Friday, December 29, 2017

Islam is Terrorist-Free

Islam is Terrorist-Free


She knows who you are.

So, here’s the OIC (The Organization of Islamic Conference or Islamic Cooperation), but even though every terrorist act has been committed with the sanction or encouragement of the OIC,  Congress has failed to designate as a terrorist organization; it refuses such a labeling. Is this a symptom of mental illness, or the cowardly squirmies?
Pamela  Geller  has the story here. The bill designating the OIC as a terrorist organization met defeat twice:
(It)… failed for two terms, 2015-16, and 2017-18….
2015: (H.R.3892) The House had 69 Republicans and 2 Democrats, totaling 71, while
(S.2230) the Senate had 7 Republicans but no Democrats; and
2017: (H.R.377) The House had 75 Republicans but no Democrats, while
(S.68) the Senate had 4 Republicans but no Democrats.
Did the bills get out of committees?
2015: The House’s Judiciary Committee voted in favor (17-10) as amended, but
no action in Senate Judiciary’s Foreign Relations Committee; and worse,
2017: No action in Judiciary committees of both the House or Senate.
Were there substantive changes? The bill (2017) deleted the findings of facts from the bill (2015).
(1) – (7) Multiple countries have declared the Society of the Muslim Brothers ( … “Muslim Brotherhood”) a terrorist organization or proscribed the group from operating in their countries: Syria; Russian Supreme Court; Egyptian court and government; Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Cabinet of the United Arab Emirates; and the previous two backed by the Foreign Minister of Bahrain.
Congress? No, Congressmen and Senators would rather not alienate their Muslim voting blocs. Besides, there is a “freedom of speech” issue, as though the OIC cared about “freedom of speech,” which it works to ban everywhere if it criticizes Islam (through its mouthpiece here, The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
I’m nuts. Every law enforcement authority says so.
Robert Spencer writes on Jihad Watch:
The word “Islamophobia” is not the same as anti-Muslim bigotry, which any reasonable person should oppose. “Islamophobia” is broader, and is analogous with Islamic blasphemy laws. Any criticism of Islam, any attack on Islamic supremacism and jihadist ambitions, renders one “Islamophobic.”
Wikipedia notes that:
The first recorded use of the term in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, was in 1923 in an article in The Journal of Theological Studies. The term entered into common usage with the publication of the Runnymede Trust's report in 1997. The term began to rise even more after the bombing of September 11th. Because radical Islam was a new topic, so was the hate towards Islam, which created the term "Islamaphobia."Kofi Annan asserted at a 2004 conference entitled "Confronting Islamophobia" that the word Islamophobia had to be coined in order to "take account of increasingly widespread bigotry".
Or, try this:
The term “Islamophobia” was invented and promoted in the early 1990s by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood. Former IIIT member Abdur-Rahman Muhammad -- who was with that organization when the word was formally created, and who has since rejected IIIT's ideology -- now reveals the original intent behind the concept of Islamophobia: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them….
Although the term was coined in the early 1990s, “Islamophobia” did not become the focus of an active Brotherhood campaign until after 9/11. Since that time, Islamist lobby organizations (including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR) and Muslim civil-rights activists have regularly accused the American people, American institutions, law-enforcement authorities, and the U.S. government of harboring a deep and potentially violent prejudice against Muslims. The accusers charge that as a result of this "Islamophobia," Muslims are disproportionately targeted by perpetrators of hate crimes and acts of discrimination.
Of course.  The OIC is an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The West, and especially America, it says, must be brought down by their “own miserable hands.” Even if we have to behead the blasphemers.
Written sometime in 1987 but not formally published until May 22, 1991, Akram's 18-page document listed the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded "organizations of our friends" that shared the common goal of dismantling American institutions and turning the U.S. into a Muslim nation. These "friends" were identified by Akram and the Brotherhood as groups that could help convince Muslims "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 ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."

Akram was well aware that in the U.S., it would be extremely difficult to promote Islam by means of terror attacks. Thus the “grand jihad” that he and his Brotherhood comrades envisioned was not a violent one involving bombings and shootings, but rather a stealth (or “soft”) jihad aiming to impose Islamic law (Sharia) over every region of the earth by incremental, non-confrontational means, such as working to “expand the observant Muslim base”; to “unify] and direct Muslims' efforts”; and to “present Islam as a civilization alternative.” At its heart, Akram's document details a plan to conquer and Islamize the United States – not as an ultimate objective, but merely as a stepping stone toward the larger goal of one day creating “the global Islamic state.”
One reader, Cathy Spears, asks the obvious: why is Islam called the "religion of peace"?
 Because what Islam means by “peace” is literally death. When Muslims no longer need to practice “fitna,” or the struggle to be faitful to Allah, then there will be “peace.”
In 2014, I published The Black Stone, set in February 1930, in San Francisco, in which the hero encounters agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, who are pursuing the New York reporter who stole the Black Stone from the Ka’aba in Mecca. The early Brotherhood is usually depicted as too
It isn’t his aunt’s recipe for apple strudel.
It’s a how-to formula for submission.
The OIC is a large bloc in the UN, with multiple entities in the various departments representing its interests. Its hands are in every conceivable committee and goal that would busy the parasites of the U.N.: “Palestine,” family affairs, UNESCO, science and the technology, education, and economics.  Among other things, it is invested in the suppression of gay rights, sports, and supposedly women’s rights.
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is an international organization founded in 1969, consisting of 57 member states, with a collective population of over 1.6 billion as of 2008. The organisation states that it is "the collective voice of the Muslim world" [the ummah]and works to "safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony".
On 25 September 1969, an Islamic Conference, a summit of representatives of 24 Muslim majority countries (most of the representatives being heads of state), was held in Rabat, Morocco. A resolution was passed stating that
"Muslim government would consult with a view to promoting among themselves close cooperation and mutual assistance in the economic, scientific, cultural and spiritual fields, inspired by the immortal teachings of Islam."
Six months later in March 1970, the First Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers was held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.[5] In 1972, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC, now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) was founded.
[M]any Muslims have aspired to a pan-Islamic institution that would serve the common political, economic, and social interests of the ummah (Muslim community) since the 19th century. In particular, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate after World War I left a vacuum.
In short, the OIC’s long-term goal is to revitalize the Caliphate with the purpose of taking over the world via the dhimmfication of (especially with the help of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the dictator of Turkey and would-be Caliph, Western politicians, the U.N., and the ceaseless proselytization thru other venues, chiefly the MSM. It wishes to criminalize “Islamophobia,” or, as Hillary Clinton once told the OIC, to “shame” it.  It supports BDS (boycott, divest, and sanction), or the ban of Israeli products. (Israel is its obsession; it cites the beginning of the OIC on a fire in a mosque that occurred in 1969, and automatically blamed it on the Jews.) It condemns terrorist acts, especially those committed by Muslims, because such actions embarrass the OIC and its agenda, and give it a “bad” press. It endorses the fantasy of a “two-state” solution to the “Palestine” problem; that is, a means to
Indefatigable
destroy Israel.
The OIC is dedicated to making the world, and especially America, submit to Islam and bringing “peace” to it. The Islamic brand of peace.

Saturday, December 23, 2017

The Mad House of Islam



Angela Merkle:
Now rules a nation of goat humpers.

This has been a year of utter madness – mostly Muslim madness, because the activists among Muslims are mad at us. I frankly am tired of it all, from Prime Minister Theresa May betraying Brexit and allowing the Islamization of Britain, to the numerous Christmas jihadi attacks denied by the authorities (my position: Islam inculcates mental illness), to the fact that a murderer is on the Minnespolis police force and is getting away with it (he’s a Somali, and we mustn’t offend the odiferous, unsightly Somali electorate by firing and trying him); to the car jihad in Melbourne, Australia injuring 14 Christmas shoppers leaving but the authorities to scratch their heads about a “motive,” to “nothing ever happens in Finland” where a Muslim raped his girlfriend and then poured gasoline over her and burned her alive; I get thoroughly tired of the dhimmization of the authorities who run in circles to deny that Islam has nothing to do with the constant attacks.
The ones who don’t make war on the West, have little or nothing to say.  They keep a low profile and hope that the activists don’t bother them or ask for more zakat. They just want to shop at Wal-Mart, avoid dogs and Van Camp’s Pork and Beans, and be left alone in peace. So what if the activists and jihadists kill a dozen or so infidels. They’re just infidels, the spawn of apes, pigs, and probably Jews. They’re just “doing their thing,” it has nothing to do with us. This is a land of immigrants, and we’re peaceful immigrants, determined to peacefully bend the country to our will; you will listen to the call to prayer, wear a hijab, don’t make faces at us, you will eat halal food, and leave us alone to use our cell phones.  Which we don’t pay for, you do. You owe us anyway.
You sluttish, whorish infidels, you will raise your skirts and let our husbands and cousins and young bearded children have at it and don’t complain or you’ll be arrested, hurt, or scarred; it’s nothing to us, they’re just letting off steam and feeling frustrated, this is such a tyrannical, bigoted country. And drowned or even murdered, that’s unfortunate, but this is a land of peaceful immigrants. Islam has nothing to do with it, even though we are Muslims.  So is Europe, but we’re glad we don’t live there.  Not with all those Africans, those a’bids coming to flood into Europe.
New victims of rape jihad

Virginia Hale at Breitbart reports that:
Brussels is opening legal pathways for migrants “who want to come” says European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker, declaring that Europe has a “clear need” for mass migration from Africa.
Claiming that the continent “will clearly need immigration in the coming decades”, he said EU nations “have to provide [Africans] who want to come, and are able to come, and whose situation makes it possible for them to come, with legal paths to get to Europe."
Why is anyone paying any attention to the UN’s vote to condemn the U.S. for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? The UN is so rife with corruption, dishonesty, and the loss of its credibility that it doesn’t deserve the coverage. The U.S. should quit it and give it the boot.
In the meantime, the refugee resettlement continues. Let’s look at the figures. Breitart reports (and I don’t trust U.S. government figures as they’re juggled to pull the wool over the public’s eyes):
American taxpayers will spend more than $4.1 billion in the 2017 budget to support the 519,018 refugees who have been resettled by the federal government in the United States since October 2009, according to a cost estimate by Breitbart News.
To put that very large number in context, $4.1 billion can buy 10,677 new homes for $384,000 each, which is the average price of a new home sold in the United States in December 2016. Or it could buy 170,124 new autos for $24,100 each, which is the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for a 2017 Chevrolet Malibu.  [paying NGOs and Christian “charities” to do it for the government; my note]

 In the meantime, Australia is becoming “resettled” by Muslim drones and the jihadists among them.  A jihadist who complained that he didn’t like the way Muslims are treated in the country.
"[The car] ran into the tram stop – there would've been so many people waiting for a tram there. I'm hoping this is an accident. I'm hoping this is an accident."
It is believed the car was travelling at about 60mph before colliding with shoppers.

Yet the police are still scratching their heads about a motivation, even though they’ve taken two Muslims into custody.
Acting police commissioner Shane Patton says that police believe the incident is more connected to drug and mental health issues than any national security concerns.

Yes, there is that old standby, “mental health” issues, and nothing to do with Islam. The police in many countries (France, Germany, Britain, Sweden, even the U.S.), would rather blame the wrong color socks rather than Islam, because to point to Islam would be “bigoted” (another old standby). The Brits especially would rather look the other way when tens of thousands of British girls are raped by Pakistani gangs of “groomers” than be accused of “bigotry,” and in fact persecute fire and ruin the lives of anyone in their ranks who identifies the perps. Islam, however, is not a “race,” but an ideology of tolitararianism, the muted voices of the “silent” Muslim majority notwithstanding.
Humor, if it mocks Muslms, is not allowed. Jeff Dunham would be immediately arrested for performing in Britain with his Muslim dummy and given the Tommy Robinson treatment: charged, harassed, and jailed, to protect the “feeling” of Muslims.

In that wonderful, “diverse” paradise of Germany, not only are rapes of German women, girls, and boys on the rise committed by “migrants,” but also of animals.
Bestiality brothels are spreading through Germany faster than ever thanks to a law that makes animal porn illegal but sex with animals legal, a livestock protection officer has warned.
Madeleine Martin told the Frankfurter Rundschau that current laws were not protecting animals from predatory zoophiles who are increasingly able to turn to bestiality as a 'lifestyle choice'.


It’s a perfect way to spread disease, especially when you decide to rape a European woman. What better way to commit genocide and replace out the white race. The EU has said that one of its goals is to make immigration “the new nom,” that is, to force indigenous populations to get used to brown and blacks in their company, even if they bring their savagery and “primitive customs” to practice on citizens to create a “new culture.”

Geller safe, for now
Some good news: Pamela Geller’s accused plotters to behead her were tried and given years of prison in a rare instance of Islam being meted justice.  Their sentences were less than were deserved, but they will be out of the way
Geller's ADFI ad is on Times Square
and circulation for a while.
And the beheader of Oklahoma City was sentenced and good riddance. 

In the meantime, the Oklahoma City beheader was sentenced.
However, one Muslim migrant tried to drown his European girl friend and nearly drowned in the process. Unfortunately, he was revived from near death. In another episode of “cultural enrichment,” a Muslim burned his girl friend alive. she did not have a chance to "talk about this."

However, one Muslim migrant tried to drown his European girl friend and nearly drowned in the process. Unfortunately, he was revived from near death. In another episode of “cultural enrichment,” a Muslim burned his girl friend alive. One thing that baffles me: why do so many Western women have Muslim boy friends in the first place? Are Western men little more than pajama men? Cultural Marxism is doing its best to emasculate them.

But rather recount all the recent instances of the Islamic “peace corps,” here is a more concise history of Islam, which should give you a grasp of what Islam is all about.f course, it starts in 628 with the battle of Khaybar, when Mohammad (blessings and bird droppings be upon him) when Mohammad’s forces conquered  the Jews and an Arabian oasis, beheaded all the men, raped all the women, and looted, looted, and looted.
634-644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.
635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer Damascus.
636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.
637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636).
638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.
638-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.
639-642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.
641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.
643-707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.
644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.
644-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.
656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son-in-law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.
656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad's wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's assassination. Ali's partisans win.
657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali
661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.
661-680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus
673-678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire
680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad's grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.
691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death.
705 Abd al-Malik restores Umayyad rule.
710-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.
711-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus.
719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governorship.
732 The Muslim Crusaders are stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance.
749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids.
756 Foundation of Umayyid emirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids.
762 Foundation of Baghdad
785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova
789 Rise of Idrisid emirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.
800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia.
807 Caliph Harun al-Rashid orders the destruction of non-Muslim prayer houses and of the Church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem.
809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy.
813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country.
831 Muslim Crusaders capture of Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy.
850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer.
855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)
837-901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France.
869-883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq
909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia.
928-969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969).
937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places.
937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked .
960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam
966 Anti-Christian riots in Jerusalem
969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo.
c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East.
973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids.
1003 First persecutions by al-Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed.
1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al-Hakim (see 937)
1012 Beginning of al-Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians
1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses.
1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus
1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed
1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (also known as Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.
1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate.
1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection
1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia.
1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine.
1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)
1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia.
1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana.
1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies.
1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca.
1090-1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands.
1094 Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970.
1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

Pope John Paul II warned that Europe will become Islamised this century.
 

That should be enough to convince you that Islam is not a “religion of peace,” unless wants to kill you.

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.