Thursday, December 07, 2017

Extremism À la Carte



I composed this column in July 2012 but never posted it until now. It has been updated to refer to current events.

Geller reports facts and truths:
 Facts and Truths are labeled “extremism.”

In Joel Brinkley's July 20th SF Gate article, "Morsi's silence on extremism speaks volumes," the term extremists occurs five times, extremism once (in the title). Although he employs the term so many times, he does not know what it means. Aside from that paucity of understanding, his incredulity speaks volumes about his ignorance of the nature of the "Arab Spring."

Mohammed Morsi has been Egypt's president for less than a month, and already senior clerics in his country and around the Islamic world are loudly calling for the demolition of the pyramids, Egypt's most important tourist attraction and among the Seven Wonders of the World.

Saudi Sheikh Ali bin Said al-Rabi'i called them heinous "symbols of paganism." In recent days, similar calls have been echoing through Egypt and the region, including one from a Bahraini sheikh who urged Morsi to "destroy the pyramids and accomplish what the Amr bin al-As could not." He was referring to the Prophet Muhammud's companion who conquered Egypt in the seventh century but didn't have the technological wherewithal to accomplish the task.

Morsi is the Muslim Brotherhood's triumphant president of Egypt. The Brotherhood is dedicated to transforming the country into one governed by primitive, brutal, misogynist, barbaric Sharia law.

What's surprising is that Morsi has had nothing to say about this, not a word. Neither has he said anything about numerous "freelance" efforts to enforce other elements of Shariah law across Egypt, even though his new government hasn't said that's his plan.

Of course, what people like Brinkley do not grasp is that Morsi isn't an "extremist." He represents the essence of Islamic religious and political doctrine. He isn't going to question calls to destroy the pyramids or impose jizya on Copts. His "silence" is an implicit sanction of those ideas and worse. After all, he ran on the platform of "purifying" Egypt. What does Brinkley expect Morsi to say? "Oh, that's just extremist talk. Pay no attention to it. I'm really just a moderate."

Or, take Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who "purified" his country of private property, freedom of the press, and prosperity.

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has signaled a preference in the U.S. presidential campaign by comparing Mitt Romney to his own challenger.

Chavez, who is up for re-election a month before U.S. President Barack Obama, has in recent weeks expressed a clear preference for the man currently in the White House….

 “I believe the person to best explain the loser’s agenda isn’t Barack Obama but rather Romney, because it’s the extreme right-wing agenda that borders on the fascism of the United States,” Chavez told tens of thousands of supporters in the western city of Maracaibo.

“In the end, it’s the same project,” Chavez said, referring to Obama as “a good guy.” (Italics mine.)

Chavez uses that well-worn equivocation of extremism = right wing = fascism. He's less adept at the Alinsky-inspired spiel than is President Obama, but then most Western news agencies remain firmly in the camp of approving of democratically-elected dictators – it's the voice of the people, you see – so they will never stop agreeing with the Chavez's and Obama's of the world. They repeat the terms like hamsters going round and round in a drum. Right wing is also one of those contentless terms, but it connotes "extremism" and jackbooted fascism or Nazism. Like extremism, it is a purely emotive term, meaning "force used by the filthy rich against the poor."

But I think that extremism is one of the worst terms ever to be coined and over-used." It allows "moderates" and fence-sitters and pragmatists to evade knowledge of what our enemies are up to.  It also allows them to defraud the public of the true identity of its enemies.

“Extremism,” or just Islam?

The terms extremism and extremist date back to the 19th century, nearly always employed in a political context. The Oxford English Dictionary defines extremist  as: "One who is disposed to go to the extreme, or who holds extreme opinions." Extremism is defined as: "Tendency to be extreme; disposition to go to extremes." The earliest recorded instance of the term, according to the OED, was 1846.

Of course, extremism can also mean inventing the light bulb, as opposed to almost inventing it. Or shutting a door, as opposed to leaving it cracked open. Or asserting that one owns one's life, as opposed to conceding that one owns only eighty-five percent of it, the balance the property of the state or of the people or of Allah or God or the next door neighbor.

In her article, "'Extremism,' or The Art of Smearing," Ayn Rand discusses the role of such terms as isolationism, McCarthyism, and extremism. About extremism, she wrote:

….[M]ost people do not know the meaning of the word "extremism"; they merely sense it. They sense that something is being put over on them by some means which they cannot grasp. (p. 175)

Now consider the term "extremism." Its alleged meaning is: "Intolerance, hatred, racism, bigotry, crackpot theories, incitement to violence." Its real meaning is: "The advocacy of capitalism." (p. 176)

She notes further:

To begin with, "extremism" is a term which, standing by itself, has no meaning. The concept of "extreme" denotes a relation, a measurement, a degree. The dictionary [not identified] gives the following definitions: "Extreme, adj. – 1. Of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average. 2. Utmost or exceedingly great in degree."  It is obvious that the first question one has to ask, before using that term is: a degree – of what? (p. 177)

To answer: "Of anything!" and to proclaim that any extreme is evil because it is an extreme – to hold the degree of a characteristic, regardless of its nature, as evil – is an absurdity (any garbled Aristotelianism to the contrary notwithstanding). Measurements, as such, have no value-significance – and acquire it only from the nature of that which is being measured.

Are an extreme of health and an extreme of disease equally undesirable? Are extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity – both equally far removed "from the ordinary or average" – equally unworthy? Are extreme honesty and extreme dishonesty equally immoral? Are a man of extreme virtue and a man of extreme depravity equally evil?

That was written in 1964. Extremism no longer serves as the boogey man for capitalism. After nearly half a century, her analysis stands, because it delves into the nature of definitions, concepts, and anti-concepts, one of which is extremism. And, as usual, she exhibits her unique and unparalleled prescience with this observation:

Of all the "anti-concepts" polluting our cultural atmosphere, "extremism" is the most ambitious in scale and implications; it goes much beyond politics. (p. 177)

It is now 2012. Isolationism has fallen into the dustbin of discarded neologisms. In fact, the Left and liberals eschew isolationism, because America, in their eyes, has a moral obligation to be the moral policeman of the globe, selflessly expending lives and treasure in a never-ending campaign to bring "democracy" to hell-holes whose populations of cultural zombies have already "democratically" voted for stagnation and tribalism and tradition. America must do this, they claim, because it is the richest and most prosperous country in the world. It is obligated to expend its lives and treasure precisely because it is these things. Just as the rich, and the near-rich, and the middle class must divest their wealth, because they are those things. Or have it expropriated.

McCarthyism occasionally is trotted out by mentalities who have never otherwise heard of Joe McCarthy or who vaguely recall that he had something to do with anti-communism.  Those who employ the term – it sounds evil, and conspiratorial, so why not use it? –now do so reluctantly and cautiously because they don't wish to alert their readers that our government is now run by communists, a.k.a., community organizers.  They don’t want to risk someone asking, "But wait. Weren't Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh community organizers, too? And then there were Hitler, and Mussolini. Didn't they organize their communities, as well?"

There will be no intelligible response to such a query. No member of the White House press corps will venture to ask it. No journalist will even insinuate it in his copy, because he knows that politicians and bureaucrats now control the press, and that even the slightest allusion to the fact that dedicated communists and statists and totalitarians now run the government will be redacted, blue-penciled, and obliterated from his "news."

As Jeremy Peters reported on July 15th in The New York Times:

The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.

Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House — almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.

The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.

From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a “top Democrat” or a “Republican strategist.”

They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.

But modern journalists have nothing to learn from the past. William Shirer, journalist, war correspondent, and author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, returning to Germany in 1934, encountered the very same phenomenon:

… William Shirer found upon his arrival in Berlin in 1934 that “though the German press was heavily censored and rigidly controlled there was no censorship of [foreign journalists’] dispatches.” A colleague warned Shirer that “while you did not have to submit your copy for approval by the authorities before cabling it, you had to weigh carefully what you reported about Hitler and the Nazi regime. If he or his aides, especially Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the fanatical Nazi minister of propaganda and the watchdog of the foreign correspondents, found it unacceptable—out you went,” as had happened to Dorothy Thompson the day the Shirers had arrived in Berlin and to numerous others in the preceding months.

"Quote approval" is just a euphemism for censorship, which is an "extremist" term. Shirer minded it very much. "Mainstream" journalists don't seem to mind being subjected to it at all, as long as they can maintain access to politicians and bureaucrats whose statements must be examined and vetted before being reported to the public. Or not. Truth, facts, accountability, honesty – these are all now the new instances of "extremism."

And under the broad awning of extremism are the notions of "hate speech" and Islamophobia. But gag orders and redacting somehow are not instances of "extremism."

Extremism has had a notorious longevity, precisely because, standing by itself, it means nothing, but in the right context, it can mean anything. It is a term that ignites emotions, not thought. That is its chief asset: the emotional factor.

The term extremist now does double duty: it smears anyone or any movement that opposes big government, reckless spending, high taxes, and so on, and implies that moderates are calm, rational, unhysterical champions of a pragmatic approach to issues, and would someone please banish those Tea Party whackos from our civil discourse?  We only want to conserve the status quo, not see it smashed and dismantled for the benefit of the rich, and the near-rich, and the middle class. How can we work to build a perfect, progressive society when these people keep making noises about their vanishing liberty?

Liberty? Freedom of speech? Individual rights? These terms are all to be found in that damnable lexicon of extremism.

In regards to Islam, the term serves to distance or divorce "radical" Muslim politicians who advocate Sharia law, together with their violent underlings – the suicide bombers and other killers in the name of Allah – from a "moderate," peaceful Islam, which, even in its mildest form, is just a "moderate" form of totalitarianism. The pseudo-moderate defenders of Islam say, "Those suicide bombers and Hamas and Hezbollah and the Brotherhood, those extremists, they don't really represent Islam at its best" – but neglect to mention that there is no "best" about or in Islam, neither in its doctrines nor in its practice. Were it possible for the tens of thousands of victims of Islamic jihad – living or dead, in America and abroad – in a collective voice to attest to the "best" face of Islam, one would hear a resounding and eardrum-splitting merde!

A totalitarian ideology is what it is, and nothing else: a totalitarian ideology. It is socialism, which is only an overture to total controls. It is Islam, whose creeping Sharia can only lead to total controls. Secular totalitarianism requires individuals to defer to the state and perhaps give a Nazi or Communist salute as proof of his submission and loyalty. Islamic totalitarianism requires individuals to surrender their individuality and their minds and bow to Mecca as evidence of their submission and loyalty.

Extremism now not only serves as a semi-polite expletive with which to smear any defender of freedom, but also allows an enemy of freedom to point with dissembling insouciance to the guy who is actually practicing what the enemy preaches: indiscriminate violence, force, and destruction. 

It is the dedicated, authentic, identifiable, and definable enemies of freedom who are the true "extremists."  Slavery and death are their ultimate, most extreme ends.

Going to “extremes”?

It could mean anything you wish, as long as the definition is not rational or makes any sense.

Where’s the surge in anti-Muslim or anti-Islam hate? Where is the violence-ridden “backlash”? Are Islamophobic drones toppling minarets, dropping fire bombs on mosques, gunning down mobs of Somalis in the Mall of America in Minnesota? Are Aryan skinheads and corporate executives in their Abercrombie & Fitch suits storming mosques to disrupt Muslims?

Extremism means what? It means the same thing as that equally bogus term, “Radical Islam.” There is nothing “radical” about Islam. It could mean the opposite of “moderate” Islam. There is nothing “moderate” about Islam. Islam is Islam. You can study Islam yourself and come up with the same conclusion and agree with Turkey’s dictatorship.

Turkey's strongman, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, may have exhibited all possible features of political Islam since he came to power fifteen years ago, but at least he has been bold and honest about his understanding of Islamism: There is no moderate Islam, he recently said again.


Robert Mueller is an Alinsky
man investigating a mirage.
The UK’s Guardian in November ran a special report on “Islamophobic individuals and organizations, “Anti-Muslim online surges driven by fake accounts.” Employing the Saul Alinsky rule to bring down or delegitimize opponents, in this case, Pamela Geller: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Patrik Hermansson, researcher for Hope not Hate, said: “The growth among Twitter accounts and websites spreading anti-Muslim hate is alarming. In such a key area of public interest, it is an indication of increased interest in these views and, as each account or site grows, more people are exposed to deeply prejudiced anti-Muslim views.”

Geller, described by critics as a figurehead for Islamophobic organisations, produces the Geller Report, which doubled its viewers to more than two million people each month between July and October. The Gates of Vienna counter-jihadist blog, described by critics as a training manual for anti-Muslim paramilitaries, also doubled in visitors per month during the same period.

Extremism is conforming to Alinsky’s rule: to target a victim, freeze it, personalize the hate, and polarize the issue the victim has been dunked into, much as Special Counsel Robert Mueller is doing to Trump with his Russian collusion investigation.

Saturday, December 02, 2017

The SPLC’s Impoverished Mind



Carrie Nation, the “Saloon Smasher”
who heralded American Prohibition.
The SPLC wishes to herald the
obliteration of the First Amendment.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a kind of honorary member of the “Swamp,” and of the “Deep State.” Its board of directors is comprised of Progressive bobbleheads. While it purports to identify “hate speech” (see my recent column, “A Lexicon for Our Time,” for a discussion of the invalidity of the term hate speech) and “hate groups,” it is itself a promulgator of the former thus making it automatically a member of the latter.

“Hate speech is free speech that hurts people’s feelings.” Pat Condell agrees and describes what’s happening in Britain, which is the government’s totalitarian yen for Sharia. “Hate crime” depends on a subjective perception of what is said or written or done. It could be anything from a virulent defamation of Islam on a soapbox or the Internet, to the twirly shape of the top of a Burger King ice cream cone. If the twirl is “offensive” and resembles an Islamic symbol, you’re guilty of “hate speech” and, depending on a prosecutor’s fervor, you will be charged with a “hate crime.” Evidence of “hate speech” or a “hate crime” depends solely on someone’s “feelings” or claim of hurt feelings.

The SPLC has all the credibility of Robert Mueller, Special Counsel, whose mandate is to remove Donald Trump from office by hook, crook, or impeachment. His purpose is to find prosecutable dirt on Trump. However, he is sweeping madly for Russian dust bunnies in a spotless hospital operating room.

The SPLC is Antifa without hoods, masks, or bicycle locks. It has issued its own fatwas on any one or any organization it has subjectively deemed “hateful," that is, its primary target is to scuttle freedom of speech and to silence anyone’s freedom of speech, especially about Islam. It commits slander, libel, or smears in conjunction with a willing and copasetic Mainstream Media (MSM), which is lured by its often ludicrous designations to fresh meat like a “Walker” or zombie in The Walking Dead. (Walker: “The reanimated corpse of a human being that has regained limited function and mobility, as well as developed an insatiable hunger for flesh.” An apt description which fits the MSM, as well! Walkers, or the MSM, have demonstrated a hunger for humans, pigs, dogs, horses, and even tigers. Tigresses like Pamela Geller, who, though surrounded by the baying and growling MSM, will not be brought down. Read FATWA, and learn why not.)

The MSM has confirmed by consensus and by a kneejerk reference to the discredited SPLC that Geller, together with everyone else on its “anti-Muslim hit list is “anti-Muslim,” even though she has said numerous times that she is not “anti-Muslim.”

Like Frankenstein’s monster, the SPLC has become a malevolent agent for “change” and social
“transformation.”

By the late 1960s, the civil rights movement had ushered in the promise of racial equality as new federal laws and decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court ended Jim Crow segregation. But resistance was strong, and these laws had not yet brought the fundamental changes needed in the South….

The lawyers (Joe Levin and Martin Dees) formally incorporated the SPLC in 1971, and civil rights activist Julian Bond was named the first president. Dees and Levin began seeking nationwide support for their work. People from across the country responded with generosity, establishing a sound financial base for the new organization.

In the decades since its founding, the SPLC shut down some of the nation’s most violent white supremacist groups by winning crushing, multimillion-dollar jury verdicts on behalf of their victims. It dismantled vestiges of Jim Crow, reformed juvenile justice practices, shattered barriers to equality for women, children, the LGBT community and the disabled, protected low-wage immigrant workers from exploitation, and more….

In the 1980s, the SPLC began monitoring white supremacist activity amid a resurgence of the Klan and today its Intelligence Project is internationally known for tracking and exposing a wide variety of hate and extremist organizations throughout the United States.

Western Journalism revealed in September 2013 that:

The SPLC’s history is tarnished from its beginning. Its founder, lawyer Morris Dees, earned money in 1961 by doing legal work for the Ku Klux Klan. That information alone brings enough red flags to expose SPLC as an illegitimate and anti-American organization.
Dees founded the SPLC in 1971, after the civil rights battle had been won and there was no money left in representing KKK-like groups. He then jumped to the other side of the fence, masquerading as a “civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society.”

The Eye of the Tiger, also known as Pamela Geller.

The SPLC developed the practice of lumping legitimate organizations and individuals, such as Jihad Watch, Brigitte Gabriel and ACT, Pamela Geller,  and Steve Emerson’s IPT, among many others, with the most repellant and genuinely “hateful” organizations, such as the KKK and the Aryan Nation, as “hate groups.” This was and continues to be a strategy to defame and delegitimize Geller et al. The SPLC’s “Intelligence Project” is about as bizarrely skewed and lopsided as a Vegan smorgasbord featuring Halal meat. It rarely takes to task haters and enemies of freedom of speech such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, and merely slaps their wrists in contradistinction to its consistently vicious attacks on Geller, Spencer, Emerson and others, who warn about the totalitarian nature of Islam and its inroads in Western and especially American culture.

In December, all three companies, together with Microsoft, announced an ambitious plan to curb the online spread of extremism through the creation of a joint industry database of “content that promotes terrorism” — a move that has been widely interpreted to mean that the companies will focus on propaganda created by jihadist terrorist groups like the Islamic State. Yet when it comes to tackling right-wing extremist content and hate speech, the companies seem mysteriously helpless.

Twitter is probably the worst offender: Despite explicitly banning “accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories,” it has done remarkably little in the way of enforcement. In late November, it won applause from progressives when it strengthened reporting tools and banned numerous “alternative right” accounts that pumped out racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim and misogynistic content, most notably that of prominent white nationalist leader Richard Spencer [no relation to Robert; my brackets].

But in December, [Robert] Spencer’s account was back up, and it emerged that Twitter had only banned him for violating a policy that prohibits individuals from running multiple accounts with overlapping uses. (The social media platform has not restored the account of Milo Yiannopoulos, an Alt-Right “troll” whose vicious online attacks even Spencer acknowledged as “harassment.”) [I was not able to verify this, though given the SPLC’s penchant for manufacturing its own “fake news,” it is likely apocryphal.]

Is the SPLC “left” or “neutral”? Matt Barber on Townhall confirms that it is demonstrably so far left that heads would fall off the guillotine and roll onto Madame Defarge’s lap. In March 2010 he wrote in “Southern Poverty Law Center Officially Declared “Left-Wing Hate Group,

Though always left of center, the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) once had a reputation as a fairly objective civil rights group. Founded by direct-marketing millionaire Morris Dees and partner Joseph Levin Jr. in 1971, the SPLC made important and honorable contributions to many of the historic civil rights gains of the 20th Century. According to its own materials, the SPLC was “internationally known for tracking and exposing the activities of hate groups.”

Alas, “power corrupts,” as it goes, and the SPLC, having amassed tremendous power and wealth over the years, has regrettably become corrupt to its core. By way of an ever-escalating wave of “us-versus-them” money-grubbing schemes, Today’s SPLC has morphed into a far-left political activist outfit, famous for promoting a panoply of extreme liberal causes….

“The American Institute of Philanthropy gives the Center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors,” continued Silverstein. “Morris Dees doesn't need your financial support. The SPLC is already the wealthiest civil rights group in America, though [its fundraising literature] quite naturally omits that fact. … ‘Morris and I...shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money,’ recalls Dees’s business partner, a lawyer named Millard Fuller (not to be confused with Millard Farmer). ‘We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich.’”...

So, what happens when a dragon slayer – paid per dragon head – runs out of real dragons to slay? Well, he invents new ones, of course. Gotta keep those sprinklers-a-sprinklin.’ (According to Harper’s, “Dees bought a 200-acre estate appointed with tennis courts, a pool, and stables.” SPLC’s 2008 Form-990 shows net assets of over $219 million at the beginning of that year. Yup, there’s a spate to be made in the hate trade.)  

“The Ku Klux Klan, the SPLC’s most lucrative nemesis, has shrunk from 4 million members in the 1920s to an estimated 2,000 today [year 2000], as many as 10 percent of whom are thought to be FBI informants. But news of a declining Klan does not make for inclining donations to Morris Dees and Co., which is why the SPLC honors nearly every nationally covered ‘hate crime’ with direct-mail alarums full of nightmarish invocations of ‘armed Klan paramilitary forces’ and ‘violent neo-Nazi extremists…’”

But as the real dragons dry-up, new dragons emerge: “Tea Party” conservatives; Evangelical Christians; anti-abortion zealots and anti-gay bigots (read: pro-life and pro-family traditionalists); and, of course, gun-toting, knuckle-dragging 2nd Amendment rednecks. All bundled together – courtesy of the SPLC and Janet “the system worked” Napolitano – in that neat little pejorative package know as – Dun-Dun-Dun! – THE RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST! (You know, basically Middle America.)

A tableau envied by the SPLC
“Hate speech is free speech that hurts people’s feelings.” Pat Condell says about what’s
happening in Britain, which is the government’s totalitarian yen for Sharia. “Hate crime” depends on a subjective perception of what is said or written or done. It could be anything from a virulent defamation of Islam on a soapbox or the Internet, to the twirly shape of the top of a Burger King ice cream cone. If the twirl is “offensive” and resembles an Islamic symbol, you’re guilty of “hate speech” and, depending on a prosecutor’s fervor, you will be charged with a “hate crime.” Evidence of “hate speech” or a “hate crime” depends solely on someone’s “feelings” or claim of hurt feelings.

The SPLC has multi-million dollar accounts in the Bahamas, but George Soros felt it necessary to award it more funds to send to its Cayman Island accts. So,Don’t be misled by their name, SPLC is anything but poverty stricken as their coffers are overflowing with more than $350 million.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center, when it comes to anyone discussing the perils of Islam, constantly displays a poverty of the mind and a blatant hostility to freedom of speech and to truth. But, then, that is the hallmark of any leftist. Sympathetic to totalitarianism, the Left is in a natural alliance with Islam.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

A Lexicon for Our Time

A necessary read!

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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