Edward Cline's Blog, page 9

Canadians to “Celebrate” Islamic Heritage Month

Announcing  Islamic
Heritage Day in Canada! It won’t be anything like Germany’s Oktoberfest (or
what it used to be), but something completely different.










Ontario Provincial NDP Leader
Andrea Horwath says Islamic Heritage Month is an opportunity for Canada to
celebrate and learn about the history of Islamic culture.




October will now officially be
recognized as Islamic Heritage Month in Ontario after the legislature
unanimously passed an act Thursday.




It began as an NDP private
members’ bill, and party leader Andrea Horwath says it’s an opportunity to
celebrate and learn about the history of Islamic culture.




Horwath says she also hopes it’s
also a step toward eliminating Islamophobia, noting that in her city of
Hamilton, a fire was set at a mosque recently.




Canadian Islamic
History Month has been officially recognized federally since 2007.




Of course, most
Canadians will be scratching their heads trying to recollect the Islamic
“heritage” they should be proud of and celebrating. Like the Islamic “heritage”
ballyhooed in the United States, it amounts to nil, except for burgeoning
welfare rolls and payments and other “entitlements,” so non-Muslim Canadians
cannot be faulted for not knowing what that “heritage” might be. They will be
hard put to name the Canadian Muslim who invented a new railroad car coupler,
or a new heart surgery technique, or ever won “Canada’s Got Talent!” (It happens
to have been Mohammad Khan, in 2006, who sang “That Wudu Voodoo!” But it
didn’t catch on.)






Let’s take a look
at that “heritage.”  It’s pretty impressive.
No wonder Canadians are dancing in the streets, joined by Muslim males wearing
ski masks, and females in burqas and other Muslim Halloween attire doing that finger
gesture. About that gesture, many non-Muslims say it means “Up yours,” but
Muslim authorities contend it means “Walla is Number One!”




Canadians will
sing that hit Muslim song “Subhaanahu Wa Ta'ala,” adapting the lyrics of
“Who’s
Your Little Who-Zis?” They’ll all be dancing crazily, displaying that
distinctive Muslim gang
finger gesture, in the air, just like the jitter-buggers of old!




But the last
people standing after the celebrations will always be Muslims. All the non-believing
infidels will be dead on the pavement, many of them beheaded or their throats
cut. All will be dead but for many of the infidel women and girls, hustled away
by groping Muslim males. Their dresses will be lifted and tied over their heads,
or they’ll be blindfolded if they’re in pants or shorts. They’ll be pushed into
waiting cars, vans, and trucks, taunted by Muslims for being called “sluts,”
“whores,” and “uncovered meat,” and driven away, destination unknown, but
fate certain.








The pockets and
purses of all infidels, dead or alive, will be emptied, as money, cell phones,
house keys, and other personal property so appropriated will be regarded as
lawful jizya.  




Mounties and
local law enforcement will police the dance-athon but will be forbidden from
interfering with the murders and kidnappings because it would be interpreted by
local Muslim communities as violating their religious freedom. After all,
murdering infidels  (especially if
they’re Jews), raping infidel women and children, cutting off infidels’ heads, and
treating infidels as inferior, are all acts dictated and sanctioned, and
encouraged in the Koran ,
the Hadiths,
and the Sira.
The authorities’ presence will be chiefly to protect Muslims from defamation,
insults, and other outrageous Islamophobic behavior.




Giving a Muslim a
“dirty look” in public, or holding one’s nose (when the Muslim is a Somali,
Somali Muslims are notoriously odiferous), or commenting outloud or in
whispers, on the overweight condition of most Muslim women, or likening Muslims
to the Borg of Star Trek, are considered
instances of “hate speech” and are among the many punishable offenses, earning one
either a stiff fine and/or a “night in the box.”
Protest not, complain not, resist not! The best way to survive Islamic Heritage
Day in Canada is to keep one’s mouth shut, one’s face blank, and to act
submissive and humble. Our illustrious and forward-looking lead, Justin Trudeau, will be
very pleased.




Murder record over 14 centuries: millions

Number
enslaved by Muslims: over 14 centuries, millions from Europe
and Africa

Number of terrorist attacks: 29,411

Muslim
rape record: in the thousands, much of it inferred because the Scandinavian
and German governments suppress the true figure




Then there is the 1991 Explanatory Muslim
Brotherhood Memorandum of which NDP Leader Andrea Horwath is ignorant of or
dismisses as Islamophobic “pooh-pooh,” even though to sharp observers it is
obvious what is happening. Stealth jihad. Part of the memorandum is very
specific and reads:




“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.”






NDP Leader Andrea Horwath would vehemently deny she has
miserable hands. She would also discredit this from the horse’s
mouth:




"...all
Mushrik (anyone who worships any other God other than Allah, which includes the
Shias, Yazidis, the Kurds) can neither be granted amnesty nor be ransomed off.
Quoting a passage from Surah Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War), it says:
"Punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so
that they may learn a lesson."




NDP leader Andrea Horwath has learned her lesson. She’s
playing safe. She wants to play the “heritage” card.




O Canada!
What’s to become of you? Eh? Or, O
Canada! Qu'est-ce tu devenir?




Three cheers for Islamophobia! I will not be eliminated, not even if I travel to Canada!

Let’s Slander the “Prophet”!

Let’s start with
Obama saying it a first time: “The
future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” He
said this  in Cairo on June 4, 2009, and then again
at the UN.




And Attorney General
Loretta “Hang ‘em High” Lynch has promised to pursue “hate speech,” aka “blasphemy,”
“slandering the prophet,”  or otherwise
mocking all things Islamic.








The signs are in code: They call for
upholding freedom of speech and

the Second Amendment.

One or two actually say, in code, “Hug a
Kuffar today!”





It’s so easy to
mock Islam, to defame the “religion,” to kick it in the butt as its faithful
bow to Mecca, moon the West, and do the “gimme gimme gimme” gesture with their
hands, and bang their heads on the ground (doing that ritual Islamic dance, the
Shahada, which is not quite the
“Twist” or the “Macareni”).




The 20th century salat, or the ritual bowing in homage, can
be performed in various stances, such as standing up preferably on one foot,
but has been modified to incorporate bobbing and weaving. Hip Muslims found the
traditional posture boring and not very lively. “As much of the ground
must be felt by the nose
as the forehead.
The elbows are raised and the palms are on level with either the shoulders or the
ears, with fingers together. Toes must not have lint or dirt between them, and
must not wiggle.” Many young Muslims regarded the tradition posture
“degrading.”




Did you know that
if you rearrange the letters in Islam, you can make a SALAMI sandwich! Well,
almost. You’d need an extra “A.”




Did you know that
the town of Walla Walla was actually founded by Muslim settlers in 1818, but
not before the local Nez Perce Indians had been subdued and made to submit,
paying wampum as jizya.  Those who refused to
abjure Wontonka, the local god, and swear to Allah, were summarily beheaded.






So, what is an
Islamic martyr going to do with 72 raisins? One option is to emulate Carol in The Walking Dead and make a cookie
casserole. 



How long would a
fight last between a Norwegian and a Muslim (ethnic identity immaterial)? No
time at all. Muslims fight only in gangs. As they do just about everything
else. The Muslim would be joined by other Muslims. Muslims are not really men.
They can’t stand alone. 





They need their brothers to help them do their dirty
work. Individual bullying is an alien concept to most Muslims, except for “lone
wolves,” who are known to try being Mr. Macho all by themselves. But while
committing what infidels call a “crime,” a Muslim prefers to do it with other
Muslims, to form a bond of “Brotherhood.” That way, if they are ever arrested,
they can share the blame and martyrdom.



Bidets were not invented by the racist
French, but by Muslims who did not like returning to the dinner table from the
bathroom with recently busy and soiled left hands. But Muslims had to wait a
long, long time before one of them invented the bidet. His name was Mohammad,
he was a French-Algerian Muslim, and a former member of the Paris Pompiers.
While helping his colleagues hose down burning Citroens
set on fire by fellow Muslims protesting that the sky was blue, he had a
brainstorm. And then he was declared an apostate. He had a thought.
Thoughts are verboten. But he went ahead and endured the banishment.






Let’s take a look
at one of those 72 virgins
promised to martyrs.




In addition to Quranic translations of 78:33 specifying the
virgins will be voluptuous [20],
Sahih International translates it as "full-breasted [companions]
of equal age". Tafsir al-Jalalayn says "and buxom
maidens (kawā‘ib is the plural of kā‘ib) of equal age (atrāb is the plural of
tirb)". Several Islamic scholars explain that they will have "large,
round breasts which are not inclined to hang".[21]

These
houris will have:




·                 
Wide and beautiful/lovely eyes

·                 
Eyes like pearls (or marbles)

·                 
Be hairless except the eye brows and the head (no
makeup, no hair styling)




In addition to Quranic translations of 78:33 specifying the
virgins will be voluptuous ,
Sahih International translates it as "full-breasted [companions]
of equal age". Tafsir al-Jalalayn says "and buxom
maidens (kawā‘ib is the plural of kā‘ib) of equal age (atrāb is the plural of
tirb)". Several Islamic scholars explain that they will have "large,
round breasts which are not inclined to hang".

All of these virgins
will be:




·                 
Beautiful (depends on your definition; beautiful
by Renaissance standards?)

·                 
White skinned [(will be as European-looking as possible, 

             Muslim males, regardless of their ethnic origins, seem to prefer White      Chocolate to Brown or Black

·                  
(African,  Asian or Mideastern   woman need not apply)

·                 
60 cubits [27.5 meters] tall (nickname “Big
Bertha”)

·                 
7 cubits [3.2 meters] in width (or Plus Size,
unless she’s on Curves)

·                 
Transparent to the marrow of their bones (not a
pretty sight, raw marrow)

·                 
Eternally young 
(on the Avon program)

·                 
Companions of equal age  (to avoid jealousies and rivalries)




Also, there are other very important attributes to these perfect
mannequins. They will be:




·        
Chaste

·        
Restraining their glances (naturally shy)

·        
Have a modest gaze (downcast eyes, looking at
his or her feet)

·        
Splendid (be a good conversationalist, be able
to discuss Plato’s Forms)

·        
Pure (as the driven snow?)

·        
Non-menstruating / non-urinating/ non-defecating
and child-free (just like Eve)

·        
Never be dissatisfied (she wouldn’t dare!)

·        
Will sing praise (with the voice of Tiny Tim)




I think there was a movie that dramatized some of these virgins. I
think it was the original West World. 






Let’s touch on the subject of that special contribution of Islamic hegemony:
Cultural enrichment. Women in Sweden and Germany are being told to just submit
to rape by Muslims, it’s their duty, it’s their chance to sacrifice themselves
to gang rape, and beatings, and disfigurement. It’s the patriotic thing to do! Never mind the risks of
pregnancy, of contracting incurable diseases the Muslims bring from their “homelands.”
If you wind up looking like a leper, that’s the price you must pay to be a
loyal, true Swede or German. 




And here’s a consolation thought: Boys and men who
rape together, pray together. There’s an element of piety in all of us. Don't be so judgemental! 



Watch your tongue! Do not call the invasion of your country by
Somalis, Afghans, Turks, Iraqis, and Syrians, and other creatures a form of the
Bubonic plague! You can be fined and even jailed for uttering such a thing!




Now, Mohammad was a big fan of child brides. He married several children
himself by the time he was a crotchety, middle-aged horny toad. An “age of
consent” was an alien concept, a “downer.” He could hardly wait to fondle a
child that that had yet to leave its manger. 
And often he fondled them when they were still in the manger. (Cradles
hadn’t yet been invented.) Uncle Mo was a pedophile.  He loved children. Perhaps even boys. 






But
it does no good to call him a pedophile, just as it does no good to call him a
rapist, a murderer, a thief,  a bandit,
an inventor of genocide, a consumer of widows he made by chopping off the heads
of their husbands. All these labels are to Muslims but virtues, of beatific
lettuce bespangling his military tunic, of brilliant feathers in his turban.
These are things to strive to be  in the
ordinary Muslim. Uncle Mo is the model, ideal man to emulate.




 What
other Muslim can be portrayed as a Christ-like saint, as a brilliant military
strategist, as a dignified "lawgiver," as a humble "man of
peace"? He is seen as being those things by quaking Western dihimmis, by career blankers-out-of-reality.
Mohammad's rap sheet belies all those appellations. He is
"untouchable." He may not be slandered, nor should his
"religion" be slandered.




Attorney General
Lynch can try to do her worst to gag and punish purveyors of “hate speech”
(except for hate-spewing Muslims). The Rodham creature can threaten to shut
down all manner of freedom of speech over the Internet. CAIR can litigate in
our compliant judicial system.




To me, ISIS and
the Muslim Brotherhood can go shoe a goose. Americans who want to scuttle the
First Amendment are traitors. Three cheers for Islamophobia!

An Excerpt from Trichotomy

I present here Chapter 3 of Trichotomy: A Detective Novel of 1929, the twentieth in the Cyrus Skeen
Mystery series. A private joke of mine is that Skeen has read more than one
book, as opposed to the one book that can be found in Sam Spade’s apartment, “Famous
Criminal Cases,” written by a former chief of police of San Francisco. There is
not much background to Spade to be found
in The Maltese Falcon, but Skeen is a Yale graduate; he worked briefly for
the New York City police, before coming to San Francisco to open his own
private detective agency and to pursue his literary passion of writing short
stories.




Skeen is first introduced China Basin, which is set in December 1928, the same month in which
Sam Spade’s case is set. In the series, Skeen has many adventures between the
two Decembers, and he has ventured now into political and “social” commentary.
His essay, “Trichotomy,” on the predictable but uncorrectable behavior of
recidivists, has been published to some acclaim in The American Mercury, a
prominent cultural magazine published by H.L. Mencken. The acclaim is such that
a professor of criminal behavior at Wexford College in San Francisco has
invited Skeen to address a class on the subject. The professor reads the essay
to the class, introducing to his students many unique insights into the mind of
the career criminal. Skeen takes questions from the class, until…Well, you’ll
see.




Cover and Title Page: Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (64/62 BC – 12 BC), Roman statesman, general,
and architect, Louvre, Paris; it resembles Cyrus Skeen, according to Dilys, his
wife, who owns a copy of the bust.




____________________________________________________________________________




Chapter
3:   Questions, Answers, and More         

"Well, there's the progressives’ ideal polity, a
vision in which all the parts – parts meaning people, mind you – all the parts
move in perfect collective unison, with no friction or conflict or clashes, and
all their thoughts and actions mesh without friction or conflict, too, to
sustain some imagined 'public good' or ideal society.

“Now, that vision clashes with reality. Reality is inhabited by individuals with their own choices
and reasons for choosing one thing over another, all acting independently, and
with the freedom to act, and without knowledge of virtually all other
individuals and their choices, and
even without consideration for the choices all those others make. There are no
clashes or conflicts among them, either. There
is the ideal society these other 'idealists’ wish to obviate with direct force.
Essentially, what the progressives’ wish to neutralize or banish from human
action is human volition."

Skeen answered the question from one of the older
students, a question posed with some doubt and hostility. He consulted, now and
then, some notes he had typed up for the class the night before, mostly to
refresh his mind on the subject.

The class had attracted an almost overflow attendance.
Aside from the usual thirty students in Caruthers’s class, word had got out
that the guest speaker, Cyrus Skeen, would answer questions from the class
about what Caruthers called a “ground-breaking” thesis that challenged
contemporary thought on criminal behavior and criminal rehabilitation. Some
twenty other students had taken the empty places in the rear of the small
arena-like lecture hall.

In the audience sat Dilys, Clara Reyes, and Mickey
Kane, who was invited especially by Skeen to witness the unprecedented
appearance of his friend.

Close to them sat Professor Eustace Raico, the
Assistant Dean of the department, and Professor Salvatore Selgen, who taught
sociology to freshmen and sophomores. Raico was about fifty years old, Selgen
in his mid sixties with a full head of silver hair.

Caruthers, standing at his lectern, had begun the
class by reading Skeen’s original “Trichotomy” article, and parts of Skeen’s
“The Mental Truancy of the Recidivist.” Skeen had given him a copy of the new
“Trichotomy” article which would not appear in The American Mercury until next
spring, a copy Clara had had made at Boyle’s Advertising the day before.

The hall boasted a small semicircle of raised seats
around the lectern. A blackboard was behind Skeen and Caruthers in the
otherwise gray plaster room.

Caruthers had read the new article and had asked
Skeen if he could incorporate some of Skeen’s new insights into his
introduction, but Skeen had declined. “I think Mr. Mencken has priority in
publicizing the material, Professor Caruthers. I don’t think he would be
pleased.”

Caruthers relented with a sigh of regret, but nodded
understanding.

The hostile student had asked Skeen why he linked
the progressives with his Trichotomy thesis. He sat down and tried to glare at
Skeen, but not successfully. Another student, a middle-aged woman raised her
hand. Skeen nodded to her. She rose and asked, “Do you think it’s possible for
a criminal to reconcile his trichotomy?”

He raised a finger. "Now, there's the third
level of this trichotomy, which is how these 'idealists' and criminals deal
with the reality they face every day, the same reality you and I and everyone
else deal with, such as cooking, and driving an automobile, and so on, and with
their own individual, practical, everyday choices.

“The first tier of a criminal’s trichotomy is
comprised of his metaphysical and epistemological premises, the second tier is
his fundamental operative philosophy based on them, and the third tier is his
everyday operative code, the one that allows him to deal with others without
shooting them or being shot by them….”

Caruthers, sitting in a chair beside the lectern,
looked pleased that the event was going so smoothly.

Skeen, standing at the lectern, answered, “He can't reconcile the parts of his trichotomy, not
in any long-lasting sense. And if he tried, one part of the trichotomy would
dissolve the others, and he’d either acknowledge the supremacy of reality, or
of existence, or he would go mad, or his mind would stall or grind gears. To
return to my original path of inquiry, that's why a criminal can't truly honor
a debt of gratitude or want to fulfill
an obligation. A criminal, no matter how effusive his expression of thanks,
will always resent having to feel gratitude or having a debt placed on his
shoulders. Criminals do not like to owe
anything.

"You know that saying, there's no honor among
thieves? Well, of course there isn't. Thieves aren’t capable of honor, except
one that's based on fear or the disapprobation of their peers. But, then, that's
not a virtue, that's no way to live. I always had trouble trying to understand
that saying. Did the people who popularized it know what they were talking
about? I think not."

The woman student seemed to be satisfied with
Skeen’s answer. Another person rose and asked, “Could you discuss the
relationship between general philosophy and your trichotomy thesis?”

Skeen nodded. “That’s a tall order, sir, but I'll
try. “What is the ‘Trichotomy’? The first part is an individual’s primary
metaphysics. A criminal’s metaphysics is basically one based on David Hume’s
dictum that reality can change for no apparent reason from one moment to
another. Thus, there is no good reason, he says, that the sun will not rise the next morning. However, it
could sit stationary or go backwards and rise in the West. Or change into a
scoop of ice cream.

“Thus, to a criminal, because reality isn’t steady,
or stable, or predictable, or perhaps n0t even open to sensory perception, no
ethics are necessary to act in it. Criminals need not have heard of Hume or
Spinoza or Leibniz to subscribe to that idea.

“It is an interesting note that Immanuel Kant, the
inventor of what I have called elsewhere the schizophrenic view of reality,
admired Hume and his philosophy. Kant, by the way, cadged much of his own
thought from Plato and his Ideal Forms. Because reality is, to a criminal,
always in flux, the best way to survive in it is to adapt one’s actions to the
reality of the moment. Theirs is the phenomenal
world, while the noumenal world, if
it existed, remains unknowable to them. They certainly do not search for it, or
inquire in any serious depth about it. Things just are, and that’s where the criminal is happy to leave it.

“Lest any reader
assume that I am discussing a novel form of the theological Trinity, I wish to
disabuse him here and now of the notion. As explained in the original
‘Trichotomy’ article, and detailed at length in its briefer successor, ‘The
Moral Truancy of the Recidivist,’ I am referring exclusively to the mental and
moral makeup of criminals notorious and unknown, that is, to how and why they
function in the real world without becoming a casualty of it and of their own
actions. It is, strictly speaking, an issue of epistemology and how a
criminal’s epistemology influences his metaphysics. And vice versa.

“After all, Al
Capone and Frank Nitty and others of their ilk rely on a minimal and tenuous
fealty to reality to survive their denial of and violation of reality, which
they labor to keep at arm’s length, or compartmentalize in a separate quarter
of their minds, before it envelops them and smothers them. For example, neither
would order a plate of meat salted with rat poison or tainted, spoiled meat for
dinner, thinking they could defy the fatal consequences of ingesting it and
smack their lips as they attacked the meal with knife and fork. Capone and
Nitty would both ‘know’ that somehow the chemical composition of rat poison was
in direct conflict with their digestive mechanisms.

“Their metaphysics
is based chance or happenstance that the sun will always rise in the morning,
because there’s no reason why it should not
rise. Likewise, because they knew third-hand that all men who ate rat poison
died of it, there was no reason for any gangster to believe that neither would not die of it. Capone might think he is exempt
from the laws of perilous food consumption, but there was no pressing reason
for him to test the idea! Or so he would think. 
The experiment might prove fatal, unless there was a physician nearby
ready with the quick-acting antidote….”

The audience
chuckled.

Skeen added, “One thing
that criminologists seem to have forgotten, or never conceded, or even
explored, is the possibility that criminals are deathly afraid of reality and
the justice it can met out when something goes awry with their felonious plans
or if the dice role of chance doesn’t fall in their favor. Thus it is with the
actions and world views of conniving politicians, which is why I put the latter
in the same class as common criminals, who, as readers will recall, were not
the original subject of my thesis.

“But one can’t
discuss the pathology of criminals in regards to reality without touching on
the pathology of crooked politicians. The two classes of humanity are brothers
under the skin. That fact is eminently observable even to the person with a
meanest capacity for honest thought. The newspapers are full of stories of the
latest political scandals. Remember the Teapot Dome scandal? As a criminal’s
chief motive is to escape reality, or rather to escape the justice reality is
sure to bring him, or hold it at arm’s length, so is that of a thieving or
dishonest politician or bureaucrat.”

Skeen smiled. “It
cannot be denied that criminals and politicians think. Of course they think.
But when their minds turn to cheating honest men and bypassing reality, their
thoughts are not honest. Then their mental efforts erect a circus tent to put
on fabulous mental contortions and conjurer’s tricks to persuade themselves of
the efficacy of his estimate of reality, and having as an audience only those
with the meanest capacity of awareness coupled with a weakness to be fascinated
by the colorful legerdemain…

“Such minds are but
the clucking, noisy pullets otherwise known as voters who detect in the
political artist an offer of something for nothing, and who are ready for the
chopping block. But, the editor of this fine publication has written far better
and more eloquent indictments of the human poultry species than I have and ever
will…”

Most of the audience
laughed. Dilys was grinning from ear to ear. She raised her hands and applauded.
Others followed suit. Caruthers rose and applauded.

Assistant Dean
Raico, however, raised a hand. “One last question, if you please, Mr. Skeen. I
believe your answer will be brief, so I do not think it would detain you much
longer.”

Skeen sighed and
nodded. “Yes, Professor Raico?”

“Surely this subject
of trichotomies comes under the subject of sociology. I am curious to know if
you are familiar with the works of Ibn Khaldun, who is regarded in sociological
circles as the first sociologist. His major work, Muquadimah, could be said to be the founding work of the subject of
sociology.”

Skeen made a face.
“Who? If I know anything about Muhammadan names, and that’s not much, his is
probably half a mile long.”

Raico nodded, not
happy with Skeen’s answer. “Yes. His full name was Abdurahman bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Al-Hasan bin
Jabir bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Abdurahman bin Ibn Khaldun. He was a prominent
fourteenth century Muhammadan historian and social critic from Andalusia and
North Africa. He also wrote about political science and economics. Are you
familiar with him?”

Skeen shrugged and
shook his head in amusement. “I confess total ignorance of him, sir.”

Raico sat down
wearing a sour expression. His seat companion, Professor Salvatore Selgen,
heard him mutter, “I thought so.”

Skeen overheard the
remark, and grimaced again. “Well, I guess I’m to be faulted for not knowing
how many angels can do the Charleston on the top of a pin, either.”

Caruthers glanced at
his Assistant Dean and did not give his colleague a kindly look. He thought,
and he was determined to express it personally after the event, was, “Professor
Raico, that question was unworthy of you to ask Mr. Skeen. Mr. Skeen has never
professed to be anything more than a diligent and well-read amateur. ”

Caruthers rose from
his chair and shook Skeen’s hand. “Words cannot suffice to tell you how
grateful I am for your appearance, and I think I speak for most of my class, as
well. You speak like no valedictorian I have ever heard, I learned so much just
listening to you today. You had the attention of everyone in this room.”

Several students and
visitors had already filed out. Dilys and Kane stood where they had sat and
waited for the Dean to stop speaking with Skeen. Some of the invited guests
also held back. Neither Caruthers, Raico, nor Selgen had introduced their
guests to Skeen or to anyone else. They were pointed out by Caruthers. Skeen
had introduced Dilys and Kane to Caruthers before the talk.

One woman in a red
overcoat and with a black cloche pulled tightly over her hair went quickly down
the steps to the lectern.  “Oh! Mr.
Caruthers! What a wonderful talk!”

“Thank you, my dear,” said Caruthers,
turning to the woman. “You’re Chastity Biddle, aren’t you? Professor Raico’s
guest? And your husband is here, too, I see – ”

Suddenly the woman screamed, “To avenge
my father!! To avenge my father!!” She took a butcher’s knife from her purse
and plunged it several times into Caruthers’s chest, and then whipped it once across
his throat.

Caruthers gasped, and then gurgled as
blood poured from his chest and neck, soaking the woman’s clothes. The Dean
finally collapsed at the woman’s feet.

Skeen was stunned for a moment.

The woman turned to him. “To avenge my
father!! To avenge my father!!” An otherwise handsome, pale face was twisted
into one of single-minded madness. Her blue eyes were implacable marbles of
hatred. She raised the bloody knife and took several stabs at Skeen.

Skeen had stepped back to evade the thrusting
knife, which he barely avoided, and then bent and moved closer to the woman. He
kicked her once in a shin, which distracted her for a moment, and then struck
her face with a roundhouse punch. The woman dropped the knife, emitting a sound
much like a hiccup, and fell unconscious to the floor on her back into the
spreading pool of Caruthers’s blood at the foot of the lectern.

Skeen stooped down to examine Caruthers.
But he knew without having to feel the
man’s pulse that he was dead.

Islam Upside-Down and Inside-Out: II

I opened “Islam
Upside-Down and Inside-Out” with “There can’t be too many books like this
one. The
Impact of Islam , by Emmet Scott, is one of many books that deflate the
whole history, provenance, and character of Islam.  At first glance, as an atheist, I thought that
reviewing a book written by a Christian with an obvious Christian bias against
Islam would be difficult, mainly in segregating the bias from the truth-telling
and facts.”




But I left out
some of the goriest parts of Scott’s opus, parts which explain in some respect
the title of his book, parts which indict Islam as a psychopathic movement, an
“illness” which spread to the rest of Europe.




Islam, for
example, invented the “Inquisition,” not the Catholic Church, which adopted the
institution as a way of identifying and persecuting heretics. Islam’s original
purpose, however, was to test the sincerity of the conversion of Jews and
Christians to Islam. Untold numbers of Jews and Christians were made an offer
they could not refuse: convert or pay the exorbitant jizya or die. Jizya was a
poll tax, or a head tax, on anyone not a “true” Muslim. Theoretically, the tax
offered the infidel, or the dhimmi ,“protection”
from theft, persecution, or death by Muslims and others, much as racketeers
centuries later would extort “protection money” from individuals and
businesses; the extortion was simply the criminals refraining from murder or
dynamiting one’s business.




As Scott and
others have described the workings of jizya,
this did not, as a rule, work out as expected, resulting in massacres of Jews
and Christians, or their deportation from Spain across the Mediterranean to
Morocco. Which leads us back to the Inquisition.



Pope Innocent III, founder of the Christian Inquisition







The high point of the medieval
church’s power came in the early thirteenth century and in the person of Innocent III
(1198-1216)….His two most memorable actions…were the establishment of the
Inquisition and the launching of the notorious Albigensian Crusade, which lead
to the elimination of the Cathar movement….Innocent
III, then the most powerful of medieval theocrats, was a proponent of Holy War,
and an enforcer of absolute doctrinal conformity. Apostasy under Innocent III
became a capital offense. During his time, too, the other Crusades, against Islam
in Spain and in the Middle East, continued to rage. (p. 113)




Sound familiar? Hear echoes of Sharia law in Innocent III’s policies?





….Innocent’s attitude to
apostasy and doctrinal conformity – as well as to “Holy War” – was completely
in accord with Islamic notions, and we must consider to what extent these
extreme positions of the European theocracy were influenced by the Islamic one….And
doctrinal conformity was enforced in Islam from the beginning [with Muhammad] in
a way that it never was in Europe: here apostasy and heresy were always seen as
capital offenses. [“If anyone changes his religion, kill him.” – Bukhari, Vol.9, book
84, no. 57] The most notorious, though by no means the only, example of this is
found in the fate of Mansur Al-Hallaj (858-922), the Persian mystic…who was at
first blinded, tortured, and crucified….And the killing of political and
religious opponents, or those who deviated in any form from orthodox Islam,
continued throughout Muslim history. So it was with  infidels such as Christians and Jews who,
though theoretically dhimmi or “protected,”
were in fact always the subject of violent attack….There even existed, as we
have seen, at least from the time of the Almohads
(early twelfth century), a commission of inquiry , a veritable “inquisition”
for rooting out apostates….. (Square brackets mine, p. 114)






The Almohads were
not strictly Arab, but Berbers from North Africa. They were “fundamentalist” Muslims
who invaded Spain, fought with the Muslims already there and defeated them, and
declared victory. They soon were massacring Jews and Christians, or expelling
them from Spain.  They followed the Almoravids, against
whom the legendary El Cid
fought. El Cid’s history is a very confusing one, and not as simple as its
namesake film portrays it. The Almohads did not tolerate the “benign” rule of
the Almoravids and embarked on a campaign to oust and replace Spain with a “pure”
form of Islam. It was during the reign of the Almoravids that the apocryphal and
wholly unfounded narrative of a “Golden Age” of Islam in Spain was born, in which
Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived side by side in harmonious “peace,” when
the opposite was true. If the Almoravids “tolerated” Jews and Christians, it
was only because they were better off alive as jizya money trees that increased the wealth of the Muslims.
Otherwise, Jews and Christians had to wear distinctive badges, could not build
new churches or synagogues, and had to defer to Muslims in every legal and
social way.




Scott considered
it noteworthy that until the Muslim persecution of the Jews, anti-Semitism and pogroms
did not exist in Europe. Jews and Christians tolerated each other’s existence,
and often became allies against a variety of threats.






….The peculiarly violent
anti-Semitism which characterized medieval Europe seems to have had its origin
in Spain; and the rise of this new and virulent anti-Semitism in other areas of
Europe is intimately connected with the clash between Islam and Christianity.




Christianity was of course
always anti-Semitic, or, more accurately, anti-Judaistic. Christians blamed
Jews for the murder of Christ, and right from the beginning the two religions
were fraught. However, Christianity did not invent anti-Semitism, nor were
Christians, for a long time, a threat to Jews…..From the very beginning, or
course, the Jews, or rather, the Jewish authorities were deeply antagonistic
towards Christianity; a faith they looked upon as little more than dangerous
heresy….




….Anti-Semitism…in fact predated
both the rise of Christianity and Islam. Relations between Gentiles and Jews
were volatile as far back as Hellenistic times….(pp. 99-100)




European anti-Semitism
can be dated roughly around the time of the First Crusade in 1095.
Christians began to blame Jews for helping Muslims capture Jerusalem. “The
Crusaders arrived at Jerusalem, launched an assault on the city, and captured
it in July 1099, massacring many of the city's Muslim and Jewish inhabitants.”






Anti-Semitism has always been present in the Koran
and the Hadith .
Mohammad’s worst enemies were Jews. According to his legend, he went out of his way to massacre Jewish men, capture
their women, and claim Jewish property as his own. The massacres of Banu Quraiza
and Khaybar are regarded
by Muslims as two of his most exalted victories
(pp.  101-103)




Reading through
Scott’s opus, one can’t help but be led to imagine Mohammad as a kind of “proto-Negan,”
except as a brute killer on camel, not riding in a stolen mobile home. Mohammad
also wanted all your “stuff,” as well as your wife and anything else that was “no
longer yours,” but his, and he was
prepared to lop off your head if you didn’t submit to his decrees. Mohammad
would have been very handy with a barbed wire baseball bat.










The
Impact of Islam , by Emmet Scott. Nashville/London (New English
Review Press), 2014. 200 pp. 

Islam Upside-Down and Inside-Out

There can’t be
too many books like this one. The
Impact of Islam , by Emmet Scott, is one of many books that deflate the
whole history, provenance, and character of Islam.  At first glance, as an atheist, I thought that
reviewing a book written by a Christian with an obvious Christian bias against Islam
would be difficult, mainly in segregating the bias from the truth-telling and
facts. But Scott’s book, while it has a demonstrable bias in favor of
Christianity, doesn’t lay it on too thickly. Scott’s arguments are very well structured
and made, and he doesn’t beat one over the head. There is history and information
in it that I have not encountered elsewhere, not even in Robert Spencer’s
masterful and comprehensive Did
Muhammad Exist? An Enquiry into Islam’s Origins , in which little or no
Christian bias is evident.





For starters,
Scott visits the rather shocking argument that the Islamic Koran
was probably an early Jewish-Christian (or Ebionite) devotional manual
(Scott labels Ebionitism as a “proto-Islamic creed”) because so much in it was
cadged or plagiarized by Islamic “scholars” over the centuries (Having had a
nose or sixth sense for fakery, I’ve always contended that both the Koran and the Hadith
were works in progress with numerous editors and compilers over the centuries
adding to them or redacting portions from them to make the works consistent and
complementary and too “holy” for later scholars and believers to correct or
question.) There are just too many similarities in the texts, argues Scott, and
the Jewish-Christian work, if Islamic history is to be accorded any credibility,
predated the birth of Mohammad by centuries. Christians of various sects
existed long before Islam. When Christianity first appeared, it would be nearly
half a millennium before the Islam we're familiar with allegedly made its
destructive appearance.




The Koran
itself, writes Scott,  is an incomprehensible
mess. Written and read in its “original” Arabic, and translated into modern
non-Arabic languages, it often makes no sense, not even to Islamic scholars charged
with the task of interpretation. There seems to be more rhyme and reason in a chimpanzee’s
random hunt-and-peck on a typewriter keyboard . In his compelling Appendix, he notes:




Among the numerous titles which
have appeared recently we may cite in particular The
Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the
Language of the Koran, by Christoph
Luxenberg (2007)and The
Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into its Early History, a series of essays edited by
Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R Puin (2009). Upon the publication of Luxenberg’s
book, the popular media…focused on his claim that the 72 virgins promised to Islamic
martyrs was a mistranslation, and that what was actually an offer of 72
raisins, or grapes. Yet this was the very least of what Luxenberg was saying, ,
the full import of which was ignored in the newspapers. In fact, he was
claiming that the original language of the Qur'an was not Arabic (where the
questionable word is read as “virgins”) but Syriac or Aramaic, where the same
word would translate as “grapes.” He was furthermore claiming, sensationally
enough, that the Qur'an was originally a Syriac Christian devotional text and
had nothing to do with Muhammad or Islam. (p. 174)






A fanciful rendition of probably a fictive person

And what must be
a stunning revelation to Muslims is that the Muhammad of the Hadith was actually Jesus, whose name
also might have been Joshua. Discussing some ancient coins that bear the
likeness of what has been assumed to be Muhammad but of Muhammad holding a
cross.




Evidently, when these coins were
minted, in the middle of the seventh century, the Islamic theology with which we
are now familiar  had not yet evolved. It
would appear that the figure holding the cross, beside which sometimes appears
the name “Muhammad,” may not represent the word “Muhammad” in Arabic and Syriac
implies the “praised one” or “chosen one,” and may be a title or epithet as
much as a real name. As a personal name Muhammad is in fact unattested before
the seventh century, and indeed, considering the word’s meaning it is unlikely
that anyone name Muhammad ever existed in Arabia before this time….In short,
even if an Arab prophet and war-leader called Muhammad existed, it is highly
likely that this name was only given to him after his death [632], or at least
late in his life.  But the fact that the
figure on the coins is holding a cross would indicate very strongly that the “praised
one” in question was not the prophet of Islam, but Jesus of Nazareth! And this
is made all the more likely when we consider the strong  links between Jesus and Muhammad in Islamic tradition.(p.
175)




Called Isa ibn Maryam (“Jesus, son of Mary” in Islamic tradition), Jesus was a prophet
foretelling the coming of Muhammad. He was not pacific or peaceful. He joined
battle with infidels, apostates, and unbelievers and slew an unknown number of
them. No Sermons on the Mount in that literature. In one of my columns, “The
Great Pumpkin of Islam,” among other blasphemous things I say, I note at
the end that,




Of course, I don’t take any of
it literally, the Koran and its
companion texts too likely having been works-in-progress over centuries,
cadging from the Christian, Judaic, Zoroastrian, and pagan religions and
liturgies. Robert Spencer torpedoes the existence of Mohammad himself in his
rigorously researched book, Did
Muhammad Exist?:  An Enquiry into Islam’s
Obscure Origns . 




In short, Allah was Mohammad’s
Great Pumpkin. Or, if you prefer, his dancing, grand pink elephant, a deity
greater than the Hindu Ganesha.
Allah, who shares the metaphysical impossibility of all deities, together with the contradictory attributes of
omniscience and omnipotence, has never manifested himself to Muslims or
infidels, either. He is, to put it tactfully, reality-shy. He exists only in
the delusional minds of those who wish to believe in such an entity. A figment
of one’s mysticism-inebriated imagination can't be conjured into spatial
existence no matter how earnestly or often one prays, hopes, or wishes.




The Great Pumpkin of
Islam was carved out of the hallucinatory imagination of a certified imbecile,
illiterate, brigand, rapist, murderer, and tyrant.






Harpo Marx as Allah, the Great Pumpkin

Furthermore,
Scott writes:




The original  bearer of the title “praised one,” says
[Alfred] Guillaume [“The Version of the Gospel Used in Medina Circa 700 AD Al –Andalus 15 (1950)], was Jesus, and
this title and the accompanying  prophecy
were “skillfully manipulated to provide the reading we have in Ibn Ishaq’s
biography [his biography of Muhammad, or the Sira ]
(pp. 289-96).




As Spencer notes, none of the
early texts or inscriptions of the seventh century which refer to Islam mention
either Muhammad, the Qur'an, or even the word Islam. Indeed, inscriptions –
both on coins and elsewhere – of the early Islamic authorities use terms and
expressions not found in the Qur'an.  [Did Muhammad Exist?] (p. 175.)




It’s interesting
also to learn that the purported conquest of the Arabian Peninsula by Muhummad’s
followers cannot be credited to Muslims on camels, but more likely to Persian cavalry.
Scott noted:




…The astonishing narrative of
the Arab conquest, which supposedly saw a few nomads on camels simultaneously
attack and conquer the mighty Persian and Byzantine empires, is revealed as a
fiction: it  was the heavy cavalry of the
Sassanid Persians
which created  the “Islamic Empire,” an
empire which appeared quite suddenly in the middle of the seventh century and
stretched from Libya to the borders of India. (p. 187)




Scott’s  The
Impact of Islam is yet another treasure trove of mounting evidence and
incontrovertible   argumentation that Islam and Muhammad were
fabrications made of whole cloth – of other cultures’ and religions’ cloth. In
the Introduction to his book Scott emphasizes that:




That he [Muhammad] was
definitely not a man of peace is therefore fairly clear – and underlines a dramatic
difference between Christianity and Islam: Whilst early Christianity was
pacifist to the core, the early spread of Islam was due entirely to military
conquest. No one denies this, and it is even conceded that Islamic law [Sharia]
and custom sanctifies [sic] warfare in the cause of the faith. Indeed, the
waging of jihad or holy war is
fundamental to Islamic custom and belief. Since the first flush of victories in
the seventh century, conquered infidels have been presented with a simple
choice; either convert or  pay a poll
tax, known as jizya. But the
important thing has always been to establish political control . This being the case, it is clear that Islam is
not a religion at all in the ordinary sense, but a totalitarian ideology with religious pretensions….(Italics mine; pp. 12-13)




Islam is most
assuredly a flawlessly irrational, Alice
in Wonderland-caliber, topsy-turvy, off-with-his-head!  “faith” that wants to become the “New World
Order.” Emmett Scott provides an elucidating map of many of the major blind
alleys and rabbit holes.




The
Impact of Islam , by Emmet Scott. Nashville/London (New English
Review Press), 2014. 200 pp. 

Hillary and Negan: Parallels in Evil

An alternative
title for this article could also be: Negan
and Hillary: Partners in Tyranny and Terror.




An intriguing and
I think apt parallel exists between Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign,
overall career, goals, and character, and the goals and character of Negan. And
the parallels are so simpatico, they seem to feed on and off of each other.
They are mutually symptomatic of the state of the culture. The parallel even
extends to Hillary’s supporters in the electorate and to the MSM, and to Negan’s
loyal gang of marauding “Survivors.” It all should be explicated. I make no
apologies for drawing readers’ attention to the parallel.



The cartoon Negan and the TV Negan







Who or what is
“Negan”? He is the new archvillain of The Walking
Dead (TWD) a villain who, unlike other villains in the series, does not
try to rationalize his evil. He is thoroughly evil, and knows it, boasts of it,
and revels in it.  He is the “king” of
the Survivors, who obey him and do his bidding. There is no saying “No” to him.
Negan is perfectly portrayed by Jeffrey Dean Morgan,
formerly of “Grey’s
Anatomy” and is a veteran dozens of films and TV shows. I have watched none
of his other films or TV series. So I can’t gauge or assess his true character,
or even his acting abilities from other shows. But he is overwhelmingly convincing
as Negan, so convincingly evil that you want to smack him and wrest the
baseball bat from him and give him a taste of his own medicine. The trailer here
should give readers unfamiliar with the series a taste of Negan.




Negan is a vile, evil character
who debuted in April at the end of Season Six of The
Walking Dead. Negan is a brutal tyrant who lords over an enclave of plague
survivors and likes to smash victims’ heads with a baseball bat sheathed in
barbed wire. He has a policy of extortion that requires other, productive
enclaves to give him half of what they have in exchange for his not raiding,
raping, enslaving, and killing their inhabitants and trashing their
communities.




As one of their
spokesmen said to others in an earlier teaser scene: “Everything you have now
belongs to Negan.” gang are also dedicated nihilists.




Negan could be
taken as a metaphor for the Obama administration, for Hillary’s dreamed of
administration, or for Islamic jihadists. All three entities are looters,
plunderers, and destroyers.




And  here is another,
uncensored version of how he terrorizes, humiliates, and taunts his captured victims.
Please excuse the language. This version was recorded from a TV. I do not know
its source. It is  compelling because
Negan expresses Hillary’s malevolence, and Negan’s foul language has also been
captured elsewhere as Hillary’s.  Negan
is the real Hillary Clinton’s fantasy surrogate. It is what she is at the core.
Negan is artfully glib as Hillary is consistently plastic and arificial.




Countless fans of
the series are waiting, one supposes breathlessly, for the debut of Season 7 on
October 23rd. Then they will learn who is killed by Negan and his baseball bat.





(Advisory: I am
not a “zombie” fan or aficionado of the genre by any means. Out of desperation
to watch anything of interest on Netflix, I tried the first episodes of The Walking Dead and found them intriguing
because of the personal conflicts and character growth of many of the
characters. Nor am I enamored of the original and ongoing graphic comics
rendition of the series, written by Robert
Kirkman. The artwork in the comics is crude and without any redeeming value
whatsoever, and the storyline in the dialogue is banal, naturalistic, if not
repellant. Fortunately, the AMC TV series does not follow the graphic comics’
storyline. Not yet.)




Between the Negan fans and Hillary’s supporters, there's a shared
malevolence that thrives based on the "attraction" to Negan and what
Hillary's supporters are willing to sanction or evade concerning her life and
what she's done. They're willing to forgive her repeated lies,
her spectacular
failures, her blatant corruption,
and every
other sin in the book she's guilty
of committing. This does not include her email promise to end many the best
and most brutal of her critics, such as Breitbart
and Alex Jones. I’m sure she has a long list of other “enemies” she wants
to shaft.




The secret to Negan’s “charm,” of his glib boasting of his power, is
his “subject’s” willingness to submit to his will, of their need to have a
“leader” tell them what they should think and do, of the vacuum inside
themselves that needs to be filled with Negan (which is why they all call
themselves “Negan”) They are all nihilists to the core. In payment for being
their “leader,” they eagerly give him whatever he wants, without hesitation:
their property, their wives, everything, in shamelessly compliant dhimmitude.




The secret to Hillary’s alleged “charm” is that she has no “ideals.”
The attainment of unopposed power and the accumulation of even more unearned
wealth are her sole goals and motivations. Her supporters know this. For all the scandals and allegations of lying, of
corruption, and felony-class crimes that surround her political career and
personal life, all of which has been documented, they cannot help but know. The
information is out there.  Which means
that her supporters are valueless dhimmis
hoping she will take care of them while she destroys others’ values, and
continues Barack Obama’s campaign to destroy America.




Personally, I do not think there is such person as Hillary Rodham
Clinton. That person deflated years and years ago, perhaps in college, and is
now a shriveled, empty balloon. Long ago Ayn Rand, the novelist/philosopher,
coined a term for people who make others the fulcrum of their lives: social
metaphysicians, meaning that they consider others, and not themselves, as the
end-all and be-all of their values and lives. A joke went around about the
passing of such a person. It is said that on the cusp of death, one saw one’s
life pass before one’s eyes. An expiring social metaphysician, however, would
see everyone else’s life pass before
his eyes.




Bill Dedman, writing an excellent
piece about Clinton and Alinsky for NBC News in 2007, remarked about
Alinsky, and his description could just as well apply to Hillary (and Obama):
But “Alinsky was no mere showman. He was a sometimes brutal seeker of power for
others, schooling radicals with maxims such as ‘Pick the target, freeze it,
personalize it and polarize it.’"




Moreover, supporting Hillary allows her people in and out of her
campaign vortex their own malevolence and hatred onto her. She in turn acts as
a proxy or surrogate of their own valueless existence. She promises to achieve
what they are unable to. That way they are “filled” with a sense of efficacy
over and revenge on America.  




Why? For one thing, because rooting for Hillary spares them the effort
of having any values to fight for, just as surrendering one’s existence to the
whims of Negan, spares his gang of the necessity of thinking for themselves, of
having no values beyond the possibility of naked existence. Seeing others'
values destroyed by Obama and Hillary gives them some sense of efficacy or
sense of power. Evil is what “works.” They know that Negan and Hillary are
unadulterated evil, but they're comfortable with it. Not questioning the evil
allows them to “live,” as though living at the behest and leave of a monster is
a value to pursue and sustain. Hillary has been a hard-core “progressive” since
1969, when she finished her Wellesley graduation thesis praising the original
community organizer, Saul Alinsky, “There
is only the fight.”  She wrote in it,
"There is only the fight to recover what has been lost and found and lost
again and again." In truth, whatever she claims was “lost,” is what she
wants to lose again.




The power that Jeffrey Dean Morgan wields in The Walking Dead is basically the kind of power Hillary wishes to
wield over America and Americans. She wants us on our knees.




The similarities
between Negan and his Savior underlings, and Islam and Muslims, are also striking
to those paying attn enough to see the parallels and not afraid to point them
out. The Islamic Negan has been raiding, killing, and trashing Western
societies for decades. Note the latest raid in Brussels.
Often these Negan jihadists and invaders are invited into these societies for a
variety of political and economic reasons.  Daniel Greenfield as Sultan Knish wrote, and
warned, in 2010, in his column, “Immigration
Jihad,” and the incremental and inevitable Islamization of Austria:




Where once upon a time Islamic
armies had to lay siege, plant gunpowder charges and finally breach the walls
in massive costly charges-- today they can simply hop a plane. And so what
started out as a few newspaper vendors, factory workers and janitors, morphed
into a full blown cultural invasion complete with a network of Islamic schools
where students are taught that Islam is incompatible with democracy, that
Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, and where 8.5 percent of the teachers
surveyed said that it is understandable when violence is used to spread Islam.
The pattern however is not limited to Vienna, it exists worldwide…..




But like any takeover in which
the enemy is allowed inside the gates, it could not happen without the active
collaboration of those on the inside. And they have their various motivations.
Left of center politicians and parties often expect that Muslim immigrants will
serve as a reliable voting base for them, and they are correct about that—in the
short term. Meanwhile more middle of the road pols see rising population
figures as a regional net benefit and a shot at elevating their own political
importance, without examining the consequences down the road. Companies are
always on the lookout for cheap labor, and particularly in countries and areas
with a low birth rate, there are always some dirty jobs that need doing. The
jobs that Americans, Austrians, Frenchmen, Israelis and Norwegians don't want
to do. But those same jobs are also part of the critical infrastructure of a
local economy. And by capturing them, they capture the base processes by which
the system exists.




However, in
literature, while there is a limited amount of malevolence one can accept in
fiction; it is not, or should not be, an unlimited feature; a continual
presence of evil or of a malevolent character or theme can dull one’s brain and
make one hostile to any and all values.  In
a story, evil or malevolence must be defeated at some point and rendered
impotent. If it is not foiled and made powerless, but instead becomes a
continuous presence and theme in a story, then there is no point in
contemplating the story any further.




This is basically
the state of literature and art today. There is little respite from the
malaise. One finds relief where one can.




The Walking Dead from now on will dramatize what one could call “the primacy
of malevolence” or the primacy of evil.




That is what is
going to happen in The Walking Dead,
and when it does, off will go my screen.




Many strong
characters emerged over the six seasons, chief among them, at least from my
moral and esthetic tastes, Carol
Peletier (played by Melissa
McBride) and Daryl
Dixon (played by Norman
Reedus).




My anonymous correspondent about TWD had this to say:





Melissa McBride as Carol Peletier


Carol’s character
blossomed from a self-effacing housewife with a brute of a husband (who dies
early on) into an efficacious dreadnaught of a zombie fighter who finds values
to fight for outside of her formerly shrunken realm of domestic chores.




The character of
Daryl evolved from an ambiguous, cynical, loud-mouthed, back-country redneck to
one of moral certitude and honesty.




These were to two
most interesting characters in the series. But the producers are prepared to
kill them off as heroes. As a fellow The
Walking Dead watcher, who has decided never again to watch The Walking Dead,  remarked to me:




It’s a miserable
thing to watch a favorite character being destroyed by his or her creators.
I’ve seen that more than I care to and it appears that may be what is happening
to the great Carol Peletier. To watch a timid, abused woman grow into an
implacable protector of the good and then be brought down by guilt-inducing
religious mysticism is inexcusable. Shame on the TWD
writers if that is what they are doing….




Having
just watched "Twice as Far," and Carol's goodbye note to Tobin and
everyone else, if the scripters kill her off, I'm done with TWD. If they
somehow compromise or kill of Daryl, I'm double done with TWD. Carol's
"leaving" the story because she can't kill people who are trying to
kill her or the people she values, is a dead end, as far as I'm concerned. To
hell with the rosary, and the implied pacifism of Carol. Bad turn in the
series. We want heroes, not characters who are angst-ridden about defending
their values….




How they deal with
the pure evil of Negan is going to be a turning point. I think we can wave
Glenn goodbye because his character arc has pretty much hit cruise control and
Maggie is taking over as the family badass. That's going to be tough to watch,
and if it's going to be as dark as everyone's saying there has to be a lot more
of the same. Confronting that level of evil requires defining values precisely
and making an absolute commitment to defend them. If they waffle on that out of
fear of "becoming like Negan", then I'm through with them as well….


Norman Reedus as Daryl Dixon





My anonymous
correspondent also had this to say:




Morgan's [another character] rationalization
for his mystically rooted "philosophy" (Aikido), if I recall correctly,
is the notion that one must not kill anyone even if that person is in the act
of committing a crime that violates the rights of others to their own lives
because that miscreant "might" do something good or useful in the
future. ("Might be" therefore given priority over "is".)
Having lacked the resolve to kill his own "walking dead" wife, with
the result that she killed their son, Morgan suffered a psychotic break,
killing indiscriminately. He was "rescued" by Eastman, who had
damaged his own psyche by slowly starving to death (as opposed to cleanly
dispatching) an escaped felon who had murdered his family, and who now lived by
the mantra that "all life is precious", refusing to discriminate
between evil and good.




Morgan has been infecting the
formidable Carol with this attitude after she appeared to have suffered a kind
of "battle fatigue" following her spectacular defense of Alexandria
from a marauding gang calling themselves "Wolves". Daryl, who
originally joined the group as a defiant, self-doubting young
"redneck", has grown into a true, responsible, resolute leader and,
as Ed notes, should have become Carol's partner.



There has never been any reason to watch TWD except for the exceptional level
of characterization produced by its writers and its excellent cast. Watching
these characters overcome weaknesses, uncertainties, and earlier poor choices
to grow into true heroes has been an unexpected and exhilarating pleasure, and
if that is seriously and permanently undercut there is no longer a reason to
put up with an hour's worth of "walker chopping" every Sunday. We can
all recognize and maintain our own heroes in our own minds if given the proper
building blocks, and if so that can become a rewarding exercise on its own.
Some of us, like Ed, can do it so well they can produce such heroes and their
adventures on a professional level every couple of months! But that we have to
work so hard to find such inspiration is a painful reminder of the state of the
"popular culture".




What is the
difference between the Negans of fiction and the Negans of the real world? The
fiction will not kill you. The real ones can and will. As happened in Paris and
Brussels and New York City and dozens of other places over decades. There are
dozens of Koranic verses for violence
that the fictional Negans could just as well adopt, such as these verses from
the Koran:



A Muslim ranter who also wants your stuff.







47:4:
“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made
wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace
or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had
willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of
you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will
not send their works astray.”




2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you
come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is
more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they
should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the
recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is
All-forgiving,




Angela Merkel,
the French, the Swedes, the Danes, and other European countries welcomed the
hordes of barbarians into their countries because they believed that “all life
is precious.”




I left this comment on a Walking
Dead fan
site:



I have a bad feeling that Carol's "getting religion" is going to be
the death of her. I have no idea why the scripters decided to wussify her. She
and Daryl are the only two characters in the series I have almost unreserved
empathy for. In reality and in fiction, you can't defend the ones you love by
refusing to kill those who intend on killing them. It's like the Belgians'
"arrangement" with Islamic jihadists, who promised not to kill
anyone. You don't declare a detente with killers. You don't say, "All life
is precious" when the killers don't value life, not even their own lives.
You extinguish the killers when they show their faces, before they extinguish
you. You extinguish them before they take more lives you may not even know. That’s
the way of open warfare. I do not look forward to the debut of Negan. It
appears he's a thorough-going nihilist and evil to the core. When he shows up,
I'm quits with TWD. It seems that the scripters are pandering to viewers who
want Negan. I'm not one of them. TWD was a great dramatization of how men can
conduct themselves as emergency ethics. I don't need Negan. We already have the
kill-happy Islamists in the real world. Why would I want them in fiction,
unless they were defeated without reservation or apology?





Angela Merkel is probably thinking: "Is this person real?"


In the meantime, Hillary was asked on her campaign jet by her lapdog
“journalists” who was her
favorite world leader:




“Oh, let me think.
Look, I like a lot of the world leaders,” Clinton said, bursting into laughter
initially when asked about her favorite world leader during a gaggle with
reporters aboard her campaign plane in Chicago. “One of my favorites is Angela
Merkel because I think she’s been an extraordinary, strong leader during
difficult times in Europe, which has obvious implications for the rest of the
world and, most particularly, our country.”




If Europe is having “difficult times,” they can be laid on Merkel’s
doorstep. Merkel is evil from a “pragmatic” stance; she may or may not hate Germany
as a country of genuine Germans, but she is determined to see it Islamafied .
Hillary, however, like Obama, is moved by a basic malevolence and hatred of
America. She wants to see them beaten, destroyed, humbled, Americans on their
knees, its population replaced with hostile Muslims, ready to
be bashed by Islam’s or Hillary's baseball bat.  




So, which will it be in our future? “Negan Akbar!”? or will it be “Hillary Akbar!”?  In fiction, Negan should be dispatched with
extreme prejudice. Hillary should be dispatched in the election with extreme
prejudice as a wannabe Negan. They are simpatico. We don’t need them.

Review: The American Revolution and The Politics of Liberty

It’s interesting that Barack Obama’s newest press
secretary, Josh Earnest, characterized the conflict between ISIS and Obama’s
friendly treatment of ISIS (aka ISIL), a brutal, mass murdering terrorist
organization, as a “war of narratives.” In short, he denigrated any
opposition to ISIS, or any criticism of Obama’s overall pro-Islam policies, as
arbitrary say-so. Doubtless Earnest would also characterize the arguments between
Britain and the colonies in the 18th century as a “war of narratives.”




Pamela Engel, writing for Business
Insider, wrote on September 19th:




Josh Earnest, the White House press
secretary, told CNN on Monday morning that the US was in a "narrative
fight" with ISIS.




Earnest appeared on the network as
authorities in New York and New Jersey investigated bombs found throughout the
area over the weekend, including one that injured 29 people when it exploded on
Saturday night in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood.




Authorities on Monday morning seemed to be
changing their initial assessment that the bombs weren't connected to one
another and did not appear to be related to international terrorism.




"What I can tell you is that we are,
when it comes to ISIL, we are in a fight, a narrative fight with them, a
narrative battle," Earnest said, using an alternate name for the terrorist
group, which is also known as the Islamic State or Daesh. "And what ISIL
wants to do is they want to project that they are an organization that is
representing Islam in a fight, in a war against the West and a war against the
United States."




Earnest continued:
"That is a bankrupt, false narrative. It is a mythology. And we have made
progress in debunking that mythology."




It is a “bankrupt, false narrative” only in the
minds of Earnest and the rest of the Obama administration. Islam is without a
doubt at war with the West, but the West refuses to acknowledge that
declaration of war. It can’t bring itself to concede that Islam is more a
political ideology than it is a “religion.” The Obama meme is that Islam is
basically a “religion of peace” (continuing the George W. Bush line) that was “hijacked”
by murderous renegades. This is the actual “mythology” that should be
debunked.




But the Obama administration and the MSM and all
their minions will not be persuaded otherwise. It would scuttle their whole
approach to combating Islamic terrorism. They have a vested interest in the
Progressive/Left ideology that defines their world view. They are ideologues
trapped in a locked room in which they go round and round, chasing their own
tails.






Robert H. Webking, author of The
American Revolution and the Politics of Liberty, contradicts the received wisdom
that the revolutionaries were little more than ideologues who had no
philosophical or moral foundation on which to base their opposition to the
growing expansion of British power over the lives of the American colonists,
and so they declared their independence from Britain more from roiling emotion
than from principle. Webking is a professor of
political science at the University of Texas at El Paso.




Webking offers illuminating insights into the
writings and thinking of several prominent revolutionaries, all of them “intellectuals”:
James Otis, Patrick Henry, John Dickinson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Thomas
Jefferson. Their efforts contributed mightily to the arguments of colonial
churchmen and “activists and to the moral certitude of the “common man.”  




Webking, in his Preface, lays down his plan:




The subject of this book
is the political thought of the intellectual leaders of the American Revolution.
I seek to clarify the arguments about human beings and their governments made
by the most thoughtful and influential of the American revolutionaries to
explain their opposition to the policies of the British government during the
period immediately preceding the American war for independence….The Americans
explained their resistance to the British in principled terms….They claimed
that British actions were not merely unwise or impolitic but fundamentally
wrong and unjust….” (p. ix)







In his Introduction, Webking elaborates on his purpose:




For much of this century
[the 20th] it was the accepted opinion that an examination of the arguments
made by the American revolutionaries would yield no important knowledge. Scholarship
during the first half of this century was dominated by historians who
minimized, if not denigrated, the place of ideas in the genesis of the American
Revolution. Known collectively as the Progressives, these historians turned to
material interests, class structure, property holdings – in general, to
socioeconomic factors – to explain the revolutionaries’ behavior. They believed
that the revolutionaries to have been moved by what was in their pockets, not
by what was in their heads; or rather…they believed that what is in human
beings’ pockets controls what is in their heads.” (p. 1)




 Which is
more than just a Progressive state of mind; it is a Marxist state of mind, pure
and simple. Men’s minds are governed and fashioned by their “class structure”
and “economic circumstances,” not by their independent thoughts, says Marxism. They
cannot “think” or behave otherwise, or think outside the sealed Marxist
envelope. Among other chalk marks against Marxism, is its denial of human
volition. Marxism is a philosophy of determinism.




Webking exposes the Progressive determinist
premises of such prominent historians as Bernard Bailyn, author of one seminal
work, The
Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, 1967):




Insofar as Bailyn is
unclear as to what he means by the ideology of the Americans, he has left
unanswered a serious question about the causes and rationality, of the American
Revolution. There is, however, much evidence in his work to suggest the
question. And the evidence suggests that Bailyn’s contention is precisely this:
the revolutionary Americans were acting in irrational ways because they were
determined to do so by an ideological paranoia that gripped them and left them
incapable of both of perceiving political reality and of acting politically
like rational human beings.” (p. 7)




Webking notes:




Of course it would be
possible for men driven by ideology to attempt to appear rational and prudent
by using language they didn’t mean or by uttering prescriptions they never
genuinely followed. Still, the Declaration [of Independence] does suggest that
the leaders of the Revolution were moved more by rational calculation and less
by irrational ideology than Bailyn concludes. (p. 11)








Bust of Patrick Henry in the Virginia State





Capitol, Richmond, by
William F. Sievers



The Declaration of Independence is the culmination
and high point of Western Enlightenment thought about liberty and political
freedom. It is certainly more than mere “rational calculation.”




Webking emphasizes that the first great
intellectual leader of the Americans during the period preceding the Revolution
was James Otis of Massachusetts. Otis, in 1761, argued that the British “writs
of assistance,” which allowed customs officials to search “wherever and
whomever” they chose to search property to enforce British anti-smuggling
efforts. (p. 16). Webking quotes extensively from Otis’s pamphlet, The
Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (1764).




Otis closes his
introduction with two long quotations from [John] Locke’s Second Treatise of
Civil Government confirming the conclusion that the people have “a
supreme power to remove, or alter, the legislative when they find the
legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them.” (p. 23)  




Webking moves up the hierarchy of intellectual
leadership to Patrick Henry, John Dickinson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, and
Thomas Jefferson, with an explication of each leader’s contribution to the intellectual
and moral foundation of the Revolution. Henry, who was regarded in his time by
many of his contemporaries as a crude country bumpkin, was actually better read
in the classics and in the political science of the time than most would credit
him for. His extensive “self-education” allowed him to author the Virginia Resolves,
which denied Parliament the right to tax the colonists without their consent. In
May of 1765 he rose in the House of Burgesses, Virginia, and stunned the body
with his oratory and rational arguments against the Stamp Tax. Webking writes:






A copy of the Sievers bust of Henry,



at Red Hill, Virginia, Henry’s last home.







It is unfortunate that
Patrick Henry’s speech…to persuade its members to adopt the resolves was not
preserved. However, it was not the speech that actually passed the House of
Burgesses but the resolves as published in the papers [throughout the colonies]
that stirred resistance to the Stamp Act…(pp. 31-32)




In Book Four: Empire, of the Sparrowhawk
series, I dramatize Henry’s speech in the House introducing the resolves. I wrote
speech itself, based on the style of 18th century oratory. Please excuse the
hubris, but I think I captured Henry’s style and character. Here is Henry in
action, towards the end of his introduction of the resolves:




            Henry had removed his hat and handed it again to
Colonel Munford. He took a step away from his seat. “The honorable gentleman
there,” he said, pointing boldly to Peyton Randolph, “spoke now, not of the
rightness or wrongness of the resolve in question, but of ominous consequences,
should this House adopt it. I own that I am perplexed by his attention to what
the Crown can and may do, and by his neglect to speak to the propriety of the
resolve and the impropriety of this Stamp Act. Should he have examined for us
the basis of his fears?  Yes. But, he did
not. Perhaps he concluded that they were too terrible to articulate. So, I
shall examine them, for I believe that he and I share one well-founded
fear:  The power of the Crown to punish
us, to scatter us, to despoil us, for the temerity of asserting in no ambiguous
terms our liberty!  I fear
that power no less than he.  But, I say
that such a fear, of such a power, can move a man to one of two courses. He can
make a compact with that power, one of mutual accommodation, so that he
may live the balance of his years in the shadow of that power, ever-trembling
in soul-dulling funk lest that power rob him once again.

            “Or – he can rise up, and to that power say ‘No!’
to that power proclaim: ‘Liberty cannot, and will not, ever accommodate
tyranny!  I am wise to that Faustian
bargain, and will not barter piecemeal or in whole my liberty!’”

            Henry folded his arms and surveyed the rows of
stony-faced members across the floor. “Why are you gentlemen so fearful of that
word?” he demanded. “Why have not one of you dared pronounce it?  Is it because you believe that if it is not
spoken, or its fact or action in any form not acknowledged, it will not be what
it is? Well, I will speak it for you and for all this colony to
hear!”  His arms dropped, but the left
rose again, and he shouted, stabbing the air with a fist, “Tyranny! Tyranny!
Tyranny!”  The arm dropped again.
“There!  The horror is named!”

            Henry wandered back in the direction of his seat,
though his contemptuous glance did not leave the men on the opposition benches.
“You gentlemen, you have amassed vast, stately libraries from which you seem to
be reluctant to cull or retain much wisdom. Know that I, too, have books, and that
they are loose and dog-eared from my having read them, and I have profited from
that habit.”  His voice now rose to a
pitch that seemed to shatter the air. “History is rife with instances of
ambitious, grasping tyranny! Like many of you, I, too, have read that in the
past, the tyrants Tarquin and Julius Caesar each had his Brutus, Catline had
his Cicero and Cato, and, closer to our time, Charles had his Cromwell!  George the Third may – “

            The opposition benches exploded in outrage.
Burgesses shot up at the sound of the king’s name, released now from their dumb
silence, and found their argument. They cried to the Speaker, “Treason!”
“Treason!” “Enough! He speaks treason!” “Expel that man!”  “Silence that traitor!” “Stay his tongue!”
“Treason!”

            Speaker Robinson was also on his feet, shaking his
cane at Henry. “Treason, sir! Treason! I warn you, sir! Treason!”

            Henry, determined to finish his sentence, shouted
above the tumult, “ – may George the Third profit by their example!”         

            Henry stood defiantly, facing his gesturing
accusers, then raised a hand and whipped it through the air in a diagonal swath
that seemed to sweep them all away. “If this be treason, then make the most of
it!” he shouted. He stood for a moment more, then turned and strode back to his
seat. But, he did not sit, for he was not finished. (pp. 235-238, Book
Four: Empire. Sparrowhawk )




Webking describes in detail how each of the five
resolves that were passed and promulgated (not by Henry himself) throughout the
colonies was interconnected by unassailable logic to each of the others. (pp.
32-38) Patrick Henry “topped” his speech in the House of Burgesses in his “Give liberty or give
me death” speech at St. John’s Church in Richmond ten years later.



"Give me liberty, or give me death!"







John Adams, wrote Webking, more or less seconded
Henry’s Richmond speech:




In his attempts to
balance the evil of mob violence with the evil of despotism, Adams ultimately
makes his decision on the basis of the importance of liberty to human beings
and of the seriousness of the threat to liberty presented by the principle of
absolute parliamentary authority. He concludes that to allow a right so
valuable to human beings to be removed without a fight is a greater evil than
the right to fight. He says that in such a fight  the people, even if they lose, cannot be
unsuccessful: “because, even if they live, they can be but slaves, after an
unfortunate effort, and slaves they would have been, if they had not resisted. So
that nothing is lost. If they die, they cannot be said to lose, for death is
better than slavery. If they succeed, their gains are immense. They preserve
their liberties.” (p. 91, Italics mine.)








Robert Webking’s book is highly recommended to
anyone wanting to grasp how “intellectual” were the founders and the basic
principles on which they argued for liberty. Unlike today’s political
establishment, they did not argue as fatuous ideologues who cannot or refuse to
explain why Americans must become slaves or wards of the state or deferential
lackeys of the political elite (and I include in that condemnation the Left and
the Conservatives and the Neo-Conservatives). This is the tactic of the
enemies of freedom today. Their purpose is to de-legitimatize this country’s
founding principles. They can only snort, smirk, and sneer at those principles.




The American revolutionaries
were not engaged in a pathetic non-intellectual “war of narratives” with
their enemies. Webking ends his book with this observation:




The leaders of the American
Revolution argued, worked, and fought for peace, stability, and, most
important, for liberty. The study of their revolution is the study of the
rational pursuit of human liberty. (175)




The
American Revolution and the Politics of Liberty , by Robert H. Webking. LSU Press, 1989. 181 pages.

A Stew Pot of Notable News

You can tolerate a little rape, can't you? Start tolerance!

I could not pass this up. It is one
of the dumbest, most politically correct, and insulting pro-immigration ads
that has passed my desk. It
has appeared on German TV. Paul Joseph Watson reports on Infowars:




A television ad currently
airing in Germany invites blonde-haired, blue-eyed women to embrace “tolerance”
by wearing the Muslim hijab head dress.




The commercial begins with the text “Turkish women wear the
hijab,” as a veiled woman is seen with her back to the camera.




However, when she turns around it immediately becomes clear
that the woman is a white, blonde-haired German, before she states, “Me too!
It’s beautiful!”




“Enjoy difference – start tolerance,” states the woman.




The campaign is
funded by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
as well as German taxpayers, who are forced to obtain a state television
license or face prison time.




Instead of reversing its suicidal
immigration policy, it appears as though Germany is now encouraging its female
population to avoid the mass sex
assaults committed by Muslim migrants in numerous major cities by
submitting to Islam and covering themselves up.




The
outfit worn by the model is about as Sharia compliant as a Halloween gypsy
costume you might see at a college sorority party. Frankly, it is quite
fetching.  It is distinctly not Turkish or any style resembling
approved Islamic norms. The woman is not
wearing a hair-covering hijab. It is definitely an invitation to rape, as she
is decidedly “uncovered meat,” to judge by Sharia measures of “modesty.”




 If any woman appeared in Germany (or in
France, or in Sweden, or in  any Muslim conquered
or invaded Continental country) in that kind of outfit she would be immediately
surrounded by Muslim men, groped, and thrown to the ground and given the Lara
Logan Cairo treatment. The costume would be ripped from her body. Then she
could “enjoy the difference” and do her bit in “enjoying tolerance.” Right? If
she complained, she could be punished by Merkel’s tolerance police and accused
of “racism” or “Islamophobia.” “You did not start tolerance!” they’d shout.




You
have to ask yourself what possessed the minds of the producers of the ad to
turn out such a putrid piece of propaganda. Well, it could not have been
sanity. Speaking of Turkish dress, Turks in Germany are especially brutal as
they like to disfigure their European victims after the gang rapes. I’ve only
seen Turkish belly dancers so attired in movies.




Please
note that it is not Muslims or any of those Muslim male adult “refugees” who
are being asked to “start tolerance,” although they may, as criminals, “enjoy
the difference” in the act of sexual assault. It is German women who are being
urged to submit to Islam by voluntarily covering themselves up and staying out
of sight. I would be as welcome to an Obama or Hillary Clinton rally dressed as
Uncle Sam or sporting a “Make America Great Again” cap. A German woman would stand
a similar chance of non-molestation in any Muslim “no-go” neighborhood. I’d be
beaten up by #Never Trump morons and social justice warrior thugs.




On
another front, “refugee” champion George Clooney, who owns about a dozen
million-dollar mansions around the world, including at Lake Como, Italy, is
reluctant to allow migrants anywhere near that personal refuge from reality. As
with other members of the establishment “elite,” Clooney wishes to insulate himself
from the destructive consequences of his policies. Dealing with the rapes,
robberies, and other culturally “enriching” habits of savages is not for him,
just for the hoi polloi, otherwise
known as the “deplorables.” Hillary Clinton unintentionally handed Donald Trump
the perfect meme by calling his supporters “a basket case of deplorables.”


Tolerance for thee, but not for me.







Breitbart
reported on July 13th:




The migration
of hundreds of people from Arab nations, Africa, and Asia was triggered
following the Swiss government’s decision to close its southern
border with Italy.




Now, waiting for smugglers to lead them into northern Europe,
groups of migrants are camping out in tattered tents around the Lake
Como resort.




Flimsy dwellings, clothes and trash are scattered
around the Northern Italian town’s railway station, where dozens of new
families and refugees have flocked….




The migrant camp
is, oddly enough, just steps away from the front door of
immigration activists’ George and Amal Clooney’s multi-million
dollar lakeside mansion in Lake Como, according to the Daily Mail.




The couple was
recently pictured drinking tequila while watching fireworks on
a boat near the property alongside their close friend Bill Murray.




The Clooneys have
taken refuge from the Hollywood spotlight in their summer home in Italy for
years. Last year, Page Six reported that Clooney was mulling putting his Lake
Como villa on the market due to ever-present and intrusive paparazzi.




It is unclear if
the recent deluge of refugees pouring into town will have an affect on
Clooney’s decision to sell or not.




The
power couple has spent some time talking about the migrant crisis. The Clooneys met privately with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in
February and praised and thanked her for her leadership during the crisis….




George has
previously described Trump as a “xenophobic fascist” who wants to “ban Muslims from the
country.”




I
guess Clooney is hoping we don’t label him as a “xenophobic fascist,” as well, for
thinking about selling his Lake Como mansion to put some distance between him
and his adopted “children.” No, we won’t call him that. Instead, we’ll call him
a hypocritical pull-peddler and social justice warrior who is reluctant to rub
shoulders with the “refugees” or risk having Amal groped or worse by other
culture “enrichers.”  




Amal Clooney, the
British-Lebanese human rights attorney who married George in 2014, slammed Republican presumptive presidential nominee Donald
Trump this past April, saying his immigration stance and promise to build a
wall on the Mexican border do not represent “U.S. values.”




George and Amal know
as much about “U.S. values” as I do about phrenology or dialectical materialism.





We, the MSM, don't need no stinkin' objectivity!


That
also goes for the MSM. It has abandoned all pretense of reporting any news concerning
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and adopted a “what we say goes” philosophy of
slander and puffery. It may not pass as “truth,” but who’s to say what truth
is? It’s whatever we want it to be, and if you don’t believe it then you’re a
racist, xenophobic, anti-Islam pig. Never mind that Hillary is sodden with
corruption, chargeable felonious offenses, and treason, we, the MSM, believe
she knows all about “U.S. values” and we want this beast to sit in the White
House and guide this country to the oblivion it so richly deserves, to continue
the destruction implemented by Barack Obama. We stick our tongues out at
objectivity and truth.




Justin
Raimondo of the LA Times reported in his August 2nd article, “To
fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectiviity.”  He asks:




Why
are the rules of journalism being rewritten this election year?




This
transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and television
media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to separate
coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The media has
long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle journalists seem
to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic against what they see as a
major threat, and in playing this role they’ve lost the ability to assess
events rationally….




To
take a recent example: Trump said at a news conference that he hoped the
Russians — who are accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee’s
computers — would release the 30,000 emails previously erased by Clinton’s
staff. The DNC went ballistic, claiming that Trump had asked the Russians to
commit “espionage” against the United States. Aside from the fact that Trump
was obviously joking, Clinton claims those emails, which were on her
unauthorized server during her tenure as secretary of State, were about her
yoga lessons and personal notes to her husband — so how would revealing
them endanger “national security”? Yet the media reported this accusation uncritically.
A New York Times piece by Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker, ostensibly
reporting Trump’s contention that he spoke in jest, nonetheless averred that
“the Republican nominee basically urged Russia, an adversary, to conduct
cyber-espionage against a former secretary of state.” Would it be a stretch to
conclude from this description that the New York Times is a Trump adversary?




Polls
shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country,
and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread
slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire.
Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If
journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves
covering Trump’s inauguration.




Raimondo
concludes that his local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, “is  clearly in the tank for Hillary Clinton,” and
that can be said as well for the rest of the MSM.





Sheep that could not recite the Shahada, had its throat cut.


In
the meantime, Barack Obama wants us all to “enjoy the difference” and help Muslims
in America celebrate Eid
al-Adha, the “holiday” when Muslims butcher animals by slitting their
throats and letting them bleed to death in agony. It’s a religion, don’t you
see? It’s halal. It’s culturally “enriching.”





He
said, on September
12th, to help “commemorate” 9/11:




“We
are reminded of the millions of refugees around the globe who are spending this
sacred holiday separated from their families, unsure of their future, but still
hoping for a brighter tomorrow,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “And as a
nation, we remain committed to welcoming the stranger with empathy and an open
heart — from the refugee who flees war-torn lands to the immigrant who leaves
home in search of a better life.”




Eid al-Adha, also
known as the Festival of the Sacrifice, began Sunday night and ends Thursday
night.




I
wonder who really wrote that. Angela Merkel? George Clooney? Hillary Clinton?
Loretta Lynch? You see, there is no difference between halal butchery of animals and what ISIS and other Islamic Justice
Warriors have done to or wish to do to all Jews and infidels: slit their
throats and let them bleed to death. 




Remember how the stewardesses and pilots
of the 9/11 planes died with those boxcutters? That’s halal.

How to Celebrate Islamic Eid

A “festival” of slaughter, or sacrifice, halal style, not necessarily limited to
livestock by bleeding them to death, but is often practiced on infidels









Here are some
excerpts from The Black Stone, a detective novel set in 1930 San Francisco, in
which the hero, Cyrus Skeen, discovers the bizarre, brutal, and murderous
nature of Islam. The volume of information available to us today about Islam did
not exist in 1930. But what he was able to find caused him, his wife, Dilys,
and Mickey Kane, a top rank newspaper reporter, to make disbelieving, defamatory,
and wonderfully blasphemous remarks about Islam. Skeen is investigating the
horrendous murders of a young Jewish girl and a newspaper reporter who had
stolen the “Black Stone” of the Kaaba. He is pursued and murdered by members of
The Muslim Brotherhood. Skeen encounters an agent of the Brotherhood, and deals
with him in his typical no-nonsense style. He discovers another murder in his
own office building. Enjoy the excerpts.




Cover Illustration: 
Leader of Ikhwan Sultan bin bajad Al-Otaibi, who allied himself
and his tribe with the Sauds to conquer the Arabian Peninsula. The Sauds
did not wage war against the Ottomans, but sat out WWI sipping tea with
the British. The Sauds are erroneously depicted in David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia as following Lawrence to attack and slaughter a Turkish column.



___________________________________________________________________

 

"You go
ahead," said Skeen when they returned two hours later. They stood outside
their bedroom door. "I want to look up something. It's something Professor
Lerner mentioned. It won’t take a moment." 


"Don't be
long, Cyrus. You look tired in spite of your energy."

In his study, he
consulted his several sets of encyclopedias for information on Islam. None was
to be found in the Funk & Wagnall's,
nor in the Collier's. There was some
information on mosques and something called the Kaaba in Mecca in the twenty-volume
New International Encyclopedia. All
the articles he was able to find referred to Moslems as
"Mohammedans."

He was up until
two o'clock. He closed the last volume, yawned and stretched his arms. He had
acquired some basic information about Islam from the articles, but not nearly
enough to satisfy his appetite or his curiosity. He would be taking the roaster
back out tomorrow after all, to the library and some book shops. He switched
off the desk lamp and went to the bedroom…..




"Did you know,"
Skeen asked casually over breakfast the next morning, "that Mohammedans,
when they go on a pilgrimage to Mecca, must walk counter-clockwise around the
Kaaba seven times, and run between some hills looking for water, and perform a
schedule of other rituals, all designed to make them feel like silly, worthless
asses?"

 "Kaaba?" asked Dilys, who was paying
only half attention to her husband. "Sounds like a Greek dish, smothered
in the finest feta cheese sauce, and best served with ouzo." She was
reading the morning Observer-World. She had fixed a breakfast of scrambled
eggs, bacon, and toast. Skeen had just poured himself a second coffee and was
on his first cigarette of the day. He was reading from notes he had made last
night in his study and had passed the newspaper over to Dilys.

"The Kaaba,"
read Skeen, "is a cube-like structure smack in the middle of an open-air
mosque about the size of Kezar Stadium, about forty-four feet high and fifty in
length. Other scholars reverse the dimensions. It is built of granite on the
outside, marble on the inside. It sits on a spot, according to Mohammedan lore,
that Allah designated that Adam and Eve should build a temple, or an
altar." Skeen paused. "Of course, that story must have been concocted
after the Kaaba had been a pagan shrine for an undetermined number of centuries,
housing scores of other deities. Allah's own genealogical antecedents seem to
be rooted in a moon god of fecundity."

Dilys looked up
from the newspaper. She said, wearing an incredulous but amused frown,
"You're making that up."

Skeen chuckled.
"No, I'm not. It's all in the encyclopedia…"

Skeen smiled
wickedly. "Great material for a stand-up comedy monologue at the Fantasma
Theater." He went on. "The Kaaba is skirted by an enormous black silk
table cloth, with Koranic verses embroidered in gold, high enough out of reach
of light-fingered pilgrims." He paused. "Presumably, the roof is
bare, but somehow water-proofed. All in all, the Kaaba that exists today is
just one of several that have been built, destroyed, collapsed by floods,
damaged in war, redesigned, and gussied up ever since it probably began as a
stone shanty erected by heathens thousands of years ago, housing wart-nosed
witches they probably called vestal virgins, visited by decrepit old priests
who performed Masonic-like rites over bowls of foul-smelling incense."

Dilys chuckled.
"I can just picture it now. Thousands of the heathen votary doing a syncopated
conga around the place to a mad drum beat. Some cranky old priest on the roof with
a megaphone acts as a cheerleader, prompting them to shout en masse some obscene imprecation in Arabic, or whatever they spoke
back then."

"A very fine
parody, darling," said Skeen, "worthy of Cecil B. DeMille's
talents." He continued reading. "Today, observers write, about one
hundred thousand pilgrims perform the Hajj
annually."

Dilys looked up
from the newspaper again. "Hodge? As in hodge-podge?"

Skeen shrugged.
"I suppose so. Or perhaps it it's 'Hadge,' as in 'badge.' There was no
pronunciation guide in the encyclopedia." He frowned. "As for Mecca,
historians and cartographers aren’t even sure the place existed when the
alleged prophet, Mohammad, or Muhammad, is said to have graced the Kaaba with
his presence and laid the Black Stone. They think it might have been a
backwater town, a kind of camel stop, noted by Ptolemy, called Macoraba. Which,
in turn, raises a question mark over the existence of Mohammad himself. It's
all quite hilarious." Skeen put aside his notes. "And that's all I
was able to glean from my sources here." He finished his coffee.
"I'll be going downtown today to find more books on Islam. Care to come
along…?"

Skeen returned
early in the afternoon with a bag full of books on Islam he had purchased in
two Market Street bookshops. He repaired immediately to his study. Aside from three
recent books on current events in the Middle East, he had bought The Qur'an, by Mirza Abul Fazi, which
featured the text in Arabic and English, and The Holy Qur'an, by Maulana Muhammad Ali, which featured
annotations on the English text. The two other books were Whither Jerusalem? by Hortense Abigail Pickett, a traveler in the
Mideast who taught at Oxford University, about the Jewish-Arab conflicts
beginning in the late 19th century, and two books by H. St. J. B. Philby, The heart of Arabia: a record of travel and exploration, from 1922,
and Arabia of the Wahhabis.,
from 1928, both books published in London by Constable.

Dilys came into the study around midday and
espied the pile of books on Skeen's desk. "Well," she said, sitting
on the edge of the desk, "I guess I won’t be seeing much of you today…."

Skeen said, "I've been dipping in the Koran.
It's worse than the Bible in many respects. Utterly schizophrenic in
parts. One moment you're being urged to behave like St. Francis, and be kind to
all animals, even Jews and other infidels. The next it's inveighing against
Jews and other infidels, calling for their extermination. It's beginning to
read like a manual for a career in sadomasochism, authored apparently by a
person currently incarcerated in Sing Sing, and provided with a liberal and
lifetime supply of cannabis or some other hallucinatory pharmaceutical product.
You know, one of those serial killer convicts who finds religion."

Dilys said, "Surely you're
exaggerating."

Skeen shook his head. "Remember that my
sole encounters with Islam in the past were two of Mr. Winston Churchill's
books about his experiences in the Sudan and the Northern Frontier in which he
describes Moslems, or Mohammedans, or Muslims and their practices and
fanaticism, then my declining an invitation to join the Ancient Arabic Order of
the Noble Shrine last year – can you picture me wearing a red fez decorated
with mystical symbols? – "

Skeen obliged. "In the one Philby book I
discovered the Saudi Ikhwan – "

"The icky one?" asked Dilys, pausing
to scrutinize her husband's face for a moment.

"The Ikhwan," repeated Skeen,
spelling the term. "Plural for Moslem 'brothers.' Tribal allies of this
Saudi king. They're Wahhabists, sticklers for pure Islam."

Again, Dilys looked incredulous.
"Wahhabists? As in the Wabash River? Or should it be the Swanee?"

"No, not quite. I'm not sure of how to
pronounce it, either. Say! I think I'll use that phrase of yours the next time
anyone asks me about the Ikhwan."

"What phrase?"

"The icky ones."

Dilys shrugged. "I thought that was what
you said. You're welcome to it."

"According to Philby and Picket, they're
first-class throat cutters. Very similar to the Thugees of India." Skeen
chuckled. "That would be a sight. Allah versus Kali. More interesting than
both Dempsey-Tunney fights. Kali, you see, would have twice the punching power."


"Why?"

"She'd have four arms. She could deliver
a double sucker punch. I wouldn't put my money on Allah."

"I'm not a betting woman…."

Kane made a face.
"But, what's with this blasphemer stuff? What do you think that's all
about?"

Skeen took a deep
draught on his cigarette. "I have a hypothesis, but first, I put the
question to you: What kinds of people would resort to murder in the name of
their religion?"

Kane shrugged.
"Klansmen? Really wicked Bible Belters? Evil Evangelicals? Babbling
Baptists? Recidivist Revivalists?" He paused to wag a finger. "And it
wasn't just murder, Skeen. Dwyer was tortured while he was strapped to that
chair. There were cigarette burns and knife cuts all over his torso, and on his
face. There was a cigarette butt in one of his eye sockets." He paused
again. "And his hands had been cut off, too. I saw the police photos. Getz
saw them, too, but didn't mention any of that in his article, just the head in
the wash basin. He said Bauer, our editor-in-chief, said there was a limit to
describing murders for the public."

Kane finished his
sandwich last, and went for another coffee. When he returned, he asked Skeen,
"So, fill me in on these Mummers."

Skeen chuckled.
"Mohammedans. Or Moslems. You can look up all the variations at the
library." He lit a cigarette and briefly described Islam and its fundamental
tenets and rules.

Kane looked
incredulous, but he believed what Skeen had told him. "What a bunch of
crackers!" he said. "Do these guys also speak in tongues, and roll on
the ground, and foam at the mouth?"

"They
probably speak Arabic, for starters. At least, that's what the Koran is written in, although there's
evidence it was originally penned in Aramaic. They pray five times a day, on
their hands and knees, and bang their foreheads on the ground or floor. As for
foaming at the mouth, that seems to happen when they're on the warpath, or
beating their wives, or cutting men's throats."

"And this
Catawba in Mecca, these pilgrims run around it seven times and kiss something
called the Black Stone? Is that anything like the Blarney Stone? You kiss it
and you're given the gift of gab?"

Skeen chuckled
again. Kane was just as amusing as was Dilys. "It's the Kaaba, and I don’t
know of any purpose in kissing the Stone, other than to prove you have a rock
fetish, are not a little addled, and wish to be in the company of a multitude
of fools."

"Do you
think any of these Catawbans live here?"

Skeen shook his
head. "It's doubtful."

"That Hajj pilgrimage you described: It sounds
like one long college fraternity initiation." Kane sighed. "Well, I
think I'll read up on this gang, too. Library, here I come." He put out
his Lucky Strike. "But where can you take it from here? What can you do
about it? I mean, suppose it wasn't a genuine Catawban who killed the Lerner
girl and Dwyer, but someone who wants everyone to think it was…?"

The hallway on
the thirteenth floor was usually quiet. This evening, there were more visitors
than usual. The line of frosted glass doors identified an insurance office, a
dentist, a personal injury law office, and, at the very end, a literary agency.
Skeen was only acquainted with the tenants. He had never exchanged more than
ten words with any one of them.

 As he approached the elevators, three people
stepped into the cab. The elevator operator closed the doors immediately. A
woman came out of the law office, shouting "Hold it, please!" but she
was too late. She pressed a button and stood waiting. As Skeen approached, she
turned to look to her left. Hearing Skeen, she glanced at him and said,
"There's something wrong with that man down there. He must be having a
conniption fit."

Skeen sighed. It
was probably Mr. Schupe, whom he had left at the elevator to wait for a ride.
He must have been sicker than he realized.

He crooked his
head to look past the woman. He saw a man in a blue suit on his hands and knees
on a gray spread of cloth, bowing and muttering to himself, and performing
other supplicating motions with his hands. Then he bowed completely and banged
his head on the floor three times. His overcoat, shoes and socks lay to the
side of the cloth.

"What the
hell?" he thought at first. Then he realized what was happening and what
the man was doing. What startled him were the red streaks on the side of the
man's face he could see.

He raced back
down to his office, causing Clara to jump out of her chair. Dropping his
briefcase on her desk, he rushed to his office, quickly unlocked a desk drawer,
and took out a Colt revolver.

Checking the
cylinders and thumbing off the safety as he ran back out past an alarmed Clara,
he saw that the man was still performing his ritual. The woman at the elevator
frowned and spotted Skeen's revolver. She screamed.

The man at the
end of the hallway looked up to face Skeen, who had slowed to a quick walk, the
Colt at his side, ready.

The man's face
was a swarthy tan and pockmarked. He had black hair, a black moustache, and
black marble eyes. The eyes glared back at Skeen.

His face also
bore the scabs of many scratches, on the cheeks and neck and around the eyes,
evidence of recent wounds that were healing too slowly.

Skeen raised the
Colt. "Hands up, mister!"

Instead, the man
rose to his full height and spat on the floor with contempt. His face wrinkled
into one of unmistakable malice. He reached into his coat and drew out a
bloodstained dagger. Raising it high in the air, he cried, "Alluha Akbar!" and charged Skeen,
his bare feet slapping on the marble tile.

Skeen fired and
hit one of the man's left kneecap.

The man cried
once and instantly collapsed to the floor. But he raised himself to one knee
and tried to hobble towards Skeen, his dagger raised again over his head.

Skeen fired at
the man's dagger wrist. The wrist jerked back and the dagger flew out of his
hand and landed with a clatter in front of the insurance office door.

With his other
hand, the man clasped his injured wrist. But he still tried to move towards
Skeen, shouting indecipherable imprecations at the top of his lungs, staring up
at Skeen with indescribable hatred.

"Oh, be
quiet!" said Skeen, who thumbed on the safety, gripped the Colt by the
barrel, and pistol-whipped the man on his skull.

The man's eyes
closed and he fell unconscious, his forehead striking the tile in front of him.
White froth oozed from his lips….

It was a one-room
office. Skeen saw a desk, bookcases, and tables with piles of manuscripts. In
the rear were a coffee table and two plush armchairs on a modish carpet. Next
to a couch was a stand holding a coffee urn. Nothing seemed to have been
disturbed.

Judith Juliette
was a thin, fiftyish woman with black hair that was turning silver. She and
Skeen had exchanged the usual morning and evening greetings when they
encountered each other in the hallway or in the building lobby.

Now she lay on
the floor in back of her desk, her mouth open with a curled up sheet of paper clenched
between her teeth. She had apparently been gagged with a woolen scarf, which now
covered her eyes. Her throat had been cut, as well as her wrists, and her face
had been beaten to a pulp. Her blouse had been ripped open, and her bra
removed. Slashes and gashes were all that were left of her breasts and chest.
She had not been raped. Her skirt still covered her legs. Skeen bent and moved
the scarf from the woman's eyes. They had not been gouged out, but stared back
up at him in frozen agony. He gently closed them.

Skeen rose and
fought an urge to be sick.

Instead, he bent
and pulled the sheet of paper from the woman's mouth and opened it. In
primitive lower case letters, it read: ded
ju bitsh. alluha akber. It had been scrawled on the back of a blank memo. 

__________________________________________________________________






Marcus
Vipsanius Agrippa (64/62
BC – 12 BC), Roman statesman, general, and architect, Louvre, Paris; resembles
Cyrus Skeen, according to Dilys, his wife, who owns a copy of the bust.

A Halloween Special

They’ll come knocking on your door soon in various
costumes, some of them downright scary. They’re not kiddies, but full grown
adults, and if you don’t give them what they want, they’ll do worse than soap
your door or lather your car in shaving cream or “key” your car’s finish. They have
much, much worse in mind. They’ll seize your house, or burn it down with you in
it.





A Halloween mask that should be found in Walmart


You all recognize his decaying, decrepit visage,
don’t you? It’s the kind of face you’d encounter if you opened a coffin after
it had been sitting in the sun for two or three days. Or for a week. Of course,
it’s George
Soros, the man(?) who wants to see Israel reduced to ashes and overrun by
Palestinian Muslim savages, America reduced to the status of Sweden, France,
and Germany (also overrun by Muslim savages), America’s white population
whipped into chattel slavery, the global economy run by his statist,
mercantilist rules, who has proposed that the Internet
be closed to anyone who questions his Marxist agenda for an “open society”,
a man[?] whose “best years” of his life were when he was helping the Nazis
steal other Hungarian Jews’ property, who wants to remake the world in his own “Dorian
Gray” image. He is a creature whose blood must not be red, but rather greenish
black bile.




“If truth be known, I
carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood,”
fantasies which “I wanted to indulge … to the extent that I could afford. (George Soros, Underwriting Democracy,
p. 3)




Soros today recalls the
German occupation of Hungary as “probably the happiest years of my life.” (Michael
Lewis, “The Speculator,” New Republic (January 10-17, 1994)




“I realized [as a young
man] that it's money that makes the world go round,” says Soros, “so I might as
well make money.… But having made it, I could then indulge my social concerns.”
Invariably, those concerns center around a desire to change the world
generally—and America particularly—into something new, something consistent
with his vision of “social justice.” (Faisal Islam, “Rich Man, Wise Man” (Observer:
March 10, 2002)




This man(?) holds such a depth of malice for America
and the West that he’d rather see them  destroyed, and he has poured most of his ill-gotten
gains into ensuring that this comes about. His “Open Society” Foundation is surely
a glaring misnomer, for it advocates anything but an “open society,” but rather
a society closed to individualism, national sovereignty, and laissez faire.
About Soros’s Open
Society Foundation




The term “open society”
had been originally coined in 1932 by the French philosopher Henri Louis
Bergson, to describe societies whose moral codes were founded upon “universal”
principles seeking to enhance the welfare of all mankind—as opposed to “closed”
societies that placed self-interest above any concern for other nations and
cultures. [Philosopher Karl] Popper readily embraced this concept and expanded
upon it. In his view, the open society was a place that permitted its citizens
the right to criticize and change its institutions as they saw fit; he rejected
the imposed intellectual conformity, central planning, and historical
determinism of Marxist doctrine.




Soros’s “open society,” however, in all its
manifestations, would be a suffocating straightjacket of intellectual
conformity (political correctness), central planning (Soviet or Nazi or Obama style),
and the government-mob organized hounding of anyone who criticized or
threatened the statist status quo. (See the vitriolic opposition to Donald
Trump’s presidential candidacy by the intellectual class, the MSM, and the
#NeverTrump Republicans, for a taste of how “open” that kind of society can be.)






Soon she will be as ugly as her America-hating mother.


Huma
Abedin is The Muslim
Brotherhood’s “inside man” in American government and especially in Hillary
Clinton’s career in Washington. What would Huma Abedin look like without
undergoing a total Vanity
Fair make-over and being subjected to all of Hollywood’s cosmetic special
effects arts to make her presentable to the public? Nothing, I think, you would
want to wake up next to in the morning. Unless you were Hillary Clinton.
Hillary’s “confidante” and political gadfly has been a permanent presence in
the Clinton claque for years. She has no security clearance whatsoever, it
having been waived at the insistence of Clinton. See my article, “Huma Abedin”
on Rule of Reason from February 2016, “Huma
Abedin: Wicked Witch of Islam.”





Would like to be appointed to the Supreme Court


Barack Obama needs no introduction here. His record
of destruction of this country is “legend.”
Shall we name the ways: ObamaCare, unrestricted immigration of the cultural and
political enemies of this country to bolster the Democrats, a refusal to credit
Islam for the horrendous terrorist attacks world-wide and in this country, the
destruction of our military, the destruction of the coal industry, his numerous
crony capitalist scandals
and failure, and on and on. Quite a “legacy” of sticking it to the country
in the name of Saul Alinsky.





Cackle, cackle! Cough! Cough!


There is Hillary Clinton, another wicked witch,
another protégé of Alinsky, who promises to complete the nihilist work begun by
Obama. She can’t wait to get her hands on the country. Among her first
priorities as “president” will be the shutting
down or shackling of the Internet and anyone in it who objects to her
policies which would also complement her dedication to Sharia
law. She hosted an OIC
conference. This comports well with the Soros proposal to close the
Internet to all but supporters of the “closed society.”




Let us now turn to a bigger band of Halloween
tricksters and treaters: the MSM. While the new thug/killer of The
Walking Dead, Negan, has become the preferred bête noire of the
series.




I think I’ve figured
out why the MSM is smitten with Hillary; it’s the same reason why Negan’s
minions obey



Hillary's alter ego: Negan of The Walking Dead


him, although he’s armed with only a baseball bat and most of his
followers are armed with automatic weapons any one of which could cut him to
pieces. No one dares oppose him. It’s
because they like it that way, they can live with subservience. Freedom is
an anathema to them. They’d rather be told what to do, and why, they’d rather
be psychologically and physically subservient to a tyrant, even though they
have full knowledge of Hillary’s crimes, misdemeanors and treason. They’re
comfortable with it. Turning Negan away from your door and not giving him any
candy (which he’s already claimed as not yours anymore can earn you an instant
bashing of your head with his
baseball bat, questioning the ends and means and character of Hillary
Clinton will earn you a similar fate: the end of your career, your financial
ruin, banishment from journalism, perhaps even an untimely death
(there have been precedents
of the latter punishment).




Kowtowing to Negan
has the same mental roots as kowtowing to Hillary.





They're comfortable in the proximity of evil


Take a look at this
photo of the U.S. press adoring Hillary on her new campaign plane. Is this not
frightening? These are not only adults, but “journalists.” Do not these bobble
heads fit the psychological profile of cultists? Are they not in ecstatic
thrall to the very symbol of evil? The apotheosis
of evil and unmitigated corruption – because they “work,” because evil
seems to have more “efficacy” than good? Are they not on the same level as
Negan’s hundreds of gun-toting slaves? Perhaps it’s the prospect of being a new
“insider” or being appointed to Hillary’s cabinet. 




You really want to know what
drives anyone to sell his self-respect. As The Walking Dead’s fan base let its
fascination and obsessions be known to the producers – who have tailored the
new Seasons to these scary preferences – the MSM has let its preferences be
known. Hillary’s and her husband’s crimes roll off their psyches like water off
of a duck. They’re comfortable with it all; it saves them the trouble of moral
judgement and the necessity of having the least fealty to truth and reality.








“To hell with
Hillary’s crimes,” they all chortle. “We want to help make the world as she
envisions it. It’s not right to pass moral judgments on her.”




Happy Halloween!