “Allahu Akbar!” (in lieu of “Presto!”).
The Islamic magician, sporting a
magnificently bejeweled turban (in lieu of a top hat), and a handlebar moustache
(not strictly halal) with lascivious grins, first gropes the prone near-nude
form of Europa in its intimate parts to prove to the audience that it is a real
person and not a mannequin. Then the lights dim, he waves his baton, and sweeps
his cape with its blood red lining before the table, and snaps it once with a
deft flick of the wrist. When he jerks the cape away, the table is empty. In
fact, the table itself has even disappeared.
How did he do that?? The audience applauds
and wonders.
No one suspects that the table and its
captive assistant vanished through a stage trapdoor.
It’s not exactly rocket science. Every week
or so we read of another episode of Europe’s Amazing Vanishing Act. I also call
it – and I’m sure I’m not alone in this characterization – The Great
Self-Erasure. Europe, the alleged apogee of Western civilization, is rapidly
erasing itself from existence. Why? It’s the altruist thing to do. Without the
act of immolation and penance, it could accrue no “virtue.” The catch is that
by the time Europe fades completely from existence, nothing will be left to claim
any virtue.
I do not envy the chroniclers of this drawn-out
Western-style act of cultural Hari Kari, such as Soeren Kern and George Igler
of Gatestone, who have for some time provided us with details of this suicide
where the MSM has not and refused to. It’s not an inspiring task they’ve taken
on.
George Soeren reports in his January 2nd
article, “The
Islamization of Germany in 2016” the pathetic dhimmi actions
of Western governments in the face of the Islamization of Europe, and especially
of Germany, which brought on the phenomenon and is paying the price:
Mass migration
from the Muslim world is fast-tracking the Islamization of Germany, as
evidenced by the proliferation of no-go zones, Sharia courts, polygamy and child marriages. Mass migration has also been responsible
for a host of social disruptions, including jihadist attacks, a migrant rape epidemic, a public health crisis, rising crime and a rush by German citizens to purchase
weapons for self-defense — and even to abandon Germany altogether.
"There are written instructions ... today we are not allowed to
say anything negative about the refugees. This is government journalism, and
this leads to a situation in which the public loses their trust in us. This is
scandalous." — Wolfgang Herles, Deutschlandfunk public radio.
In Germany, and also in Sweden, Germans and
Swedes are not allowed to get a glimmer of the peril their governments have put
them in, in the name of multiculturalism, even though Muslims especially laugh at
and dismiss the vaunted value of multiculturalism, and proclaim that Islam will
dominate and that Sharia-defined “culture” will set the terms of a country’s
existence. Muslim committed crime rates are not to be reported or publicized
for fear of “offending” Muslims, or for creating a prejudice against Muslims and
all “migrants” (a.k.a. invaders).
A Cologne police superintendent revealed that he was ordered to remove
the term "rape" from an internal police report about the mass sexual
assaults in Cologne on New Year's Eve. He said that an official at the
North-Rhine Westphalia Interior Ministry told him in an angry tone: "This
is not rape. Remove this term from your report. Submit a new report."
January 6. Former Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said it was "scandalous that it took the mainstream
media several days" to report on the sexual assaults in Cologne. He said
public media was a "cartel of silence" exercising censorship to
protect migrants from accusations of wrongdoing.
What was I saying about erasures? “Your
clothes were never ripped off of you, you were not held down and several smelly
migrants had forcible sex on you, you were not robbed, spit on, beaten up, and
left naked in the cold. You were being ‘culturally enriched.’ Don’t laugh. That’s
now a hate crime. Five hundred Euros!”
So “rape” is no longer a reportable crime? Especially
if a migrant commits the crime? To report a rape is now considered a form of “Islamophobia”?
Europeans are no longer permitted to express a fear of violence against them.
It’s not “patriotic.” They are no longer allowed to say anything “negative” about;
Islam or Muslims in public without penalty. They are no longer allowed to even
discuss the subject among themselves, for fear of being accused of “Merkelphobia.”
January 26. In an interview with Deutschlandfunk public radio, retired
public media personality Wolfgang Herles admitted that public broadcasters
receive "instructions from above" when it comes to reporting the
news.
February 16. Migrants committed 208,344
crimes in 2015, according to a leaked police report. This figure
represented an 80% increase over 2014 and worked out to around 570 crimes
committed by migrants every day, or 23 crimes each hour, between January and
December 2015.
The actual number of migrant crimes is far
higher, however, because the report included only crimes that have been solved
(aufgeklärten Straftaten). Statistics show that only around half of all
crimes committed in Germany in any given year are solved (Aufklärungsquote).
This implies that the actual number of crimes committed by migrants in 2015
exceeded 400,000.
Soeren sounds Germany’s death knell in many more instances in just this
one article. On the whole it is a very depressing and terrifying read.
George Igler reports on the refusal of the European Union and many of
its member states to face the apocalyptic consequences of their “come one, come
all” migrant policies. In “The EU vs. the
Nation State?” he writes:
The question remains, however, why any nation
would want to throw out its sovereignty to institutions that are fundamentally
unaccountable, that provide no mechanism for reversing direction, and whose
only "solution" to problems involves arrogating to itself ever more authoritarian,
rather than democratically legitimate, power.
The Netherlands' Partij Voor de Vrijheid,
France's Front National and Germany's Alternativ für Deutschland
are each pushing for a referendum on EU membership in their respective nations.
Given that the EU's institutions have been so
instrumental as a causal factor in the mass migration and terrorism that are
now dominating the minds of national electorates, some might argue that the
sooner Europeans get rid of the EU, which is now doing more harm than good, the
better.
The European Union was intended in the beginning to be a solution to
European problems and to be a “Great Unifier” of the disparate European
nations. But the EU over a period of decades evolved into an authoritarian
overlord that caused more problems than it ever solved and which overrode
virtually any and all claims of national sovereignty, which were viewed by its
unelected “Politburo” as challenges and threats to the “common good.” Europeans
are reluctant less and less to sleep in the bed they made.
For all the discussion of a populist revolt in European politics, the parties agitating
for change against the continent's open borders, and its centralized,
unaccountable and un-transparent law-making – originating from the institutions
of the EU – continue to face an uphill climb.
In Germany, despite the calamities associated with the decision of its Chancellor,
Angela Merkel, to accept 1.5 million Muslim migrants into her nation in 2015,
she is seeking re-election.
Never mind the fact that Merkel (and her opposite numbers in France, Scandinavia,
Southern Europe, and even in Canada) has made her country dangerous to live in
now, her bubble world view has fueled a hubristic confidence in her, in spite
of the carnage and misery she caused, that she can be reelected.
The increasing levels of support being
enjoyed by Europe's populist Eurosceptic parties are clearly associated with
issues which are coming to dominate popular concern. Previous worries over
unemployment and the economy have been side-lined: the issues now vexing
European voters the most, according to the EU's own figures (pp.4-5), are mass immigration (45%) and
terrorism (32%).
Breaking these Eurobarometer numbers down
further, country by country (p.7), Dutch voters picked immigration
as their greatest concern by a startling 56%, with terrorism following at 33%.
French voters, despite being subjected to
more recent
terrorist atrocities than any other European nation, picked immigration and
terrorism by a margin of 36% and 35%, respectively, according to the latest EU report. The parlous state of the French economy continues to be a major concern to French voters.
The elections scheduled next year in the
Netherlands, France, and Germany, are doubly significant in that they make up
three of the six original signatory nations of the founding treaty which
eventually gave rise to the EU.
The
Local reports that it’s significant that Hitler’s Mein Kampf, now available
in Germany after decades of censorship, is rising in popularity. It has been
popular among Muslims
and Arabs since WWII. No surprise.
For 70 years after the end of the Second
World War, the brutal dictator’s manifesto remained unpublished in Germany.
Its copyright was owned by the state of
Bavaria, which prevented new editions from being printed in Germany for fear of
reinvigorating Nazi sentiments.
But when its copyright expired - 70 years
after the death of the author, as is standard - an annotated version was
printed for the first time again last year by the Institute of Contemporary
History (IfZ) in Munich. And the publisher quickly began to sell out, rushing to print more copies to
meet the high demand.
What Obama would like to do to America and Israel;
make
them disappear.
Over the past year, around 85,000 copies have
been sold, much to the surprise of the institute. The IfZ had at first only
printed 4,000 copies, and now it's heading for its sixth print run.
In April, the book become number one on
Spiegel’s bestseller list.
“The number of sales has overwhelmed us,” the
director of the IfZ, Andreas Wirsching, told DPA on Tuesday. “No one could have
really predicted it.”
No one could have predicted it – except a philosopher who understood
why Germany is still mesmerized by and hankering for “strong leadership,” else
why would Merkel have ever been elected or feel confident now that she could be
reelected?
So, who sired the EU juggernaut?
Signed in March 1957, by Italy, France, West
Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, the Treaty of Rome established both the European Economic
Community – proposing a single market for goods, labour, services and capital
within the bloc – and also, crucially, brought the European Commission into
existence.
The executive body of the EU, which also has
the sole remit for initiating legislation at the European level, is led by the controversial Jean-Claude Juncker, whose own grim opinion
of the nation state's role in the likely future of the European continent was
made clear in a speech on December 9.
The paramount issue, writes Igler, is why any nation would wish to
become or remain under the thumb of faceless, power-wielding bureaucrats.
The question remains, however, why any nation
would want to throw out its sovereignty to institutions that are fundamentally
unaccountable, that provide no mechanism for reversing direction, and whose
only "solution" to problems involves arrogating to itself ever more
authoritarian, rather than democratically legitimate, power.
It must be a strain self-eradicating sadomasochism. “We are not worthy
of preservation. We must atone for our sins. Therefore we will allow millions
of savages and primitive peoples to invade us and transform us into tolerant
maquettes of nations. Our people will suffer and even die, but, “On ne fait pas
d'omelette sans casser des oeufs.”
A Muslim having a
breakfast omelet of Europeons,
spiced with German mustard, quark,
and Swedish smaktillsats
Despite voters' concerns about mass
migration, in the absence of presenting their electorates with a compelling economic
vision outside of the EU, polling numbers still favour the political
mainstream.
Given that the EU's institutions have been so
instrumental as a causal factor in the mass migration and terrorism that are
now dominating the minds of national electorates, some might argue that the
sooner Europeans get rid of the EU, which is now doing more harm than good, the
better.
The EU’s metaphoric rule of thumb saying is
attributed to either Robespierre or Napoleon. It is appropriate that the EU
would adopt it from two of the most egg-breaking tyrants in recent history. And
then they had their cheerleaders.
As Fascism
rose in Europe, and Japanese jingoism emerged in the East, Duranty (Walter Duranty, the Communism-loving
reporter of the New York Times) wrote glowing accounts of Stalin's Five-Year
Plan. Almost single-handedly did Duranty aid and abet one of the world's most
prolific mass murderers, knowing all the while what was going on, but
refraining from saying precisely what he knew to be true.
He had
swallowed the ends-justifies-the-means-argument hook, line and sinker. Duranty
loved to repeat, when Stalin's atrocities were brought to light, "you can't make an omelet without breaking a
few eggs." Those "eggs" were the heads of men, women and
children, and those "few" were merely tens of millions.
Stalin was another kind of magician. He made
people disappear. Hitler made people disappear. Duranty made the truth
disappear. No one should be awed, no one should be surprised if they have
examined their agendas.
Merkel, Hollande, and others are all birds of
a feather, magicians who belong to the same elitist union. Their passion is to
pull the wool over everyone’s eyes and pick your pocket at the same time.
Allahu Akbar! First you are free, and then you’re not! For
my next trick, First you exist, and then you don’t!
December 21, 2016
The Madness of Queen Angela
I take the title of this column from a 1994
British film, “The Madness of
King George,” which dramatizes the enveloping insanity of George III, the
monarch who lost America and was losing his mind. George kept committing
actions that were “embarrassing” to the nation, but most of all, to the dignity
of his station. Doctors were at a loss to diagnosis and possibly correct the
king’s bizarre behavior and eccentricities. Given the primitive state of mental
and physical science of the time, they were reduced to examining his stool for
clues to a remedy. The only doctor to make a semblance of progress was one who
insisted that all regal niceties be dropped and the King be put through a régimen
of what only could be called, in certain military circles, “square bashing.” George
would be put in a straight jacket every time he “misbehaved.”
But George III’s madness was a low-level one
compared to Chancellor Angela
Merkel’s policy of madness. She cannot help but be aware of the insanity and
the suicidal consequences of her policies, but she chooses them. George’s
madness could not be corrected with rational persuasion or introspection. He
was not capable of conscious irrationality. His mind careened in its own world
of causo-connections.
As does Merkel’s.
Merkel’s madness, seeks to reduce her nation
to being a deferential caliphate of Islam against the will of the non-Islamic
population, which is expected to meld peacefully without complaint with the
savages, rapists, thieves and welfare parasites. It is based on the madness of
her brand of collectivism, Marxism.
Marxism itself is a system of madness that
defies or denigrates human volition and goes against any measure of rationality.
If you were born in a certain “class,” preferably a poor one, then you were
destined to become a communist, or at least a socialist, and resent anyone
better off economically than you. Dialectical Materialism brands you from the beginning
and you have no choice about what you are and what you condition is. Your
economic condition or circumstances indelibly “condition” how you think and
behave.
Wikipedia has this description
of Marxism:
Marxism is a method of socioeconomic
analysis that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical
development and a dialectical view of social transformation. It originates
from the mid-to-late 19th century works of German philosophers Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels.
Marxist
methodology originally used a method of economic and sociopolitical
inquiry known as historical materialism to analyze and
critique the development of capitalism and the role of class
struggle in systemic economic change.
To Merkel’s mind, immigrants who rape,
murder, or turn into bloody jihadis are just that way, through no fault
of their own, it’s their cultural heritage, and they must not be judged
according to Western measures of civil conduct, they were just born that way,
and extraordinary efforts must be made to persuade them to be nice, and not
commit crimes. They are blameless because that was how they were born.
The Grand Mufti reviewing Muslim troops in Bosnia
On the other hand, native Germans must make
an effort to accommodate migrants and Muslims, and form a societal union with
them until all conflict between Western and Muslim culture ceases. Unfortunately,
the only “dialect” Muslims practice and understand is force. “Peace” in Islamic
“dialectics” means your submission, or your death.
If you ever knew freedom under capitalism,
you will, because of inevitable, irresistible Hegelian
forces, come to question capitalism and your freedom, and argue for
impersonal anonymity as a member of a “class.” Your mind and your values will
automatically change. You will no longer value freedom. You will be absorbed into a great collective.
You will become one with the “Borg.”
The Phenomenology of Spirit charts the development of
consciousness as it rises from lowly common sense to the heights of what Hegel
calls ‘absolute knowing’ – the unconditioned form of thinking proper to
philosophy itself.
This has been true of Islam since day one of
the “religion” in the 7th century. Unless an individual born into a Muslim milieu
resists the appropriation of his mind and body, he becomes a part of the Islamic
gestalt or the global Islamic Ummah. In Germany, in Sweden, in
other European nations swamped by hostile migrants, it becomes a “clash of gestalts.”
It is no wonder why the Left finds common cause with Islam. Marxism entails the
surrender of your freedom, of your mind, of your “materialistic” values.
Angela Merkel
(born 1954) was, in a sense, “ready-made”
to become the nation-destroying beast she is now. Wikipedia reports her early
years:
Like most young people in the German Democratic Republic (East
Germany), Merkel was a member of the Free
German Youth (FDJ), the official youth movement sponsored by the ruling Socialist Unity Party. Membership
was nominally voluntary, but those who did not join found it difficult to gain
admission to higher education] She did not participate in the
secular coming of age ceremony Jugendweihe,
however, which was common in East Germany. Instead, she was confirmed. Later, at the Academy of
Sciences, she became a member of the FDJ district board and secretary for
"Agitprop"
(Agitation and Propaganda). Merkel claimed that she was secretary for culture.
When Merkel's one-time FDJ district chairman contradicted her, she insisted
that: "According to my memory, I was secretary for culture. But what do I
know? I believe I won't know anything when I'm 80." Merkel's progress in
the compulsory Marxism–Leninism course was graded only genügend
(sufficient, passing grade) in 1983 and 1986.
After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it was
easy for her to make the transition from a communist political environment to a
statist one, once East Germany was dissolved.
Apologetics and Agape featured this
interesting quotation of
Hitler’s:
“It’s been our misfortune of have the wrong
religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice
for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammadan religion too would have
been much more acceptable to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be
Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” (p. 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor,
Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric Metaxas)
Merkel’s Muslim-friendly actions in favor of Islam
are basically, part and parcel of Hitler’s admiration of Islam as a complete
and unmovable state, society, state of mind, and existence. I’m certain that
the historical ideational connection has occurred to her and her Party, but it
can’t be one she appreciates or wishes to draw attention to. An article by Joost
Niemöller, appearing on the Gates of Vienna
in August 2015, states:
It is well
known that Mein Kampf is still very popular in the Muslim world: for
example, in Egypt and some Arab countries. But also in Turkey. In
Iran or in Pakistan. Germans
in the Islamic world are being addressed enthusiastically, because they hail
from “The Land of Hitler”. Not so long ago I heard this again from a German
friend who travels to the Middle East regularly. In the Islamic world a direct
link is being drawn between Hitler’s warfare and the Jihad. At the same time
it’s very fashionable among Muslims to deny the Holocaust, which in the eyes of
an anti-Semitic would rather damage Hitler’s status as a hero; why then still
read his book? But then the denial of the Holocaust is again necessary to
refuse the justification for the State of Israel.
“It’s been
our misfortune of have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of
the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The
Mohammadan religion too would have been much more acceptable to us than
Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and
flabbiness?” (page 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric
Metaxas
When it
comes to feeding hate, logic is irrelevant.
Mein Kampf‘s popularity in the Muslim world is only one
signal. Many links exist between Nazism and present day Islamism. One of the
abundant examples is the fact that the fake document “The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion”[7], promoted by the Nazi ideologist Rosenberg, which
would be the ultimate proof of a Jewish complot to overthrow the Christian
world, became popular again among the PLO via the Islamic world….
Of course it
is characteristic of the existing politically correct climate that such
thoroughly researched and well-founded historical works do not constitute part
of any basic debate about Islam in the mainstream media. Presently Islam
is part of an obsolete multicultural society; anybody criticizing this is a
kind of Nazi. That the truth is in fact the other way around is a very
unwelcome message: both Islamic and Nazi ideologies not only have common
elements, but also have a common history. This continues today and by itself
provides enough reason to dig further.
Yes, we know that Mein Kampf is popular
in the Muslim world.
Yes, we know Amin el-Husseini, the
Jew-hating Jerusalem Mufti, who was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and who
hooked up with the Nazi empire. We know that one picture of his meeting with
Hitler. We know that after the war he was left unpunished and remained active
in the Middle East.
The popularity of Mein Kampf in the
Middle East is no coincidence.
Amin el-Husseini was not just a bizarre
anomaly.
The broad distribution of the
“Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in the Muslim world is part of a bigger
picture. In that picture, Hitler plays a leading role.
Do not expect Merkel to backtrack on her
policy of culturally annihilating her own country. To do that would require
that she contradict the Hegelian and altruist imperatives that she sacrifice
her country to the “neediest” – in this case hundreds of thousands of alleged
Syrian “refugees,” who are not going to assimilate into German culture except
to learn how to game the country’s welfare system.
Merkel said, soon after news of the Berlin terrorist attack reached
her:
“We must assume at
the current time that it was a terrorist attack,” Merkel said on Tuesday, the New York Times reported. “I know that it would be
particularly difficult for all of us to bear if it would be confirmed that this
deed was carried out by a person who sought protection and asylum in Germany.”
A German
Snowflake?
Won’t protect his
girlfriend?
Bruce Bawer in his December 21st FrontPage
article, “2016:
A Turning Point for Europe?” written a day after a Muslim driving a stolen
truck ploughed into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 and injuring
dozens, wrote,
….Europeans didn't have to be familiar with Islamic theology to
understand that, like it or not, they were at war. And they didn't need to know
the term dhimmi to recognize that their elites were kowtowing to
would-be conquerors.
These elites
inhabited a bubble of privilege, protected from the consequences of their own
policies. Most Western Europeans did not. In the space of a few years, they'd
seen their neighborhoods dramatically transformed. Their once-safe streets were
dangerous. Their children were harassed at school. Jews, especially, were
terrorized. There was no sign of a reversal in this rapid process of
civilizational decline and destruction. And if they tried to discuss the issue
honestly, they risked being labeled bigots, losing their jobs, and even being put
on trial. Here and there, voters found, and supported, politicians who
articulated their concerns. But the political establishment erected cordons
sanitaires around them, denying them power and, when possible, dragging
them, too, into court. Instead of heeding the voice of the people, officials
doubled down.
These elites
inhabited a bubble of privilege, protected from the consequences of their own
policies. Most Western Europeans did not. In the space of a few years, they'd
seen their neighborhoods dramatically transformed. Their once-safe streets were
dangerous. Their children were harassed at school. Jews, especially, were
terrorized. There was no sign of a reversal in this rapid process of
civilizational decline and destruction. And if they tried to discuss the issue
honestly, they risked being labeled bigots, losing their jobs, and even being
put on trial. Here and there, voters found, and supported, politicians who
articulated their concerns. But the political establishment erected cordons
sanitaires around them, denying them power and, when possible, dragging
them, too, into court. Instead of heeding the voice of the people, officials
doubled down.
And then
came the final straw: in August 2015, Western Europe's most powerful leader,
Angela Merkel, invited all Syrian refugees to come to Germany. The floodgates
opened even wider. Syrian refugees poured in – but most of them proved to be
neither Syrians nor refugees. [including Somalians, Afghanis, Nigerians, Pakistanis,
mostly men and very few women from the worst pestholes in the world] Naive
do-gooders who welcomed these monsters into their homes ended up being raped
and robbed. And the terrorist attacks became even more frequent. On November
13, 2015, jihadists slaughtered 130 people in and around the Bataclan Theater
in Paris. Then came the aforementioned New Year's Eve carnage. Brussels was hit
in March, with 32 civilian deaths. On Bastille Day, a truck-driving terrorist
mowed down 86 pedestrians on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice. And these were
just a few of the jihadist offenses committed in Western Europe during this
period. As I write this, a Turkish cop shouting “Allahu akbar!” has just gunned
down Russia's ambassador to Turkey, and – shades of Nice – a truck driven by a
Muslim has plowed into a busy Christmas market in the center of Berlin, killing
at least 12 and injuring dozens. (P.S. Apparently Merkel heard of the attack
shortly after attending a celebration of the “International Day of Migrants.”
This is not a joke.)[bracketed information is mine]
I am convinced that Merkel's German establishment is on the side of
the "atrocious people," not the German population. The same goes for
the rest of the EU establishment country by country. I must say the same about
the British establishment. For God's sake, London has a Muslim mayor??? Sharia
courts blossom all over the place, and while declared illegal, are left to
operate? Muslims of all shades run riot over school girls? But Merkel sheds
crocodile tears over the victims of the Berlin truck attack. I don't believe
there was a word of sincerity in her "Oh! How awful!"
But she is not going to do a damned substantial thing, no volte-face
against her immigration policies will be emanate from her, except for the
proposed pathetic burqa ban. She's got too much invested in
"transforming" Germany into a "brown" nation (as Obama has
admitted is one of his goals for America), or into a non-Western country. In
virtually every instance of terrorism, "migrants" have been
responsible and they're going to continue running trucks over infidels. She let
them in, welcomed them, and saddled German's with the stupendous welfare bill.
Merkel is a kind of Mother Teresa, fully vested in a kind of nationalist
altruism; "We must take care of refugees, help to cure their sores and
give them chances in life, jobs, etc., it is the duty of every German to help
the government in that crusade, even if it kills them…..
Geert Wilders has some suggestions, in a Gatestone article, “Political
Revolution is Brewing in Europe.”
Let no-one tell you
that only the perpetrators of these crimes are to blame. The politicians, who
welcomed Islam into their country, are guilty as well. And it is not just Frau
Merkel in Germany, it is the entire political elite in Western Europe.
Out of
political-correctness, they have deliberately turned a blind eye to Islam. They
have refused to inform themselves about its true nature. They refuse to
acknowledge that is all in the Koran: the permission to kill Jews and
Christians (Surah 9:29), to terrorize non-Muslims (8:12), to rape young girls
(65:4), to enslave people for sex (4:3), to lie about one's true goals (3:54),
and the command to make war on the infidels (9:123) and subjugate the entire
world to Allah (9:33)….
That is why there is
little doubt that 2017 will bring Germany and the entire West more violence,
more attacks on our women and daughters, more bloodshed, more tears, more
sorrow. The terrible truth is that, in all likelihood, we ain't seen nothing
yet.
We have to drive
politicians, such as Angela Merkel, my own weak Dutch Prime Minister Mark
Rutte, and their like minded colleagues in other countries, from power. We must
liberate our countries.
And believe me, my
friends, that is exactly what we are going to do. Terrorists, who hope to break
our resolve with bloody atrocities will not succeed. We will choose new and
brave leaders, we will de-Islamize, we will win!
Then we will have leaders in possession of all their faculties. And Mad
Queen Angela and her hateful, mad policies will be consigned to the dustbin of
history.
