The “Lifestyle NAZIS” Want Your Vote in 2020

  • ‘He was a vegetarian. He never ate any meat during the entire time I was there,’ Woelk said of the Nazi leader. (DAILY MAIL)

As you read the following, keep in mind both this post detailing the size of government to do everything the 2020 Democrats want to do, which includes even our diet. Walter Williams called these people LIFESTYLE NAZI’S a long time ago

Lifestyle Nazis Update (02/16/2000)

Without any real evidence, Mrs. Obama has claimed that poor Americans are trapped in what she calls “food deserts,” where they must apparently trudge for miles outside of their dismal neighborhoods to buy a piece of fruit or some celery sticks. According to Mrs. Obama, a food desert is an inner city without a grocery store. She envisioned spending millions of federal dollars to plant grocery stores in those blighted areas so the “poor” won’t have to buy food at mini-marts.

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan actually attended Al Sharpton’s National Action Network annual convention in April 2012. There he told an absurd story about how Barack Obama, who attended Harvard University, knows what “it’s like to take a subway or a bus just to find a fresh piece of fruit in a grocery store.” No fruit at Harvard?

The story may be ridiculous, but Michelle Obama was dead serious about extorting $400 million from American taxpayers to solve the nonexistent problem of food deserts.

In reality there are no such things as food deserts. Researcher Roland Sturm at the Rand Corporation studied food desert claims and found that individuals in urban areas can get any kind of food they want within a couple of miles. He suggested we call these areas “food swamps,” rather than food deserts.

In addition, researcher Helen Lee at the Public Policy Institute in California found that in poor neighborhoods, citizens had twice as many fast-food restaurants and convenience stores as wealthier neighborhoods had, and more than three times as many corner stores. These areas had twice as many supermarkets and large-scale grocery stores as wealthier neighborhoods.

The truth was exactly the opposite of Mrs. Obama’s claim, but hers satisfied the mind-set of the utopians, who believe they alone could solve problems that never existed. Mrs. Obama later began a second crusade to force restaurants and schools to serve “healthy” foods, ban “junk food,” and bully restaurants into serving smaller portions.

Michelle Obama worked in 2010 to get Congress to pass a nutri­tion bill that would give the Department of Agriculture new powers to regulate school lunches. The bill was passed in December of that year, and now that the regulations have gone into effect, it is having a devastating impact on students and their angry parents.

Under Department of Agriculture edicts, cinnamon rolls and chili are banned. School bands and groups can’t sell candy bars for fund-raising. The government is now mandating portion sizes, including how many tomatoes must go into a salad!

Children are permitted to refuse three items on a tray, but not fruits and vegetables. Of course, the Food Police can’t yet force them to eat their veggies, but it’s not far-fetched to think they might someday. After all, the Obamas have rammed through legislation that initially demanded that nuns buy insurance coverage for contraception and preg­nancy. Fortunately the Supreme Court ended that requirement in 2014.

The new federal guidelines, thanks to Michelle Obama, now limit caloric intake to between 750 and 850 a day for schoolchildren. Teenagers require between 2,000 and 3,000 calories a day to be healthy and grow, and high school athletes need up to 5,000 calories per day. In short, the First Lady is responsible for malnourishing kids through the school lunch program.

In 2006 the three-term mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, decided to add the title “Food Police Chief’ to his list of duties in the Big Apple. That year, he banished trans fats from city restaurants and, in 2010, forced food manufacturers to alter their recipes to include less sodium. He failed, however, to remove salt shakers from the tables. Patrons who receive a dish of food at a New York restaurant that they deem not salty enough may still simply add salt.

In spring 2012 Bloomberg decided that New Yorkers had to be protected even more from themselves, so he issued an edict banning soft drinks larger than sixteen ounces. The ban applied to restaurants, movie theaters, stadiums, and arenas.

In August 2012 Bloomberg banned the distribution of baby formula in city hospitals unless it is medically necessary because he, a man, had decided that new mothers should always breast-feed regardless of their weight, professions, or other personal details. Free formula provided to mothers was also eliminated. Bloomberg determined that breast-feeding is best for children and that new mothers should not have a voice in the decision regardless of their circumstances. But Bloomberg did want women to have freedom of choice to kill their young before they are born. He was willing to give moms the option to abort their unborn babies, but not to feed formula to those who are living.

What is next for those like Obama and Bloomberg? Mandated cal­isthenics each morning at six? Currently the United States seems to be incubating and hatching utopian tyrants at an alarming rate.

Keeping in mind as well as my bullet-points regarding the supposedly “right wing” El Paso Shooter:

  • a basic universal income
  • universal healthcare
  • complain about cost of college
  • talk about how oil companies are polluting water
  • how we waste resources — trees for overuse of paper-towels and other wasteful indulgences
  • think corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly over-harvesting resources
  • corporations merely want illegal immigration for cheap labor
  • overpopulation is a real danger/threat that needs immediate dealing with

In an excellent post at CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION, we find some concerns about diet and environment similar to the 2020 Democrat candidates and Left leaning people:

Hitler was a vegetarian, as many of his close associates affirmed, particularly once WWII began, although some claim that he ate some meat occasionally.  He would tell dinner guests the graphic details of a slaughterhouse that he visited in order to shame his guests into not eating a “corpse.”  Hitler’s vegetarianism was not just a personal health-kick.  It was what he thought was necessary to make the master race healthier, but it was also integral to his nature-worshipping, Christianity rejecting worldview. Goebbels says,

We come back to religious questions again. The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed.  The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any serious basis.  They are totally unanswerable.  He has little regard for homo sapiens. Man should not feel so superior to animals.  He has no reason to.  Man believes that he alone has intelligence, a soul, and the power of speech.  Has not the animal these things? Just because we, with our dull senses, cannot recognise them, it does not prove that they are not there.

Hitler’s attachment to “the animal element” led him to be an opponent of vivisection, even though, according to Nazi press chief Otto Dietrich, he regarded humanitarianism as “a mixture of cowardice, stupidity and intellectual conceit.”

Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax created controversy when they published “Understanding Nazi Animal Protection and the Holocaust” in 1992.  In Sax’s later book, Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust, he relates:  “That the Nazis might be capable of humane legislation was such a disconcerting idea that even the detached, academic style of our paper could not make it acceptable to many people. The topic of animals, like the Holocaust itself, evokes passions of great intensity and confusion.”

Within months of gaining power, the Nazis passed laws regulating the slaughter of animals and banning vivisection, with some exceptions, in regions of Germany.  On the radio in August 1933 Hermann Göring announced an end to the “unbearable torture and suffering in animal experiments” and promised “to concentration camps those who still think that they can continue to treat animals as inanimate property.”  Animal protection efforts continued to be a prominent part of the Nazi agenda:

In 1934, the new government hosted an international conference on animal protection in Berlin. Over the speaker’s podium, surrounded by enormous swastikas, were the words “Entire epochs of love will be needed to repay animals for their value and service” (Meyer 1975). In1936 the German Society for Animal Psychology was founded, and in 1938 animal protection was accepted as a subject to be studied in German public schools and universities.”

The Nazis enthusiastically promoted all the causes of late twentieth-century American environmentalists:  Vegetarianism, organic farming, homeopathic medicine, animal rights laws, special protection of certain species of animals and plants, creating nature preserves to block development.  Peter Staudenmaier, in “Fascist Ecology: The ‘Green Wing’ of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents,” documents the extent of environmentalist legislation during the Nazi era:

The prominence of nature in the party’s philosophical background helped ensure that more radical initiatives often received a sympathetic hearing in the highest offices of the Nazi state. In the mid-thirties Todt and Seifert vigorously pushed for an all-encompassing Reich Law for the Protection of Mother Earth “in order to stem the steady loss of this irreplaceable basis of all life.” Seifert reports that all of the ministries were prepared to co-operate save one; only the minister of the economy opposed the bill because of its impact on mining….

With Hess’s enthusiastic backing, the “green wing” was able to achieve its most notable successes. As early as March 1933, a wide array of environmentalist legislation was approved and implemented at national, regional and local levels. These measures, which included reforestation programs, bills protecting animal and plant species, and preservationist decrees blocking industrial development, undoubtedly “ranked among the most progressive in the world at that time.” Planning ordinances were designed for the protection of wildlife habitat and at the same time demanded respect for the sacred German forest. The Nazi state also created the first nature preserves in Europe….


Along with Darré’s efforts toward re-agrarianization and support for organic agriculture, as well as Todt and Seifert’s attempts to institutionalize an environmentally sensitive land use planning and industrial policy, the major accomplishment of the Nazi ecologists was the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz of 1935. This completely unprecedented “nature protection law” not only established guidelines for safeguarding flora, fauna, and “natural monuments” across the Reich; it also restricted commercial access to remaining tracts of wilderness. In addition, the comprehensive ordinance “required all national, state and local officials to consult with Naturschutz authorities in a timely manner before undertaking any measures that would produce fundamental alterations in the countryside.” 

[….]

After Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, evolution became integrated into German environmentalism.  Staudenmaier writes:

In 1867 the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel coined the term ‘ecology’ and began to establish it as a scientific discipline dedicated to studying the interactions between organism and environment.  Haeckel was also the chief popularizer of Darwin and evolutionary theory for the German-speaking world, and developed a peculiar sort of social darwinist philosophy he called ‘monism.’ The German Monist League he founded combined scientifically based ecological holism with völkisch social views.  Haeckel believed in nordic racial superiority, strenuously opposed race mixing and enthusiastically supported racial eugenics. 

He held a naturalistic, yet Romantic, view of the oneness of nature, which included the oneness between society and nature.  This allowed the Nazi horror of science being used to treat human beings as lab rats.  Haeckel held that “civilization and the life of nations are governed by the same laws as prevail throughout nature and organic life.”  Haeckel thus helped lay the foundations on which National Socialism would be built.

A hippie-type youth movement began in the early 1900s in Germany.   Known as Wandervögel (‘wandering free spirits’), Staudenmaier recounts that this youth movement included such beliefs as neo-Romanticism, Eastern mysticism, and a “back-to-the-land emphasis [that] spurred a passionate sensitivity to the natural world and the damage it suffered.” Thousands of these youth later came to be aligned with the Nazi movement….

The following excerpt come from an entire Chapter I have HERE... but I narrowed it a bit:


MELANIE PHILIPPS


THE CONTINUUM OF FASCISM AND ENVIRONMENTALISM

Perhaps the most striking continuation of fascist ideas under the guise of left-wing progressive thinking lies in the modern environ-mental movement, with its desire to call a halt to dehumanizing modernity and return to an organic harmony with the natural world.

Veneration of nature and the corresponding belief that civilization corrupts man’s innate capacity for happiness and freedom go back to the eighteenth century and Jean Jacques Rousseau—who bridged the Enlightenment and the counter-Enlightenment, the world of reason and the world of emotion, movements of the left and the right. His idealizing of a primitive state of nature, along with a theory of human evolution through survival of the fittest that predated Darwin by a hundred years, became a galvanizing force in the nineteenth century among those who were sounding a retreat from modernity and reason, into the darkness of obscurantism and prejudice. And one of the principal routes they took was through the natural world.

In the mid nineteenth century, Darwinism was sowing the seeds of environmentalism, and in doing so it also fed into fascism. The critical figure in making this crossover was Ernst Haeckel, the most famous German Darwinist of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Haeckel believed that the theory of evolution would transform human life by dethroning man from the pinnacle of Creation. He and his followers saw Darwinism as far more than just a biological theory; it was the central ingredient of a new worldview that would challenge Christianity. His Darwinist views led him and his followers to espouse scientific racism, the belief that racial competition was a necessary part of the struggle for existence and—even though he opposed militarism—that the extermination of “inferior” races was a step toward progress.31

Haeckel also believed that mind and matter were united everywhere, and he ascribed psychic characteristics to single-celled organisms and even to inanimate matter.32 As the authoritative historian of the ecological movement Anna Bramwell relates, it was Haeckel who in 1867 coined the term “ecology” to denote a scientific discipline focusing on the web that links organisms with their environment.33 With his disciples Willibald Hentschel, Wilhelm Bolsche and Bruno Wille, Haeckel deeply influenced subsequent generations of environmentalists by binding the study of the natural world into a reactionary political framework.34

The twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Klages was firmly in the Haeckel mould. In 1913, he wrote an essay titled “Man and Earth” for a gathering of the Wandervogel or Free German Youth, the prewar movement that rejected materialism for excursions in more basic outdoor living. According to Peter Staudenmaier,

“Man and Earth” anticipated just about all of the themes of the contemporary ecology movement. It decried the accelerating extinction of species, disturbance of global ecosystemic balance, deforestation, destruction of aboriginal peoples and of wild habitats, urban sprawl, and the increasing alienation of people from nature. In emphatic terms it disparaged Christianity, capitalism, economic utilitarianism, hyperconsumption and the ideology of “progress:’ It even condemned the environmental destructiveness of rampant tourism and the slaughter of whales, and displayed a clear recognition of the planet as an ecological totality.35

A political reactionary and virulent antisemite, Klages was described as a “Volkish fanatic” and an “intellectual pacemaker for the Third Reich” who “paved the way for fascist philosophy in many important respects:’ Denouncing rational thought itself, he believed that the intellect was parasitical on life and that progress merely represented the gradual domination of intellect over life.36

During the interwar period, most ecological thinkers subscribed to this way of thinking. There was a particularly close association between ecologists and German nationalists, among whom a number subsequently became Nazis. Their thinking was that nature was the life force from which Germany had been cut off, ever since the days of the Roman Empire, by the alien Christian-Judaic civilization, the source of all the anti-life manifestations of urbanism.

In 1932, the proto-fascist intellectual Oswald Spengler wrote about the deadening effect of machine technology” on the natural world and humanity:

The mechanisation of the world has entered on a phase of highly dangerous over-extension…. In a few decades most of the great forest will have gone, to be turned into news-print, and climatic changes have been thereby set afoot which imperil the land-economy of whole populations. Innumerable animal species have been extinguished…. Whole races of humanity have been brought almost to vanishing point…. This machine technology will end the Faustian civilisation and one day will lie in fragments, forgotten—our railways and steamships as dead as the Roman Roads and the Chinese Wall.37

Such ecological fixations were further developed in German Nazism. According to Ernst Lehmann, a leading Nazi biologist, “separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations.”38 The Nazis thus fixated on organic food, personal health and animal welfare. Heinrich Himmler was a certified animal rights activist and an aggressive promoter of “natural healing”; Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, championed homeopathy and herbal remedies; Hitler wanted to turn the entire nation vegetarian as a response to the unhealthiness promoted by capitalism.39

There was top-level Nazi support for ecological ideas at both ministerial and administrative levels. Alwin Seifert, for example, was a motorway architect who specialized in “embedding motorways organically into the landscape.” Following Rudolf Steiner, he argued against land reclamation and drainage; said that “classical scientific farming” was a nineteenth-century practice unsuited to the new era and that artificial fertilizers, fodder and insecticides were poisonous; and called for an agricultural revolution towards “a more peasant-like, natural, simple” method of farming “independent of capital.” Himmler established experimental organic farms including one at Dachau that grew herbs for SS medicines; a complete list of homeopathic doctors in Germany was compiled for him; and antivivisection laws were passed on his insistence. As Anna Bramwell observes,

“SS training included a respect for animal life of near Buddhist proportions”40

They did not show such respect, of course, for the human race. Neither does the ecological movement, for which, echoing Malthus, the planet’s biggest problem is the people living on it. Even though our contemporary era has been forged in a determination that fascism must never rise again, certain viilkish ideas that were central to fascism—about the organic harmony of the earth, the elevation of animal “rights” and the denigration of humans as enemies of nature—are today presented as the acme of progressive thinking.

This astounding repackaging was accomplished during the 1970s. While Western politicians were committed to growth and consumer society was taking off, the dread of overpopulation also grew. It is probably no coincidence that the fear of global immiseration coincided with the end of empire and the West’s loss of control over the developing world. Reports by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos presented to the UN World Conference on Human Environment in 1972 preached imminent doom as a result of rising technological capacity and argued that man had to replace family or national loyalties with allegiance to the planet. The Club of Rome, which was founded also in 1972, prophesied imminent global catastrophe unless resource use was curbed, a view that the oil shock of 1973 served to validate and embed in Western consciousness.

If ecology was to take off, however, it had to shed altogether its unhappy links with fascism, racial extermination and ultranationalism. It took a number of different opportunities to do so. During the 1960s in both Europe and North America it identified itself with radical left-wing causes, latching onto “alternative” politics such as feminism and, in Britain, Celtic nationalism. In the 1970s, the “small is beautiful” idea of the anti-Nazi emigre Fritz Schumacher took hold.41

In 1971, Schumacher became president of the Soil Association in Britain, which was critical in both promoting deeply ecological ideas and laundering them as fashionably progressive. Rudolf Steiner was the arch-proponent of “biodynarnic” agriculture, which eschewed artificial fertilizers and promoted self-sufficient farms as preserving the spirit of the soil. When the Soil Association was created in 1946, it embodied this “organic farming’ ideal. But Steiner was the also the founder of a movement called anthroposophy, which was based on the development of a nonsensory or so-called supersensory consciousness. It held that early stages of human evolution possessed an intuitive perception of reality, including the power of clairvoyance, which had been lost under the increasing reliance on intellect. It promoted the belief that the human being passed between stages of existence, incarnating into an earthly body, living on earth, leaving the body behind and entering into the spiritual domain before returning to be born again into a new life on earth.42

These essentially pagan and irrational ideas were, as we shall see later, intrinsic to ecological thinking. But they were also to surface in a remarkable new alliance between neo-Nazi doctrines and radical left-wing, anticapitalist and New Age ideas. Towards the end of the 1960s, finding itself criticized for espousing reactionary views, the Soil Association turned sharply leftwards and developed an egalitarian socioeconomic perspective instead. It published articles admiring Mao’s communes in China and suggested that plots of land a few acres in size should be distributed similarly among the British population.43

In Germany, the green movement that emerged from the student protests of 1968 bitterly attacked the “biodynamic” organic farmers for their perceived authoritarianism and social Darwinist beliefs. Thus German Greens of the 1970s, with a considerable communist element, had less to do with ecology than with participatory democracy, egalitarianism and women’s rights.44

Among radicals in America, there was a split after 1968 between those favoring organized terrorism and alternative groups. Young radicals in the latter camp, galvanized by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1966), claimed that multinational capitalism was responsible for pollution. Environmental concerns offered up a radicalism for the middle classes. The anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin wrote of a utopian future in communes when scarcity would disappear and man would return to living close to the land. American feminists in particular took up ecology, drawing upon its foundational belief in a primitive matriarchal paradise to support their attacks on patriarchal oppression.

The result of all this ferment was that the green movement became not just radical but radically incoherent. It became the umbrella for a range of alternative, anti-Western causes and lifestyles. But its constant factor was a strongly primitive, pagan and irrational element. As Anna Bramwell caustically comments, “The new paganism, often based on Atlantean theories of a lost golden age and theories of cultural diffusion via a vanished super race, is open to all and especially attractive to the semi-educated, semi-rational product of today’s de-naturing educational process, stripped of religion, reason, tradition and even history.”45

Despite a veneer of fashionable progressivism, the fact is that environmentalism’s fundamental opposition to modernity propels it straight into the arms of neofascism. For just like their precursors in the twenties and thirties, today’s ultranationalist and neo-Nazi groups chime with many of the ideas that also march under the green banner. In France, Italy and Belgium, the Nouvelle Droite combined Hellenic paganism with support for the dissolution of national boundaries; it was anticapitalist and anti-American, adopting sociobiological arguments to stress the uniqueness of each race and culture within national boundaries and to oppose colonization and empire. In Germany, the radical-right journal Mat was pacifist and ecological.46 Such groups met the left on the common ground of New Age paganism, expressed in particular through the religions and cultures of the East.

From the 1970s onwards, neofascist extremists began to repackage the old ideology of Aryan racism, elitism and force in new cultic guises involving esotericism and Eastern religions. Some groups mixed racism with Nordic pagan religions, celebrating magical signs of ancestral heritage and mystical blood loyalty. In the United States, Britain, Germany and Scandinavia, racial pagan groups today ponder runes, magic and the sinister mythology of the Norse gods Wotan, Loki and Fenriswolf. Like the Nazis, these groups resort to the pagan world to express their antipathy to any extraneous organisms that disturb their idea of racial or national purity. As Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke writes, “The racial interpretation of these esoteric ideas, cosmology and prophecies betrays these groups’ overwhelming anxiety about the future of white identity in multiracial societies.”47

In Italy, Julius Evola, who inspired a whole generation of postwar neofascists, embraced Hinduism and Tantrism, a radical Hindu cult focusing on women, goddesses and sexual energy, and revolving around the notion of breaking all bonds. By means of taboo and spiritually dangerous practices such as orgies and intoxication, the superior adept can raise his consciousness to supreme levels of unity with the divine female power of “Shakti;’ which animates and inspires the whole universe, thereby acquiring exceptional knowledge and power. Tantrism’s secrecy and elitism, writes Goodrick-Clarke, negates the modern world of rationalism and democracy.48

In Chile, the diplomat, explorer and poet Miguel Serrano adopted the mystical doctrines of Savitri Devi, the French-born Nazi-Hindu prophetess who described Hitler as an avatar of Vishnu and likened Nazism to the cult of Shiva because of its emphasis on destruction and new creation. Tracing semidivine Aryans to extraterrestrial origins, Serrano recommended kundalini yoga to repurify “mystical Aryan blood” to its former divine light. He also proposed a gnostic war against the Jews, promoted the idea of the “Black Sun” as a mystical source of energy capable of regenerating the Aryan race, and believed that the Nazis built UFOs in Antarctica….

FOOTNOTES

[31] Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, pp. 186-87.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Anna Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century: A History (Yale University Press, 1989), p. 39.

[34] Peter Staudenmaier, “Fascist Ecology: The `Green Wing’ of the Nazi Party and Its Historical Antecedents;’ in Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience, by Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier (AK Press,1995)… [see new edition]

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics (Allen & Unwin, 1932).

[38] Staudenmaier, “Fascist Ecology.”

[39] Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, pp. 385-87.

[40] Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century, p. 204.

[41] Ibid., p. 213.

[42] Robert A. McDermott, “Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy,” in Modern Esoteric Spirituality, ed. Antoine Faivre and Jacob Needleman (Crossroad Publishing, 1995).

[43] Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century, p. 218.

[44] Ibid., pp. 219-25.

[45] Ibid., p. 232.

[46] Ibid., p. 232.

[47] Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity (New York University Press, 2003), pp. 5-6.

[48] Ibid., p. 54.


WILLIAM J. MURRAY


REGULATORY UTOPIANS

CASS SUNSTEIN

Cass Sunstein was the Edward Mandell House/Rexford Tugwell char­acter in the Obama administration. He was appointed to run Obama’s White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in 2009. He left the administration in 2011 to return to Harvard, where he continues to brainwash his students into supporting his anti-Constitutional and totalitarian beliefs.

Sunstein is the consummate Progressive and utopian tyrant. He believes that the Constitution is a “living document”—code words for liberal judges having the power to interpret the Constitution and law in general to support the latest leftist political agenda.

Writing in The Partial Constitution (Harvard University Press, 1993), Sunstein pushed the idea of a “First Amendment New Deal,” which would create a government panel of experts to ensure a “diversity of views” on the airwaves. Imagine a panel of presidential appointees determining what constitutes diversity on TV and radio.

Sunstein also believes hunting should be banned, that animals should have the same rights as humans, and that lawyers should be empowered to file lawsuits on behalf of animals. Despite being against the killing of rabbits or deer, he is, like all Progressives, perfectly agreeable to destroying unborn humans at any stage of pregnancy.

In 2004 he published A Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever. In it, he proposed a series of “rights” for individuals that would inevitably result in greatly expanding the power of the federal government over every aspect of our lives.

According to Sunstein, “Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government inter­vention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.”

Sunstein’s views sound like those of Benito Mussolini or Philip Dru in the utopian novel.

JOHN HOLDREN

President Obama appointed John Holdren to run the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and to cochair the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Holdren sounds like a very dangerous tyrant in his written state­ments on population control and other issues. In 1977 he coauthored a book with Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich, titled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment (W. H. Freeman, 1978), which seriously pro­posed, among other things, that women should be forced to abort their children; that populations should be sterilized by dropping drugs into the water supply; that people who “contribute to social deterioration” should be forcibly sterilized or forced to abort their children; that a “Planetary Regime” should assume total control of the global economy; and that an international police force should be used to dictate how all of us are to live our lives.

Because this was a White House office, the Senate did not have the authority to stop the appointment; however, some senators should have come forward and pointed out on the record that Holdren’s suggestions were very much the same as those of fascist utopian Adolf Hitler.

Holdren openly condemns the free enterprise system as the enemy of the people and a threat to the environment. Writing in his 1973 book, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, also cowritten with the Ehrlichs, he called for a “massive campaign . . . to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations.

According to Holdren, the “mad czar” of science and technology:

De-development means bringing our economic system (especially pat­terns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation…. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.

Elsewhere, he wrote, “By de-development, we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.”

The Soviet Union successfully did away with “planned obsoles­cence” by eliminating innovation. As no new cars were designed for decades, vehicles like the unsafe Lada lived on unchanged for decades. Like many Progressives who believe jobs should be “preserved” as a right, Holdren does not understand that artificially preserving out­dated industries and nonproductive jobs results in a failure for new industries to come into existence.

  • William J. Murray, Utopian Road to Hell: Enslaving America and the World With Central Planning (Washington, D.C.: WND Books, 2016), 165-171.

The MSM and #NeverTrumpers Join Forces in “Wooden” Literalism

A friend linked to a WASHINGTON POST article after I posted the above on my Facebook with this statement:

  • “Trump quoted the mayor COMPLETELY out of context. Read this:”

(I – RPT – post a section from his link for clarity):

…But then he decided to slam the mayor of the city attacked, who had calmly warned his fellow Londoners: “Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. There’s no reason to be alarmed.” Trump took the second part out of context and responded viciously, “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’” (The mayor, of course, was telling them not to be alarmed by the heightened police presence.) Trump was not done, however, inanely tweeting, “Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!”…

(He also linked to FOX NEWS’ story on it.) HOTAIR deconstructs Mayor Khan better:

Sadiq Khan, the mayor, didn’t say there’s no reason to be alarmed about terrorism. What he said: “Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed — one of the things the police and all of us need to do is make sure we’re as safe as we possibly can be.” In other words, there’s no reason to be alarmed that another attack is imminent. The police will be out in the streets as a precautionary measure, not because there’s intelligence suggesting more bombs are about to go off.

I will now post our conversation to help the conservative leave the “woodeness” of the Left, whom complains about the Right not considering grey areas of life — but what Prager rightly notes the “black n white” truly exists on the Left (and so, in the media). BTW, this is a fellow compatriot. These are honest and cordial disagreements between us GOP’ers. I consider this an in-house debate about Trump, like the age of the earth or other theological matters. I am not posting this here to belittle my friend but merely to note the closeness of the #NeverTrumpers to the MSM’s understanding of the view they have of all Republicans since Nixon. They [the #NeverTrumpers] are just now lining up with that same rhetoric from the Left because of their dislike for Trump. You see, I am not an analyse… I am a conservative. I see the larger fight for the soul of America as between Left and Right. I want the right to win in politics… and I do so by defending Republicans from the dopiness of the Media [Left].

These two totally variant views on reality are at their core, two completely different worldviews/philosophies. My job as a polemicist is to make sure we win in arguments where truth is concerned and the ethos of our Founding is defended in some way.

The Trump Derangement Syndrome that infects the #NeverTrumpers is hindering their view that they are siding with the MSM in their false view and inability to pick up what Trump was laying down… specifically in that Tweet. I have to admit as someone who is imperfect, I bet I practiced some of this with Obama. But these people are not seeing the forest beyond a few trees…

…to wit I hope my responses shed a bit of light on this:

ME –

So a mayor who has ignored terrorism, in fact tripling since he’s been mayor, himself having ties to extremism, a police force that ran away from the attackers, and a suspect who master mined the attacks who was warned of 2-years ago, and the populace is not suppose to be alarmed? Please. And the WaPo has never taken Trump (or Rubio) out of context? Please.

J.G. –

I didn’t suggest that WaPo has never published a news article or an opinion piece in which the writer took Trump (or Rubio) out of context. When that occurs, I have no objection to anyone calling them out on it. Most of your posts on your blog do just that (and I think that is good). So, I find it ironic that suddenly, you are defensive when a similar standard is applied to something you posted. Be fair Sean.

[….]

The main point I was trying to make Sean, is that this particular post of yours was spreading a false narrative. Feel free to criticize politicians and others who are hesitant to take necessary and reasonable steps to keep citizens safe, but you can do that without helping Trump spread more falsehoods.

ME –

Trump had all that in mind when he Tweeted that. Others may not know or follow this mayor’s many previous statements about Trump and his connections to jihadists, but, but I have. What is a false narrative from the media is that the people of London are not effed, and mean ol Trump is smearing a good guy. Leftists like to pardon Islamists (like the mayor), lift up severed heads as “art,” because they have similar worldviews (I have an entire chapter from Melanie here on this). Her book Londanistan should be the topic, not something Trump says [laid down] that you or the press cannot pick up.

[….]

I feel like I am responding to an atheist. Let me explain. When I talk to persons who challenge the Bible (and take note Protestants look at Scriptural integrity differently that Catholics), they will bring up points from the O.T. as literal, without applying genres (like poetry, war texts, history, wisdom literature, prophecy, and the like), or subcategories such as hyperbole.

So I merely bring up that using the way the skeptic is using the Bible would be the same as reading Exodus 15:8 and positing that God has a BIG nose, or reading Psalm 91:4 and saying God is a giant chicken.

Similarly, WaPo is taking the rhetoric of Trump as woodenly literal without keeping in mind the following:

  • a jihadist sympathizing mayor, police running away, 2-year old warnings unheaded, and now military police in pubs [that is hyperbole in case you are not getting it]… etc.

Are you now taking Trump’s Tweet as literally using the phrase of the London mayor without reference to any deeper meaning J.G.?

J.G. –

Many reasonable people are interpreting many of the things that Trump says as asinine, ignorant, immature, and unbecoming of a POTUS. He better work on improving his communication skills if we’re all misunderstanding him. I’m not talking about left-wing nutcases misunderstanding him. I’m talking about lifelong conservatives (like me) and mainstream moderates misunderstanding him. Please don’t blame the media. The media doesn’t write his Tweets or speak for him when he’s in front of the camera.

ME –

If he was as eloquent as Obama was it would make not a single iota of difference in the stories at WaPo.

Reagan was an excellent communicator, as was Ford, Nixon, etc. But ALL were bumbling idiot according to the press.

J.G. –

Sean Giordano, you don’t get it. There is a huge difference between how conservatives and moderates viewed Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc. and how they view Trump both in terms of competence and ability to communicate effectively. I’m not talking about the Washington Post. I’m talking about Americans across the whole country. Trump is perceived as a bafoon by the vast majority of Americans, not just journalists.

ME –

No, trump has done waay more conservative things that any of those before him in the same time.

So I separate Obama’s excellent rhetoric from his horrible policy. LIKEWISE, I separate Trump’s horrible rhetoric from his excellent policy.

He is a buffoon in public. So? So was Mozart, Beethoven, Immanuel Kant, Lewis Carroll, and others. And?

So, Trump is not a Rubio or a Bobby Jindal (my first choice) or a Ted Cruz (my second choice).

Trump still has done more in his first days than I think any of them could have (including winning the rust belt, and thus winning).

…to be continued… maybe?

Here is JIHAD WATCH’S take on the matter:

President Trump has taken London Mayor Sadiq Khan to task for his grossly insensitive statement about the London jihadist attack:

  • “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack,” the president wrote on his personal Twitter account, “and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’

Only a “leader” with either an unsound mind or an unsavory agenda could utter such bizarre words following a gruesome jihad rampage (within two weeks of the one Manchester) that began with the mowing down of innocent civilians and continued with a 12-inch blade “knife frenzy.” All the while, the jihadis shouted “this is for Allah.”

Khan’s words start to look more sinister than obtuse when one considers his own jihadist connections. He was reported by the UK’s Spectator to have known links to “extremists”:

Some of these associations date back to his time as a director of Liberty and a human rights lawyer – trying to get the UK to lift its ban on the American Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described Jews as ‘blood-suckers’ and called Hitler ‘a very great man, and speaking at the same conference as Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of the now proscribed Islamist organisation that trained the 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan.

It doesn’t stop there:

in 2004 he appeared on a platform with five Islamic extremists at a conference in London organised by Al-Aqsa, a group that has published works by the notorious Holocaust denier Paul Eisen….In the same year, Khan was the chair of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee and was involved in defending the Muslim scholar Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.

Qaradawi is no “moderate.” As reported by Jihad Watch in February:

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”

In September, Khan stated that it was necessary for Westerners to be careful not to insult Muslims and to affirm that Muslims can hold Western values, otherwise they would join jihad groups. In other words, Khan was warning non-Muslims to beware of insulting Muslims, otherwise they would kill you.

Also, it did not matter that jihad attacks in Britain tripled in five years: Khan boasted in March that he planned on bringing in 1,500,000 more migrants….

(read it all)

The Left’s Fanaticism and Hypocrisy ~ Children Suffer

(Originally posted in September, 2010)

U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies

KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”

Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records….

(New York Times)

This has been a burning topic in my mind for quite some time. The reason being is that while Bush was President I was told all the time (by the Left) about his apparent connections to Wahhabism via Saudi Arabia… and how we shouldn’t support a President who has these ties. The Ground Zero mosque Imam said he would take funds from any country, and now he is a hero of the Left. Odd. This Imam has already accepted money from known terrorist funding conspirators and I am sure as the money trail is followed, more will come to light. A great article on Front Page Magazine stirs this up again in me. I will post some ideas to maybe get this topic stirred in your mind as well. Could you imagine though, if the Catholic Church executed homosexuals in 5 or 6 countries and then they wanted to build a catholic college on the site where Matthew Shepard was killed. WOW! The outcry from the Left would be deafening.

Here are some excerpts from the article entitled The Mullahs’ Gulag for Gays:

In September 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood before an audience of college students and faculty at Columbia University and made the perverse claim that there were no homosexuals in Iran. ”In Iran we do not have this phenomenon, I don’t know who has told you that we have it,” he said. Ahmadinejad’s comments, made in a year in which Iran had executed 200 people, homosexuals among them, made shock waves around the globe. Yet the absurdity of the official denial may also have been unintentionally salutary, spotlighting as it did the terrible plight of homosexuals in the Islamic Republic.

There is a good reason that Iran’s theocratic dictatorship denies the existence of gays inside the country. An honest acknowledgment of reality would force the authorities to acknowledge that Iranian gays are regularly marginalized, harassed, tortured, and executed. Sometimes, they are forced into gender-altering operations. Ahmadinejad’s claim also called attention to the hypocrisy of the international community on the issue of gay rights in Iran. President Ahmadinejad’s absurd claim received overwhelming disapproval, yet when Iranian homosexuals are routinely abused and lawfully executed simply for their sexual preferences, that same international community, and the “progressive” Left that claims to champion gay rights, are deafeningly silent….

[….]

….As the progressive backlash against Prop 8 indicates, gay rights are a significant and sensitive issue for Americans, particularly on the Left. But despite passionate outbreaks by the gay community and others, Americans have been uncharacteristically uninterested in the brutal treatment of homosexuals in Iran. These advocates ardently insist that homosexuals have the right to wed, to raise children, and to live as others do, yet they turn a blind eye to the execution of gays in Iran simply for their sexual orientation.

Such executions are in fact enshrined in Iranian law, where homosexuality is punishable the death penalty. Human rights groups estimate that almost 4,000 gays have been executed since 1979, when the Islamic regime took power. Gays are arrested, beaten, tortured, and in most cases, hanged or even stoned.

Sharia, or Islamic law, the legal code applied in Iran, prohibits any type of sexual activity outside the realm of heterosexual marriage. No distinction is made between consensual and non-consensual relations nor between sexual activities conducted in private or public. Any sexual relations other than the traditional marriage between a man and woman—referring to sodomy or adultery, as we’ve recently seen in the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman sentenced to stoning for allegedly having an extra-marital affair—is punishable by death….

[….]

….older males experimenting with younger males has been a part of Islamic societies for centuries as a way to ease sexual temptation in a segregated society that condemns pre-marital sex. Celebrated Iranian poets have often referred to the love between men and young boys in century-old poetry.

Iran is currently one of five Muslim countries to apply capital punishment to homosexuals along with Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen, according to the 2010 International Lesbian Gay Association’s World Legal Survey. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan also applied the death penalty, as did Sadaam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. After the collapse of the Taliban regime, Afghanistan began punishing homosexuality with fines and imprisonment. In Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Islamist militia followed the Taliban’s lead, attacking, torturing and murdering hundreds of gay men in “honor killings.”

Under the rule of the late Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, homosexuality was accepted to the extent that there was often news coverage of same-sex wedding c ceremonies. Gay rights were a popular item, and there were even some nightclubs that specifically catered to homosexual patrons. According to Janet Afary, professor of global religion and modernity at the University of California Santa Barbara, one of the critiques made about the Shah’s government, eventually leading up to the Revolution of 1979, was that it was excessively liberal on moral issues, such as homosexuality….

You would think that the Progressive Left would be supportive of regime change in theocratic societies that cause such discriminatory [deadly] practices against homosexuals. But they typically do not. Many were for the student uprising in Iran, but their support was typically for the Marxist movement within the Islamic faith. So I see this as more of a support for one view of Utopian versus another view. BUt both views are Utopian, and this may explain the support it engenders from the Left.

The full documentary can be seen here.

Warning: the content of the linked documentary is graphic and disturbing.

The example of a university about 20-minutes away from me should be mind-numbing for the common sense person. You will see what I am talking in this August 15th, 2005 article by Dr. Reisman where she intimates the Left’s love affair in pederasty (bringing it a bit closer than Afghanistan):

Academics need money and have respectability. Pedophiles and pornographers need respectability and have money. The relationship between academic institutions and pornographers and pedophiles, which began with Playboy’s funding the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, continues today at CSUN. The following example demonstrates the link between pornographers and academia.

In August 1998, CSUN used its state-supported offices to organize a “World Pornography Conference.” Led by former Kinsey Institute researcher James E. Elias, pornography industry leaders and performers met with “academics” to discuss and shape national pornography and pedophile strategies to be implemented in schoolrooms, newsrooms, bedrooms and courtrooms.

James Elias, CSUN’s Sex Research Director received his doctorate from the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality of which Wardell Pomeroy was the former Academic Dean. As noted in Kentucky v. Happy Day (1980), Wardell Pomeroy was a Kinsey co-author and sex partner who publicly sought funds from the pornography industry to produce child pornography (Jones, 1997).

The conference featured Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia editor Vern Bullough and his pedophile editorial colleagues: John DeCecco, Daniel Tsang and Wayne Dynes — all professors at major American colleges.3 Chairing the CSUN “Erotic” section on “Child Pornography” was Harris Mirkin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. Mirkin’s 1999 article, “The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia” (Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 37) describes the steps pedophiles need to take to gain social acceptance. He advises pedophiles to advocate for the elimination of words like “child molestation” and “child abuse.”

Ralph Underwager was a featured speaker during the section on child pornography. Underwager is a psychologist and theologian who frequently testifies as a defense expert in child sexual abuse cases. In 1993, Underwager and his wife, Hollida Wakefield, were featured in an interview in Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (Winter 1993, p.3). In his interview, Underwager stated: “Pedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is the best way to love…” Conference speaker Ted McIlvenna, founder of the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, contributed an article in December 1977 to Hustler magazine 4 in which he urged legalization of incest and adult-child sex.

Is there a history of the New Left and this wanting of Islamo-Nazi type regimes that denigrate women and lift rape of young men to new levels? We read just a bit from David Horowitz’s intro of his book, Unholy Alliance:

A further irony of these complaints was that the shah had been, in fact, a modernizer who promoted education and the equality of women. His social progressivism was the very cause of the Islamic revolution that overthrew him. President Jimmy Carter’s liberal aversion to the shah’s authoritarian rule helped to undermine his regime and pave the way for the reign of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic revolution. While American radicals welcomed the revolution of the ayatollahs, their regime was far more reactionary and repressive than the government of the shah, and it both created and inspired the Islamic radicals who confront America as enemies today.

Why has the American Left made alliances of convenience with Islamic radicals who have declared war on the democratic West and whose own values are reactionary and oppressive? Why have American radicals actively obstructed the War on Terror, thereby undermining the defense of the democracies of the West? Why have liberals opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom, whose goals are the overthrow of tyranny and the establishment of political democracy and human rights—agendas that coincide with their own? Why have Democrats turned against the policy of regime change, which they had supported during the Clinton administration in both Kosovo and Iraq? Why has the Democratic Party declared political war on the president’s war and thus made foreign policy a point of partisan conflict for the first time since the end of World War II? What does this fracture of the American consensus mean for the future of America’s War on Terror?

These are the questions the current inquiry seeks to address. In doing so, it necessarily must confront others: What is the nature of the American Left? How does it think about the world? How did it come to ally itself with Islamic jihad? How significant is the threat posed by its opposition to the War on Terror? How powerful is its presence in the Democratic Party? What is its role in shaping the American future?

These are great questions. I think the book that answers them more fully in a short and concise manner can be found in the chapter entitled “The Red-Black-Green Islamic Axis,” in the book by Melanie PhillipsThe World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle Over God, Truth, and Power. While my small quote from Melanie does not do her thesis justice, it is a key connecting point in my minds eye:

These curious coalitions are frequently explained as merely opportunistic alliances, where certain groups make common cause with ideological opponents in pursuit of the shared aim of bringing down Western society. This explanation surely is only partly correct. What these various movements have in common goes much deeper: they are all utopian. Each in its own way wants to bring about the perfect society, to create a new man and a new world.

Each therefore thinks of itself as progressive; the supporters of each believe themselves to be warriors in the most noble of causes. The greens believe they will save the planet. The leftists believe they will create the brotherhood of man. The fascists believe they will purge mankind of corruption. And the Islamists believe they will create the Kingdom of God on earth.

What they all have in common, therefore, is a totalitarian mindset in pursuit of the creation of their alternative reality. These are all worldviews that can accommodate no deviation and must therefore be imposed by coercion. Because their end product is a state of perfection, nothing can be allowed to stand in its way. This is itself a projected pathology. As Eric Hoffer suggested in The True Believer, the individual involved in a mass movement is in some way acutely alienated from his own society, an alienation to which he is completely blind. Projecting his own unacknowledged deficiencies onto his surroundings, he thinks instead there is something wrong with society and fantasizes about building a new world where he will finally fit.” This belief that humanity can be shaped into a perfect form has been the cause of the most vicious tyrannies on the planet from the French Revolution onwards.

As Jamie Glazov notes in his book United in Hate, the totalitarian believer publicly denies the violent pathologies within the system that he worships. Privately, however, these are what drew him towards that system in the first place because he is aware that violence is necessary to destroy the old order so that utopia can arise from its ashes. Pretending he is attracted to “peace,” “justice” and “equality,” he actually stands for their opposite. He needs to empathize with the”martyrs” and the downtrodden in order to validate himself vicariously. The Third World, intrinsically noble since it is uncorrupted by the developed world, provides an apparently inexhaustible supply of such validation. That’s why the image of the Palestinian youth armed with only a slingshot touches the radical soul so deeply, and why the radical does not want to hear—why he even denies—the guns that are ranged just behind that youth as he throws his stones.”

Later, after following through with the history of the coining and idea behind the term “Westoxification,” she has a fabulouse paragraph that puts in a pretty bow why the Progressive Left so often finds solice in these radical views you would think it would reject:

The Islamists committing mass murder in New York’s Twin Towers or a Jerusalem cafe really do believe they are fighting for justice and to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth. The communists and the fascists really did think they were ending, respectively, the oppression and the corruption of man. The environmentalists really do think they are saving the planet from extinction. The radical left really do think they will erase prejudice from the human heart and suffering from the world. And those who want Israel no longer to exist as a Jewish state really do believe that as a result they will turn suicide bomb belts into cucumber frames, and that they are moving in the way that history intended.

I highly recommend this book. As an agnostic, she has a fair view of this program the Left calls egalitarianism. This egalitarianism trumps their placatory stances on homosexuality, women’s rights, and the like.

Melanie Phillips Touches on the Problem in the UK and Abroad

Denial is still a river in Londonistan

On one thing the British liberal class is certain – the hacking to death of a soldier in a Woolwich street yesterday had absolutely nothing to do with religion.  The murderers screamed ‘Allahu akhbar’ as they tried to decapitate the soldier (a barbaric hallmark of Islamic terror), announced proudly that ‘We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you’ and quoted the Koran as religious justification.

But the atrocity, we have been repeatedly told, had nothing to do with religion. Ever since 9/11, the UK and US political and media establishment, along with much if not most of the British security service and increasingly the US security establishment, has repeated this mantra. Killing in the name of Islam is a warped hijacking of the religion, a perversion of the religion, the very antithesis of the religion. But based on the precepts of the religion itself? Good heavens, no.

For more than two decades, the British political and security establishment has gone to extreme lengths to deny the true religious nature of the Islamic jihad, or holy war, against the free world and ‘backsliding’ Muslims (who are the jihad’s most numerous victims). There are several reasons for this state of denial, of which in my view the key is that to the official mind a holy war is such a fearsome prospect – it’s uncontrollable, can last for decades, is driven by wholly irrational motives immune to negotiation and is characterised by unmitigated savagery — they cannot admit that this is what it actually is.

So instead they come up with absurd statements like the one made to me some years ago by a very senior security official, who said this couldn’t be an Islamic religious war because to say it was would demonise all Muslims.

This was clearly a risible non sequitur. The fact that many Muslims not only do not support the jihad but are being themselves persecuted by it does not make it any less of a holy war against their perceived backsliding or heresy.

…read more…

To defeat Islamic terror, we must first acknowledge what it is

Ever since the spectre of Islamic terrorism in the West first manifested itself, Britain has had its head stuck firmly in the sand.

After both 9/11 and the 7/7 London transport bombings, the Labour government promised to take measures to defend the country against further such attacks.

It defined the problem, however, merely as terrorism, failing to understand that the real issue was the extremist ideas which led to such violence.

Accordingly, it poured money into Muslim community groups, many of which turned out to be dangerously extreme.

When David Cameron came to power, his Government raised hopes of a more realistic approach when it pledged to counter extremist ideas rather than just violence.

This approach, too, has failed. The Government still has no coherent strategy for countering Islamist radicalisation.

Following last week’s barbaric slaughter of Drummer Rigby on the streets of Woolwich by two Islamic fanatics, the Prime Minister has announced that he will head a new Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force.

And the Home Secretary has said she will look at widening the banning of radical groups preaching hate.

But at the heart of these promises remains a crucial gap. That is the need to define just what kind of extremism we are up against.

The Government has been extraordinarily reluctant to do this — because it refuses to face the blindingly obvious fact that this extremism is religious in nature.

It arises from an interpretation of Islam which takes the words of the Koran literally as a command to kill unbelievers in a jihad, or holy war, in order to impose strict Islamic tenets on the rest of the world.

[….]

Of course, there are fanatics in all religions. Within both Judaism and Christianity, there are deep divisions between ultras, liberals and those in between.

In medieval times, moreover, Christianity used its interpretation of the Bible also to kill ‘unbelievers’, because early Christians believed they had a divine duty to make the world conform to their religion at all costs. 

That stopped when the Reformation ushered the Church into modernity, and today no Christian wants to use violence to convert others to their faith.

The problem with the extremist teachings of Islam is that the religion has never had a similar ‘reformation’.

Certainly, there are enlightened Muslims in Britain who would dearly love their religion to be reformed. But they have the rug pulled from under their feet by the Government’s flat denial of the religious nature of this terrible problem.

Some people instead ascribe the actions of the Woolwich killers to factors such as thuggish gang membership, drug abuse or family breakdown. 

But it is precisely such lost souls who are vulnerable to Islamist fanatics and who provide them with father figures, a sense of belonging and a cause which gives apparent meaning to their lives.

Many people find it incomprehensible that such fanatics remain free to peddle their poison. 

Partly, this is because the Security Service likes to gather intelligence through their actions. But it is also because of a failure to understand what amounts to a continuum of extremism.

There are too many British Muslims who, while abhorring violence at home, nevertheless support the killing abroad of British or American forces or Israelis, regard unbelievers as less than fully human, and homosexuals or apostates as deserving the death penalty.

Such bigotry creates the poisonous sea in which dehumanisation and religious violence swim.

To the failure to understand all this must be added the widespread terror of being thought ‘Islamophobic’ or ‘racist’.

…read more…

Radical Islamic Separatism Given Thumbs-Up by the DNC

This comes by way of Creeping Sharia and Gateway Pundit:

If it walks like a duck? via The Gateway Pundit.

The Obama Campaign will sponsor an Islamic Jumah at the DNC in September. Obama’s DNC lists the assembly as an “official function.”

Robert Spencer wrote this about the DNC Jumah:

But the most disturbing aspect of the entire “Jumah at the DNC” is not the obvious victimhood-mongering of its agenda, but the people involved. The Democrats are playing host to an unsavory gang of Islamic supremacists with numerous ties to jihad groups. Even this is not surprising, but it should be a matter of concern to any Americans who are more aware of the jihad threat than the average politically correct Democrat pol.

But, as Atlas Shrugs pointed out, the Obama Campaign denied Catholic Cardinal request to lead prayer at the convention.

President Obama turned down a chance to have Timothy Cardinal Dolan deliver a prayer at the Democratic National Convention after Dolan told Democrats he would be “grateful” to deliver a blessing in Charlotte.

Dolan — considered the top Catholic official in the nation, as head of the Archdiocese of New York and president of the Conference of Catholic Bishops — tipped off Democrats a few weeks ago that he had agreed to deliver the prime-time benediction at the Republican convention in Tampa next week, Dolan’s spokesman Joseph Zwilling told The Post.

And The Blaze adds this very important piece to the puzzle:

And while Muslim-Americans undeniably face distinct challenges, those who are well-informed on the dangers of radical Islam are expressing their doubts.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, wrote:

The leaders of this event – Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj [are not] moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies.

A quick Google search by the DNC would have shown them that Hough and Wahhaj are leaders in the separatist American Islamist movement. While they may be able to get a few thousand Muslims to attend the event, they are NOT going to be mainstream Muslims.  Most will likely come from Hough and Wahhaj’s radical networks that have long been entrenched in the Charlotte area. Make no mistake they are part of the Islamist movement.

[…]

Their jummah (group) prayer is…about empowering their Islamist and MB sympathetic groups into the very fabric of the political system so that Americans become anesthetized. We need American Muslims to speak up and marginalize these radicals. The DNC needs to understand and reject them because of their radical history and ideas.

…read more…

Here are a few comments by people at an official “Jumah at the DNC” video:

I am a Democratic female. I feel the that the Democratic party does not share any of my values any longer. They have morphed into a near Socialist Party like that of China. I fear we have headed down the wrong path with President Obama and this country is in need of a change. That is why i am voting for Mitt Romney this election. He as the background and the economic recovery plan we need to Right America again!

——————————————

Obama has cobbled together a room full of gay-hating/ woman-hating Muslim terrorists, gay-hating racist blacks, women who laugh about killing their own babies, drunk-driving Hollywood celebs, rich lily white Union bosses and Occupy bomb makers. What could possibly go wrong?


p213 photo 213.jpg
p214 photo 214.jpg
p215 photo 215.jpg
p216 photo 216.jpg
p217 photo 217.jpg
p218 photo 218.jpg
p219 photo 219.jpg
p220 photo 220.jpg
p221 photo 221.jpg
p222 photo 222.jpg
p223 photo 223.jpg
p224 photo 224.jpg
p225 photo 225.jpg
p226 photo 226.jpg
p227 photo 227.jpg
p228 photo 228.jpg
p229 photo 229.jpg
p230 photo 230.jpg
p231 photo 231.jpg
p232 photo 232.jpg
p233 photo 233.jpg
p234 photo 234.jpg
p235 photo 235.jpg
p236 photo 236.jpg
p237 photo 237.jpg
p238 photo 238.jpg
p239 photo 239.jpg
p240 photo 240.jpg

Christian Girl Allegedly Raped & Beaten for Not Converting to Islam (Following Their Founder`s Footsteps)

The Blaze reports:

Reports indicate that a 12-year-old Christian girl was kidnapped and repeatedly raped for months on end by a radical Islamic group in Pakistan. The girl, whose name has been withheld (she is referred to as “Miss Anna” by at least one human rights group) to protect her privacy, was apparently abducted after a friend lured her onto a shopping trip.

But what originally started as a fun day out with her friend quickly turned ugly. Instead of going on a shopping spree, the young girl was driven 120 miles and was subsequently raped by the friend’s uncle back in January 2011. This was the beginning of what would become a tragic nightmare that has yet to conclude.

Two days later, the girl was purportedly forced to sign marriage papers, thus officially tying her to her captor. Then, she was purportedly beaten for refusing to convert from Christianity to Islam. What followed was an eight-month “prison” sentence during which she was held against her will.

According to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), the rapists have ties to a militant Muslim organization called Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. AHRC also reports that it is precisely because of this affiliation that the perpetrators have not yet been arrested. In fact, the police have apparently been ignoring reports of her disappearance since January (when her father first reported her missing).

…(read more)…

That’s in Pakistan, what about the building ethos in the West? Libertarian Republican notes the following:

German TV channel Das Erste reports (via Islam in Europe) Essen: German students bullied by Muslims, July 22:

“When it’s Ramadan, there’s a state of emergency. The last time it went so far, that they spit in our food,” says the home-economics teacher. “People always say that foreigners are discriminated, but here it’s precisely the other way around.” A Lebanese Arabic teacher says that the German way of living is very clearly being rejected by his students, the attitude is almost chic…

the children of Muslim immigrants clearly have their way here,” says the school principal. The female teachers have to deal with students saying “don’t speak to her, she’s just a German slut.”

Melanie Phillips Talks About the `Liberal Intelligentsia` Creating Riot`ess Social Values (Plus: Western Secular Ideologies)

Melanie Phillips talks about the root causes of the riots in her home country (I recommend highly her book dealing somewhat with similar issues — that is, secularism/liberalism):

Britain’s liberal intelligentsia has smashed virtually every social value 

Money Quote/Idea

So now the chickens have well and truly come home terrifyingly to roost. The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.

The married two-parent family, educational meritocracy, punishment of criminals, national identity, enforcement of the drugs laws and many more fundamental conventions were all smashed by a liberal intelligentsia hell-bent on a revolutionary transformation of society.

Those of us who warned over the years that they were playing with fire were sneered at and smeared as right-wing nutters who wanted to turn the clock back to some mythical golden age.

How Liberals Ruined Britain

So now the chickens have well and truly come home terrifyingly to roost. The violent anarchy that has taken hold of British cities is the all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.

The married two-parent family, educational meritocracy, punishment of criminals, national identity, enforcement of the drugs laws and many more fundamental conventions were all smashed by a liberal intelligentsia hell-bent on a revolutionary transformation of society.

Those of us who warned over the years that they were playing with fire were sneered at and smeared as Right-wing nutters who wanted to turn the clock back to some mythical golden age.

Now we can see what they have brought about in the unprecedented and horrific scenes of mob violence, with homes and businesses going up in flames, and epidemic looting.

Clearly, there is some as yet unidentified direction and co-ordination behind the anarchy. But what is so notable and distressing is that, after the first day when adults were clearly involved, this mayhem has been carried out in the main by teenagers and children, some as young as eight.

The idea that they should not steal other people’s property, or beat up and rob passers-by, appears to be as weird and outlandish to them as the suggestion that they should fly to the moon.

These youths feel absolutely entitled to go ‘on the rob’ and steal whatever they want. Indeed, they are incredulous that anyone should suggest they might pass up such an opportunity.

What has been fuelling all this is not poverty, as has so predictably been claimed, but moral collapse. What we have been experiencing is a complete breakdown of civilised behaviour among children and young people straight out of William Golding’s seminal novel about childhood savagery, Lord Of The Flies.

There has been much bewildered talk about ‘feral’ children, and desperate calls upon their parents to keep them in at night and to ask them about any stolen goods they are bringing home.

As if there were responsible parents in such homes! We are not merely up against feral children, but feral parents.

Of course these parents know their children are out on the streets. Of course they see them staggering back with what they have looted. But either they are too drunk or drugged or otherwise out of it to care, or else they are helping themselves to the proceeds, too.

As David Cameron observed yesterday, there are clearly pockets of society that are not just broken, but sick.

[….]

When church leaders stop prattling like soft-headed social workers and start preaching, once again, the moral concepts that underlie our civilisation, and when our political leaders decide to oppose the culture war that has been waged against that civilisation rather than supinely acquiescing in its destruction, then — and only then — will we start to get to grips with this terrible problem.

Until then, within the smouldering embers of our smashed and burned-out cities, we can only look upon the ruins of the Britain we have so dearly loved; the Britain that once led the world towards civilisation, but is now so tragically leading the way out.

…(read more)…

Socialists/Leftists Helping Islamo-Nazis

The below can also be found here:

I re-edited the below chapter from MELANIE PHILIPPS, book: “THE WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN: THE GLOBAL BATTLE OVER GOD, TRUTH, AND POWER.”  My edits included making each page scan equal in width, normalized in color, and removed most of my notes.

G8 Hate and the lack of Western Leadership in Regards to Israel

I almost didn’t report this, but with the latest news that at the G8 meeting that Canadian Prime Minister was the only one of these major leaders who oppose the 1967 borders in Israel, I thought I had to get this post up. Both observations come from LR, the first is his older post:

UK Columnist Melanie Phillips: Canada’s Stephen Harper now the leader of Western Civilization

Just a Quote
‘To be secular is to embrace certain values and beliefs. Instead of neutrality there is an attempt to get rid of religion and to promote something else instead. It has produced a ‘me society’, a society of great selfishness and increasing cruelty and brutality.’ ~ Melanie Phillips

Excerpt, “And now, those who are on the side of civilisation” Melanie Phillips, The Spectator UK, May 23:

In these terrible times when western elites are dominated by the fellow-travellers of Islamo-fascism and genocidal Judeophobia, it is very important to realise that there are also some outstandingly decent, courageous and rational individuals who are putting their heads above the parapet and speaking up for Israel, truth and justice.

One such is Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. Within a few hours of Obama’s call for Israel to return to the ‘Auschwitz borders’ with land swaps (as if the Arabs really do own all the territory beyond the Green Line, which legally, historically and morally they most emphatically do not) Harper was saying ‘not in our name’:

The Harper government is refusing to join the United States in calling for a return to 1967 borders as a starting point for Mideast peace, a position that has drawn sharp criticism from Canada’s staunch ally Israel.

And the later post about the G8,

Just a Quote
“Regarding sexual orientation or, more accurately, what we are really talking about, sexual behaviour, the argument has been made … that this is analogous to race and ethnicity…. (For) anyone in the Liberal party to equate the traditional definition of marriage with segregation and apartheid is vile and disgusting.” – Conservative leader Stephen Harper, 2003.

Harper stands out on Israel at G-8

Now this from the Globe and Mail:

Alone among G8 leaders, the Canadian Prime Minister refuses to embrace the U.S. President’s plan to begin peace negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis on the basis of a return to Israel’s de facto borders as they existed before its 1967 war with neighbouring Arab countries – a precondition, accepted by Arabs and by many previous Israeli leaders and Canadian governments, that would be necessary to get Palestinians back to the table.

Mr. Harper made his opposition to that position clear through a spokesperson shortly after Mr. Obama’s Middle East speech last week in a pre-G8 briefing, making him the lone leader in the G8 not to back the U.S. preconditions.

Melanie Phillips on the Michael Coren Show (She talks about freedom of speech and thought and progressivisms onslaught against both)

From The Religion of Conquest:

Related post are…