The Orlando Terrorist Attack

I was watching as the shooting unfolded last night on social media. Horrific and no words. This was a massacre that was targeting the LGBT community but its tentacles reach even farther. This is not the first time an attack of this nature has occurred in this country, or in the world, even if the LGBT community has not been so specifically targeted before. The shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS in a 911 call before the shooting and mentioned the Boston Marathon bombing in the call. He was already under investigation by the FBI previous to the shooting for possible ties to Islamic radicalism. Islamic radicalism is a scourge that must be eliminated in every and all ways possible, with strategic diligence. (and yes, all Muslims are not involved in this but it is still a huge issue WORLDWIDE) We have been under notice for some time, that ISIS cells are in this country as they have claimed to be in 17 states, this is their claim. I have no doubt that what they claim may in fact be true. I take ISIS and other Islamic radical groups at their word and have no doubt that they will try to carry out their intentions. Anything else is a denial of reality and frankly a condescension. While the LGBT world has other groups that cast aspersion on us and other individuals that dislike or hate us, this particular attacker has claimed responsibility. Trying to foist responsibility on “all religions” or on white Christians, Republicans or even just guns — is completely wrong. It is a product of Islamic radicalism and a certain horrific and anti-western ideology that committed the Paris attacks, Boston Marathon, 9/11, attacks in Kenya, Nigeria and — many others. The target is not only the LGBT world but freedom.

I mourn for all those killed and injured in this terror.

Advertisements

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year 2016!
liberty wolf
In spite of the PC madness on college campuses, the growing and very real threat of ISIS and assorted Islamic terror,  the relatively sluggish economy and the comical chaos of a presidential race that may come down to Trump vs. Clinton (OH NO) — the American people are resilient, ornery and innovative.  In other words, the whole nation isn’t going to hell quite yet.   Continue reading

free speech cannot be compromised

It’s been some time since I posted, but bear with me dear reader, or stumbler upon, it is not as though I have not been thinking about politics.  The riots in the Middle East and across the world recently in Islamic countries and parts of Europe and the UK were certainly ah, bracing.  Free speech, even in the USA, is threatened as never before and the world is teetering on the precipice of WWIII as Iran makes a bee line toward nuclear weapons.  If Iran attacks Israel, and they fully intend to do so, they have stated they will again and again and — again, Iran also will attack our ships in the region and bases.  There you have it — the ignition of a conflict that can widen in scope and intensity like nothing we have seen since the thirties.  Russia on the side of Iran along with China.  And, Obama dithers on “The View” instead of meeting with Netanyahu, even if Netanyahu will go to where he is, and even though Netanyahu is requesting, with some urgency, a meeting.  Obama also then refuses to meet with any leaders at the UN during its recent conference.  Hillary was there to hold earnest meetings in his stead while he campaigned and appeared on Letterman, “Pimp with a Limp” and other venues.  This country apologizes, again and again, through the Obama administration and straight from his lips, for that ridiculous film, for free speech, while mouthing feeble defenses of that same freedom of speech out of the other side of its mouth.  The world of radical Islam hears only the apologies, and the regrets and disavowal of a silly trailer of a movie only fifteen minutes long and looking as though it were made by Ed Wood and — continues to riot and demands, along with the head of the United Nations, that free speech be curbed if it is deemed to be blasphemy.  

Even some people I know are on FB calling out for stronger “hate speech” laws in this country.  This, instead of defending free speech.  

One of the issues that drove me from the left was the issue of free speech and “hate speech”.  I remember being on blogs that were organized around certain communities, say of FTMs, and of seeing hapless folks being harassed or threatened with censure if they used certain words or phrases.  Words like “lame” or phrases like “retarded question”.  I have seen leftists go apoplectic over the idea that the cover of a book with King Kong on it, is somehow a racial slur and that King Kong is a stand-in for African American men.  I have been told that because I am not an academic (and I can be thankful for that), I don’t “understand” how that image of the monstrous beast is connected historically and viscerally to African American males.  Frankly, I think its an obscene and racist thought to even have, let alone seriously entertain, but it *is * entertained and even considered sacrosanct among the academics out there who appear to enjoy looking for images to pick out as “racist”.  

And, of course, now the opposition to Obama’s presidency is — all mired and based in “racism”.  Right.  

The war on free speech that is happening right now, at the UN, worldwide in the press and most certainly in the academy (see speech codes on campus), is something to watch if you write, or if you wish to be able to live in a society that is not underwritten and undermined by totalitarianism.  It’s that simple.  

Here: <a href=”http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/120925/muslim-nations-push-international-blasphemy-law”&gt; Muslim Nations Push for International Blasphemy Laws </a> 

And, from the article: 
“The United Nations, at the behest of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), will debate, once again, the merit of blasphemy laws that could potentially criminalize religious defamation.

“We are living through a period of unease,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said last week. “We are also seeing incidents of intolerance and hatred that are then exploited by others. Voices of moderation and calm need to make themselves heard at this time. We all need to speak up in favor of mutual respect and understanding of the values and beliefs of others.”

Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, points out in the Washington Post that “since 1999, the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has sought to include the issue of religious defamation in UN Human Rights Council resolutions.” 

___________________________

And, make no mistake, Obama has already cast his lot with this international law.  Here: 

<a href=”http://factreal.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/obamas-blasphemy-law-to-protect-islam/”&gt; Obama’s blasphemy law to protect Islam </a>

From the Heritage Foundation as quoted in the above link from FactReal:

“As recently as December 19, 2011, the U.S. voted for and was instrumental in passing ‘U.N. Resolution 16/18’ against ‘religious intolerance,’ ‘condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion.’ While this may sound innocuous, it was the latest incarnation of a highly controversial ‘anti-blasphemy’ resolution that has been pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the United Nations since 1999.”

Make no mistake, as Coptic Christians are being murdered in Egypt along with Buddhists in Thailand, and anti-Jewish material circulates freely and in abundance in the Middle East and other Islamic strongholds, this law is NOT to protect religious minorities but to seal the mouths shut of any who would dare to criticize Islam.  And, our President has supported this.  

Every American should be outraged.   

destruction of Pyramids coming as Sufi shrines are destroyed

I’m at an amazing writer’s retreat in the Yucatan peninsula and am enjoying ocean, glimpses of jungle, the inspiration and companionship of my fellow writers here and at directed, structured and luxurious work space and work time.  So, my novel is coming along very well and quickly.  I am grateful for this marvelous opportunity.  

That’s the personal news.  

On the political front I’m upset to read about the possibility of the pyramids being destroyed.  From Commentary here: Islamists calling for pyramids’ destruction

And, while that destruction is only in the first phase of distressed imagining, in Mali, radical Islamists are tearing down Sufi shrines, here: Sufi Shrines in Mali Destroyed

Not sure when people in this country will wake up to the vast and horrid destruction that this particular brand of Islam (Radical Islam) is bringing to the entire world, including the Islamic world, but I do hope – it is soon.  

 

Tommy Robinson and EDL – interview

Here an interesting interview with Tommy Robinson, a leader in the English Defense League (EDL), where he speaks about the fact that the EDL is not anti-black, anti-Asian or pro-Nazi, but instead are “anti-Islamist” or anti- radical Islam. Of particular interest is his description of areas of British towns where gays are being beaten by Muslims who are “defending” their areas (enforcing Sharia — forbidding homosexuality). Robinson also describes the enemies of the EDL – their most forceful nemesis, besides Radical Islam – is the far left. Not news to me but interesting to see it spelled out once again. Also mentioned is the conversion of British people, both white and non-white, to Islam and the fact that apparently, they tend to convert to radical Islam (strong Wahabi influence in the Mosques and Salafist). There are subtitles since his accent is thick and the questions are all typed into the video.

Link to Interview

He concludes with a warning for North America:
“It’s like they’re sleep-walking into an oblivion.
I don’t think they will realise how quickly, at the click of your fingers, your country will be the same.
Because it will happen, it’s just like – it’s not – it just so gradually happens; it’s so quick, it’s so… I mean, like, you just turn around, and, ‘Oh my God!’ Like certain estates in Luton, it’s like within five years – ‘Oh my God! The whole estate, all the schools are now Muslim – what’s happened?’

And yet, it’s just like overnight. And that’s because of the birth rate. And it’s so terrifyingly quick, the way it can just, within one generation, it can change a whole town. Within one generation.

People have to stand up now, before it happens. I wish what we’re doing now, I could have been around twenty years ago to do in Luton now. To stop the town descending the way it has. To stop the Saudi-funded Wahhabi Islamists sects getting such a grip on the town that they have. To stop them controlling the streets the way they do.

If you wish to control an area, the first thing you have to do is control the streets, so you have like a street-formed jihad, where they put their muscle on the streets, and they attack people, so they control the areas. And that’s what we’re seeing.

We should always look and learn from history. I can’t believe Britain has not learned from Lebanon. I can’t believe Britain has not looked around the world and [isn’t] learning now from Nigeria and Sudan. I can’t believe we haven’t learned in 1400 years of history of Islam. I can’t believe we haven’t looked to history. Cause that’s what we need to do: look to history to see what’s going to happen in Britain.”

Leaving the left, Media Matters and paradigm shifts

Neo-neocon is probably my favorite ex-lefty. She actually was never an extreme leftist but nonetheless she was not, as she is now, a neocon. My own political persuasion registers most strongly as neocon and as moderate libertarian on all those political tests. Neocon is misunderstood by many, and most neocons are former leftists (David Horowitz) who had a very radical and deep change of heart. It is characterized primarily by a hawkish foreign policy and often, socially liberal attitudes. That’s me: pro-Israel, anti-radical Islam, hawkish on defense, and fiscally fairly conservative — socially liberal (pro-choice with reservations but pro-choice, and — pro-gay marriage). And I don’t whine on about “white supremacy” or the “patriarchy” or even about “transphobia, homophobia, fatphobia, racism and sexism”. Those things exist, in some way, shape or form, but they are not the screen through which I view the world. I am a happier person for that. I believe in individual liberty and individual rights first and foremost over the primacy of collective identities.

I consider now, most of what I believed in the past, these obsessions with race, class and sexual orientation and gender identity to be “mind trash”. I mean, while certainly again, there are concerns about discrimination that are real, an obsession with who is “privileged” and who is not, with deconstructing for instances of these “isms” — is a waste of time. A big waste of time and of a life.

Neo-neocon writes often about her own journey from left leaning to right leaning and all the pain along the way. Mainly, the sudden and abrupt loss of friendships, sometimes, amounting to people leaving in the midst of a conversation at a party, and never speaking to her again. Yes, it can be that way. It is a common story, nearly all political apostates from left to right tell it and — it is most likely the hardest thing about this transformation. And, it is a transformation, a “paradigm shift”. Today, Neo-neocon writes below about this and refers to the Ace of Spades here at his blog…


It’s called a paradigm shift. It’s going to seem a little weird and scary at first, but it will also be thrilling and ultimately liberating.

A lot of things that have bothered you for…years — which haven’t seemed to make sense to you, because your brain was screening the truth from you — are suddenly going to make a lot of sense indeed. And you’re going to be kicking yourself for not seeing it sooner, like an optical illusion that suddenly changes from a lady’s face to a candle.

I think it’s a great description of a process I know well. But Ace, what’s with this “lady’s face to a candle” business? I always thought it was either two faces to a vase:

And, at Ace’s blog there is an excellent post about Media Matters and their anti-semitism:


Formerly Reliable Liberal Alan Derschowitz: I Vow I Will Not Vote For Any Candidate With Any Direct Association With the Anti-Semitic, Nazi-Friendly Media Matters

I have read about recent outings of Media Matters as being very connected to the white house, like through an IV drip. Apparently, Media Matters gets daily updates from Valerie Jarrett, who is a top adviser to the Prez. And, they’ve attempted to target Fox News by finding dirt on the personal lives of their anchors and pundits, and – by even “planting a mole”. Pretty crazy stuff. Here more about Derschowitz and his take on Media Matters:

Here from a Daily Caller article by Jeff Poor:
In 2008, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz came out in favor of then-Sen. Barack Obama in his presidential election contest with Arizona Sen. John McCain. He said Obama and McCain had similar positions on Israel, but gave the nod to Obama because of his liberal stance on things “unrelated to Israel.”

That could change in the 2012 presidential contest between and the yet-to-be-determined Republican candidate. In an appearance on Jay Severin’s Boston Talk 1200 radio show, Dershowitz spoke out against two organizations that have close ties to the Obama White House: Media Matters and the Center for American Progress.

“Media Matters and Center for American Progress are two extremely left-bigoted groups that are so virulently anti-Israel and anti-supporters of Israel that they’ve gone over the line from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism,” Dershowitz said. ”They now use the term ‘Israel firsters,’ the way anti-Catholic bigots used to use the term ‘Vatican firsters’ or ‘Irish firsters,’ as if to suggest Americans who support Israel have dual loyalty. This false charge goes back to the Bible — goes back to the Book of Esther, goes back thousands of years. It was one of Hitler’s justifications for killing the Jews: ‘Dual loyalty, they’re not good Germans, they’re not good Americans,’ whatever it is.”

Dershowitz has been vocal against Media Matters in recent days, making that charge of anti-Semitism. However, his classification of the Center for American Progress as borderline “anti-Semitic” is noteworthy because both Media Matters and the Center for Progress have received money directly from billionaire left-wing financier George Soros, who has faced similar charges in the past.

“These two organizations have been found to be anti-Semitic by many of the objective monitoring groups,” he said. “And now they are closely associated with the Democratic Party and I have said very clearly there is no room in this tent for me on the one hand, and for Media Matters and for this other group on the other hand. We can’t be in the same tent. I will not be in a tent with fascists, with supporters of Ahmadinejad, with supporters of Hamas, with supporters of Hezbollah, with anti-Semitic bigots, whether they’re Jewish or not. Some of them are Jewish. Some of them are not.”

Read more: David Duke of the extreme left

The killings and bombings in Norway

The killings in Norway – insane, and heinous and entirely evil would be wrong no matter who did them and no matter which political ideology they represented. There can be no doubt of that, and certainly no debate.

However, I would agree with Bruce Bawer when he states that this (hopefully) singular and evil act should not be construed as an excuse to avert our attention from the very real threat that Radical Islam poses to Europe, the entirety of western civilization, and indeed to the whole world. Bawer lives in Norway as an American expatriate and a gay man. He is in many respects, like myself, an unlikely convert to the values of classic liberalism. Indeed, he claims to still be a Democrat, but in any case, many would consider him a conservative. Labels aside (and I am not one to eschew labels as being entirely useless), Bawer knows of what he speaks and so I am linking to his article here. First, I quote:

“Those of us who thought, in the first hours after the blasts in downtown Oslo, that we were witnessing yet another act of jihad can be forgiven. In a way, it made sense. 9/11, London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Mumbai — why not Oslo? Then again…Norway, although a member of NATO with troops in Afghanistan and Libya, was not exactly in the forefront of the struggle to defeat jihad. On the contrary. Norway calls itself “the peace country.” For years, the Norwegian government and cultural establishment have striven to communicate to even the most extreme elements of international Islam that they want to be friends. They’ve shown their good faith in a number of ways:

They’ve made a great show of treating Jews very shabbily. Jostein Gaarder, author of the international bestseller Sophie’s World, published an op-ed a few years back declaring his contempt for Israel and the Jewish people. When Gaarder came in for some criticism, many high-profile members of the Norwegian cultural elite rushed to stand shoulder to shoulder with him. If the cultural elite in Norway is more anti-Semitic than its counterparts in any other country in Europe, it has a great deal to do with the recognition that the more you like the Jews, the more you’ll antagonize the Muslims.

They’ve been extremely gentle with Mullah Krekar, Norway’s resident terrorist. While some government officials have (admirably) labored to get the founder of Ansar al-Islam returned to his native Iraq, the system has repeatedly protected him, allowing him to stay in a very nice flat in Oslo, where he is supported by the state. Over the years the Norwegian media have churned out countless profiles of this murderous, child-torturing monster, invariably depicting him as a charming, grandfatherly type and allowing him plenty of space to bash the United States.

They’ve squelched criticism of Islam. In January 2006, Vebjørn Selbekk, editor of a small evangelical publication called Magazinet, reprinted the Danish Muhammed cartoons — and sent the Norwegian establishment into a tailspin. Politicians at the very highest level pressured Selbekk to apologize for his offense. He withstood admirably — for a while — but eventually buckled, and on February 10, 2006, appeared before a gathering of Norwegian imams and begged their forgiveness for having exercised his freedom of speech. Top government officials looked on in satisfaction, and a delegation led by a bishop of the Church of Norway traveled to Yemen to deliver the happy tidings of this capitulation to the theologian widely viewed as the closest thing to a Muslim pope, Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

They’ve dropped displays of Islamic totalitarianism down the memory hole. Two years ago, on two separate nights, a small army of Norwegian Muslim youths rioted in the heart of Oslo, turning a usually placid quarter into something reminiscent of Sarajevo or Beirut at their worst. The alleged motive for this explosion of violence was displeasure over the situation in Gaza; the real intention was to mount a display of power — to intimidate, and to communicate to Norway that their time had come, and that they had better be listened to with respect, or else. And in February of last year, another small army of Muslims, this time not rioting boys but sullen-looking men in long coats and full beards, gathered in downtown Oslo, in the same square where Vidkun Quisling once held his Nazi rallies, and listened with apparent pleasure while a young speaker named Mohyeldeen Mohammed threatened Norway with its own 9/11. Both of these events came and went, and the people who make decisions about this sort of thing plainly decided that it would be best to pretend that they had never happened.
They’ve openly supported terrorist groups. In the last few days, one of the major stories out of Norway has been the declaration by Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of his country’s support for the effort by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to seek United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state. This stance scarcely came as a surprise, given the Norwegian government’s longstanding effort to “build bridges” to Hamas. It was Støre, after all, who — when a couple of dozen Western diplomats walked out on a rabid anti-Israeli speech by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad at the 2009 UN conference on racism — was the only Westerner who chose to stay and hear him out.

And the way they’ve talked to Norwegian Muslims about Islamist terrorism has been — well, consider this. A couple of years ago, when Jørn Holme, head of security services for the Norwegian police, showed up at a meeting sponsored by the Muslim Students Association, supposedly to discuss terrorism, surveillance, and the Muslim community, his main goal seemed to be to bond with the Muslims in attendance by putting down ethnic Norwegians (who, he said, were “too stupid to understand that there is no connection” between Islam and terrorism) as well as white American Christians (“In the United States in the sixties,” he told the audience, “blacks were raped by whites who went to church the next day”). Holme called the United State “human-rights-violation-country number one” and said that his greatest fear, when he contemplated a possible terrorist act in Norway, was that such an act would inflame anti-Muslim prejudice.”

Bawer goes on to state in his article that he fears that legitimate criticism of Islam may be squelched by this act of barbaric and delusional political violence. I wonder, reading his points above, what criticism there is in any case? However, his point is a good one. As hate speech laws proliferate in intensity in other places in the EU and in Canada (the circus of Section 13), these murders can only add to the anti-free speech project of the left. Bruce makes a good deal of other points and of course, has noticed that Anders Behring Breivik has mentioned his name, although with a certain amount of uncertainty as to his credibility as Bawer is gay. Of course, many of the people that I often read and admire for their uncompromising anti-Jihad stances are named in the pages of Breivik’s exhaustingly long “manifesto” which was apparently, often copied from the loony screed of the Unibomber with a few key changes to make it relevant to his own purposes. In any case, Bawer continues here…

“During those hours when we all thought this was a jihadist attack, one thought that crossed my mind was that this would change the political map of Norway. For years, the Progress Party, which is the second largest of Norway’s seven or eight major parties, has led the way in calling for more responsible policies on the immigration and integration of people from Muslim countries — and has been demonized as a bunch of right-wing extremist xenophobes who hate Muslims. I assumed that after this attack, Norwegians would vote in a Progress Party-led government in the next elections. Now it appears that the man who committed all these murders is a former member of the Progress Party and is, indeed, a right-wing extremist xenophobe who harbors (according to Dagbladet) a “violent hatred for Muslims” and multiculturalism, and who targeted the Labor Party youth camp because he blames the ruling Labor Party for the Islamization of Norway. Norway’s political future looks very different now, in short, than it did 24 hours ago.

It gets worse. Anders Behring Breivik, it turns out, was a frequent commenter at a website, document.no, that is run by a friend of mine in Norway, Hans Rustad, and that is concerned largely with the Islamization of Norway. Hans’s website is down right now — I don’t know why — except for a page on which he has posted a collection of all of Breivik’s postings on the site, going back to 2009. On September 14, 2009, he wrote: “Bawer is probably not the right person to work as a bridge-builder. He is a liberal anti-jihadist and not a cultural conservative in many areas. I have my suspicions that he is TOO paranoid (I am thinking of his homosexual orientation). It can seem that he fears that ‘cultural conservatives’ will become a threat to homosexuals in the future. He refuses therefore to take the opportunity to influence this in a positive direction. This seems entirely irrational.”

On October 31, 2009, he wrote that several things needed to be done in the next twenty years in order to prevent the Islamization of Norway, among them: “Initiate a collaboration with the conservative forces in the Norwegian church. I know that the libertarian forces in the European anti-jihad movement (Bruce Bawer among others, and some other libertarians) will have a problem with this, but conservative forces in the church are in fact one of our best allies. Our main opponents must not be jihadists but the jihadists’ facilitators — namely the multiculturalists.” And on November 6, 2009, he wrote: “It is tragicomic that an important NGO like Human-Etisk Forbund [the Norwegian Humanist Association] has been taken over by a cultural Marxist when it should be run by a liberal anti-jihadist like Bruce Bawer.”

It is chilling to read my own name in postings by this mass murderer. And it is deeply depressing to see this evil, twisted creature become the face of Islam criticism in Norway. Norwegian television journalists who in the first hours of the crisis were palpably uncomfortable about the prospect of having to talk about Islamic terrorism are now eagerly discussing the dangers of “Islamophobia” and “conservative ideology” and are drawing connections between the madness and fanaticism of Breivik and the platform of the Progress Party. Yesterday’s events, then, represent a double tragedy for Norway. Not only has it lost almost one hundred people, including dozens of young people, in a senseless rampage of violence. But I fear that legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has been profoundly discredited, in the eyes of many Norwegians, by association with this murderous lunatic.”

From A Double Tragedy for Norway – Bruce Bawer

Mark Steyn weighs in with wit (even under these circumstances) and characteristic aplomb, pointing out that in fact, no Muslims were killed so this particular form of Islamaphobia had some odd consequences:

“The mass murderer Breivik published a 1,500-page “manifesto.” It quotes me, as well as several friends of NR — Theodore Dalrymple, Daniel Pipes, Roger Scruton, Melanie Phillips, Daniel Hannan (plus various pieces from NR by Rod Dreher and others) — and many other people, including Churchill, Gandhi, Orwell, Jefferson, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, not to mention the U.S. Declaration of Independence.* Those new “hate speech” codes the Left is already clamoring for might find it easier just to list the authors Europeans will still be allowed to read.

It is unclear how seriously this “manifesto” should be taken. Parts of it simply cut and paste chunks of the last big killer “manifesto” by Ted Kaczynski, with the occasional [insert-your-cause-here] word substitute replacing the Unabomber’s obsessions with Breivik’s. This would seem an odd technique to use for a sincerely meant political statement. The entire document is strangely anglocentric – in among the citations of NR and The Washington Times, there’s not a lot about Norway.

Nevertheless, Breivik’s manifesto seems to be determining the narrative in the anglophone media. The opening sentence from USA Today:

Islamophobia has reached a mass murder level in Norway as the confessed killer claims he sought to combat encroachment by Muslims into his country and Europe.

So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavians, that’s now an “Islamophobic” mass murder? As far as we know, not a single Muslim was among the victims. Islamophobia seems an eccentric perspective to apply to this atrocity, and comes close to making the actual dead mere bit players in their own murder. Yet the Associated Press is on board:

Security Beefed Up At UK Mosques After Norway Massacre.

But again: No mosque was targeted in Norway. A member of the country’s second political party gunned down members of its first. But, in the merest evolution of post-9/11 syndrome, Muslims are now the preferred victims even in a story in which they are entirely absent. “

From here: Islamophobia and Mass Murder by Mark Steyn

And, with that I send my condolences out to Norway and to all of those people whose loved ones were killed or hurt. There is no redeeming value to this act, and I would hope that the narratives that it generates are not exploitative of those deaths, but that they instead shed light.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In other news, on a more personal note, in case you wondered where I went I just moved, and am searching for a new place to live, and am “transitioning” again! This time possibly even, eventually to a new city, though time will tell. Everything is a bit chaotic for me, but it won’t be forever. So, I’ll not be able to post quite as much as I’d like I think, but I’m still around and will check in from time to time with new observations. Thanks to all who stop by to read!

Ann and her blazing Koran

She rode in on a blazing Koran, quite literally. Ann Barnhardt has been taking the interwebs by storm, exorcising the demonic shrieking ass kissing free speech squelching demon of NICE from our collective midst. In response to Lindsay Graham’s finger shaking about the dire consequences of lighting a Koran on fire (what will happen if they get mad at us?), Ann made her own Koran burning video. Quoting hair raising Surahs that condone and command wife beating and marital rape, sex with pre-pubescent girls and boys, and of course, the beheading and maiming of “infidels” (that’s most of the people who read this blog and it is most certainly me) — Ann strikes at the heart of our fearful acquiescence and frenzied attempts to be “nice” and reasonable toward a philosophy that is anything but. “Religion of peace” – I DON’T THINK SO. She reads these nakedly violent passages, starkly sociopathic in tone, and swiftly lights each Surah on fire one by one. She works with a wand of outrage – naming evil as evil. And, unlike the gently naive if brave Molly Norris, who instigated the “Draw Mohammed for a Day” on Facebook and just as swiftly tried to take it back, once the horrible realization that Muslim radicals were indeed offended began to dawn… Ann doesn’t give a rat’s ass if an acolyte of Mohammed gets a hair up his ass. She’s pretty amazing! And, while I feel deeply for Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris, and am outraged on her behalf (since she had to go ghost to escape threats of death), I also can’t help but wonder if Ann is ultimately more able to stand her ground because she is an outright American Patriot and a conservative. Not a hipster, but a trader in cattle futures. Raised in eastern Kansas around cows and calves and cowboys, she is steeped in the down to the real landscape of midwestern and western boots and stirrups– common sense, no bullshit, and an abiding love of country. Ann is not reading Chomsky * and wacking off to his apologies for Islamic terror, she knows with a beautiful certainty that the United States, free enterprise, Christianity and Judaism are absolutely superior, at this point in time, to the drooling of Islamic radical misogyny and terror. Hell, she sees the issues endemic to Islam itself, radical or not. She sees Islam as being primarily a totalitarian political ideology and not a religion. Certainly, one can make a case for that.

You have to see for yourself; don’t take my word for it!

>

Now, tell me, why can’t “radicals” be this radical? I mean, leftists, actually, on campus or off? Why can’t they be this incensed by the Islamic mutilation of women and the rape of children, by honor killings or the beheading of various non-Muslims including Buddhists and the murder of Coptic Christians? Why do I only see the far left defending and minimizing the threat of Islamic radicalism? Who can we count on finally, to defend what is certainly a superior civilization? Possibly, the answer would surprise, even me. In fact, I am surprised, but I am also heartened And, yes, this video is campy, inadvertently, but it is also serious stuff folks.

And, she’s cute too. Heh.

* (and I apologize ahead of time, to Molly Norris if she is not into Chomsky or other ridiculous masturbatory anti-Americanism. And, even if she is… Let’s face it, she did come up with that brave and wondrous idea of everyone everywhere drawing Mohammed for a day to defuse the whole insanity, and I wish her only the best! God speed Molly, wherever you are. How sad and utterly wrong that already, Americans appear to have mostly forgotten you and your courage, and wit. I hope you come back out of this crucible stronger . Thank you for inspiring me! )

Phyllis Chesler speaks out against Israeli Apartheid Week and other Academic Delusions

So-called “Israeli Apartheid Week” happened last week at University of Toronto. There are other universities and places worldwide now where it’s also occurring. I don’t want to give the thing more publicity here, so you can look it up on your own if you wish. There’s plenty online about the week of anti-Israel panels and “cultural work”, what it is, and why it is. I’ve certainly taken a good long look and listen. I’ve listened to more than a few panels online and even watched Judith Butler’s keynote at University of Toronto on youtube. You can’t say I don’t pay attention to the side I despise, although I must admit, sometimes — I wonder why I make myself sit through these things. Well, I’ve always been attracted to those I perceive to be adversaries, I’m eternally curious about the opposition, particularly since not too long ago, all things left were mostly not the opposition. Or, so I thought…

I have always been a bit queasy about Israel bashers though, even in my past. I have noticed an escalation of anti-Israel sentiment in the past few years and this has further pushed me away from some of my former comfort zones politically.

One of the people I started reading a few years ago who I have found immensely inspiring on this issue is Phyllis Chesler. I’ve read some of her work online and books, but never heard her speak. I figure since I’d listened to Butler, I should give Chesler her time, and of course, I was moved by her speech and informed. She’s been through a lot in her political feminist journey and if I have even half her courage, I’ll have a lot. She’s lost most of her feminist friends along the way, even being snubbed at funerals of friends in common who have passed away. She is privy to whispered calls from closeted Israel supporters who are also leftist feminists, who can’t dare to risk or give up the things that she has. And, what has Chesler lost? Not only almost all her friends but also grants and publishers and speaking engagements — and some sense of safety when she is actually invited and able to speak at public events. She now has body guards at speaking events due to real physical threats. Her friends now? Besides a few good and very, very few lingering friends from her more orthodox leftist past, she mentions here that she has Christian friends now, and Orthodox Jews. Yes, Christian… And ironically, she works mainly now with dissident Islamic feminists and not western feminists. All her values are absolutely as they always have been: freedom, human rights and women’s rights — but these she believes are no longer served predominantly by the left. And, unfortunately, I must agree.

Her speech here, more eloquent than anything I might say here, and well worth listening to inside this link to her site. An antidote to the Israel Apartheid week cant:

The New Anti-Semitism
When Middle East Politics Invade Campus

Note: The site has an audio recording and a video recording, and I found the audio recording more reliable and less glitchy. Although, YMMV.

Juan Williams on NPR’s elitist Executives and their blinding conceit

Juan Williams says it best, and this could apply to so many on the left, but here he speaks in particular about the self-appointed elites at NPR recently caught on tape wanting to take an anonymous donation from two men disguised as members of a Muslim Brotherhood organization. I love Juan’s expression here of wide-eyed incredulity, like me, he’s beginning to see things in a very different way, after being treated to his shock, like dirt. His expression is priceless:

And, a witty and spot on article here from William Tucker about the embarrassing take down of NPR Sr. VP of Development and President of NPR Foundation Ron Schiller and Betsy Liley, NPR’s director of Institutional Giving, by conservative activists disguised as Muslim Brotherhood front men. They accuse the media of being run by Zionists (Ron Schiller doesn’t miss a beat on pronouncing that of course, the newspapers are in fact, run by Jews and that there is a bias toward Israel but that his NPR is of course, sometimes referred to as National Palestinian Radio ), here the article:

“The question that hangs in my mind, though, is this: How could people who think of themselves as so intelligent be such suckers? How could they be taken in by an American black and a bushy-bearded “Muslim” talking in a grade-B Hollywood accent and really believe they were being offered $5 million? After all, these are people who define themselves as being intelligent. They’re the “educated elite” of whom we supposedly don’t have enough of in this country. And yet they were no more alert than a bunch of high school dropouts sitting around a shabby ACORN office in Baltimore. How do you explain that?

Well, I think it is possible to offer an explanation. Here’s an attempt.

First, liberals can be suckered precisely because they think they are the only intelligent people in America. This smug confidence insulates them from having to pay attention to what anybody else is saying. The conventional wisdom among liberals is that people disagree with them only because they are stupid, uneducated, or have been bought off by the sinister forces of American capitalism. (The New York Times’current obsession with the Koch brothers is a case in point. Conservatives have the same mania over George Soros but they only resent Soros’s funding of liberal projects; they do not dismiss any liberal intellectual working in one of his organizations as being “bought off” by his money.)

You cannot find a liberal intellectual anywhere who can give you an honest, objective accounting of conservative positions on major issues. All they know is that conservatives are “stupid,” racist” and “scary” — boilerplate terms but unfortunately the exact words employed by Schiller on the tape. Practically the only liberal around who has ever been able to give a recognizable presentation of a conservative position is Barack Obama, who was always very good at repeating everybody’s argument before choosing the most liberal point of view. For that we elected him President.

By assuming they are smarter than everybody else, liberals leave themselves utterly vulnerable to anyone who plays on their sense of superiority. It’s a classic Italian Renaissance comedy — the wily servant who, with cajoling and flattery, outwits his master. It’s been going on for centuries. Liberal intellectuals could write you an unintelligible paper on the subject for the Modern Language Association, but they can never see it happening to themselves!

Second, for liberal intellectuals, race is the key to everything (alright, the holy trinity of race, class and gender, I’m abbreviating). If you get on the right side of the fence on race, everything else falls into place. It was an absolute stroke of genius for O’Keefe to send in an American black to tell Schiller he could have $5 million if only he could be a little more balanced in his coverage of Hamas and Hezbollah. Could it have possibly crossed Schiller’s mind, “I wonder if this guy is putting me on?” Never! His whole body would rise up in anguish to banish the thought. That would be racist! Besides, blacks are on our side! All American blacks are beholden to liberals because they support affirmative action and genuflect to Kwanzaa and therefore how could a good-hearted African American possibly be deceiving? Instead, one must only assume the proper patronizing tone, as Schiller did throughout…”

And, here more:

“So how could the nation’s “educated elite” possibly be played for such suckers? The answer is simple. They live in a bubble. Everybody says the same things and thinks the same things and anybody who is any different is to be marveled at as an exotic flower rather than engaged in serious conversation. Last Sunday’s New York Times ran a long profile, for instance, on Wayne Barrett, the longtime Village Voice investigative reporter who after 37 years has been unceremoniously fired, apparently for budget reasons. During the decade of the 1980s, according to the Times, Barrett’s greatest scoop was to reveal Cardinal John J. Conner, head of the New York Archdioceses, was…are you ready for this?… a Republican!”

_______________________________________________________
Ah, yes, a REPUBLICAN!!!! Wowzer. What a shock the Cardinal was a Republican… Heh.

Read the whole thing, though it was so good I quoted most of it.

It’s the same with all the riffraff out there. Tea Party people are easy to identify. They are the industrial parts salesman you meet on an airplane in the Midwest or the local real estate agent who’ll give you the rundown on what people are buying these days. They know nothing about semiology and wouldn’t be able to discuss the hockey stick graph but they are intelligent people nonetheless who understand business and know how the world works.

I have noticed this painful tendency and I think I once indulged in it myself – oh shame. Yeah, I think I said it more than once, in so many words – ‘All those right wingers are just plain dumb, that’s why they believe as they do!’ The rubes! Hah.

I’m glad I got out of my bubble. Once your eyes are open, certain self-deceptions are not as easy to maintain and life becomes all the richer for it.