The Class System in America


Great Problems: The Economic Classes and their Respective Plights

This is the third essay in a series on the great problems of our age. See part 1 and part 2.

To understand American economic conditions, it is helpful to generalize Americans into four economic classes:

  • The Underclass Those scraping by at the fringes of economy, often subsisting on crime or welfare.
  • The Plebs The interchangeable parts in the machinery of the economy. Because plebs are so easy to replace, they earn low wages and have little job security.
  • The Rat-racers Those who have found a career track that offers leverage and rewards inside knowledge. The inside knowledge makes it harder to replace the rat-racer, thus earning them higher salaries. But they must grind out long work hours to maintain their competitive edge.
  • The Rentiers Those who have achieved complete economic security. They no longer need to work to live, instead they work for personal fulfillment.

Please note that the above classes are economic classes, not social classes. A hipster coffee shop barista and a high school dropout janitor both belong in the same pleb economic class, but they are in very different social classes.

Let’s examine each class in detail.

Read more

The American Caste System. Slavery Demonstrated.

About the Corporate Slave Class

One of the key aspects of any slave caste is that they tend to be forbidden to carry arms, or their rights to weaponry tend to be highly restricted. Certain warrior castes can carry weapons, but priests and artisans tend to have their rights to the use of force restricted in many situations.

When going through the paintings of the Dutch masters, it’s not uncommon to see free men carrying swords and pistols, sometimes as ceremonial symbols of status, but also as a demonstration of their superior rights. Trade was not separate from war, and even before the advent of mass conscription, the levée writ small if not en masse was something that hung over the heads of many men from many social classes. The men in this painting are officers, but their lack of uniformity shows that it dates from before the democratic era (click for big):

Bartholomeus_van_der_Helst_Banquet_of_the_Amsterdam_Civic_Guard_in_Celebration_of_the_Peace_of_Münster (1)

Especially since the end of World War II and the step back from mass conscription, even in republics like the United States, baptized in the blood of citizen militias, we have instead regressed (or pro-gressed, depending on your viewpoint) to professional warrior castes holding arms in the urban areas, with a more mixed state of affairs outside the cities.

This creates a cultural and political tension between the American cities and the outside. Within the cities, the people are soft, disarmed, and androgynous. They’re lead by something like a slave caste of bureaucrats and artisans, lead by a small number of oligarchical corporate capitalists who own most of the property and the access to legal and financial leverage points over the system of trade.

Especially since the 2007 financial crisis and the escalation of the cost of living in these cities, this slave caste (which is often quite wealthy, as slave castes often have been, particularly in the East) has become more squeezed and dependent. It’s not uncommon to hear of particularly ambitious corporate slaves who have achieved ‘success’ only to be able to barely afford to buy a humble, lower middle class home in their favored region near the seat of power. Outside the seat of power, even a truck driver can afford to buy a beautiful home which would cost millions of dollars in the central cities. Inside the seat of power, most of the slaves can only afford to rent from either higher-end slaves or members of the oligarchical class.

This slave class tends to look down on the more numerous classes of dependent helots, concentrated in the same cities, but with a sense of pity, occasionally with contempt. The slave class sees it as their moral obligation to support and even uplift the helots, who are usually darker skinned. The slave class both hates, fears, and ridicules the freer middle classes from the less densely populated regions in the interior, not understanding how and why the freemen tend to value their rights to bear arms and hold their own property so much.

The slave class is entirely dependent on the activities in the modern bureaucratic courts. They’re skimmers, financiers, rule-makers, centralizers, standardizers, administrators, teachers, technologists, and cultural manipulators. They usually turn their noses up at independence, even in matters of business, preferring to raise paper money for grand projects with social missions from their oligarchical superiors. They’ll happily trade autonomy for a recognized position within the court, even if it makes them soft and dependent on the system. Hand such a man a gun, and he will tend to feel frightened of the idea of shooting it.

The reason for this is simpler if we look at our society from a broader historical perspective: to hold a gun and to use it wouldn’t be just illegal in most cities without permits, but it would be a violation of a caste boundary. You’ll hear this often from slave women, who are usually quite happy and comfortable in servitude, no matter what she says in earshot of her masters to show what a spirited, hard-working, self-abnegating little slave she is.

When a slave man she knows brings up guns or buying a gun, she will have an immediate emotional reaction to it, sometimes even babbling about how terrible and dangerous guns are, and why one shouldn’t own it or even know how to use it.

Rather than calling the slave woman addled, we should recognize her reaction for what it is — an entirely sensible enforcement of the social caste boundaries which she has intuited. The armed super-cop praetorian is the one authorized to carry a gun. Members of the helot class who are criminals can also be permitted to carry guns now and again, so long as they don’t leave their neighborhoods to menace the powder-skinned slaves too often. Every once in a while, a helot kills a slave, but slaves will tend to instead blame the inherent sin of their own class rather than the semi-feral aggression of the helot types.

These slaves, especially when they advocate for national gun control laws, are just trying to enhance the relative power of the praetorian class, their oligarchical masters, and their own harem-like social organization, so highly dependent on refined, obscure, and fashionably fluctuating religious doctrines emanating from their high academies, as dramatized in the glowing liturgical pageants emanating from screens.

The recent events in Ferguson, MO tended to be those slave classes cheering on the mass violence from the helots directed against the freemen, white and colored, who owned businesses in the downtown.

The freemen tend to be loyal to the older symbols, doctrines, religions, and philosophies of the American founding stock. The slaves, who typically own no property which isn’t contingent on their servitude, only use those symbols in cynical ways to achieve their political ends.

This is really the shape of the conflict that’s brewing on the North American continent. The higher end slaves and the oligarchs don’t like the freemen, their culture, and their resistance to their oligarchical masters who live in New York, Washington, and elsewhere, even around the globe. The Republican party essentially represents the freemen, but usually only in terms of their brokering the many surrenders to the oligarchs and their golden-chained toads.

In this, the urban slaves know that to import more helots from around the globe is to weaken the relative position of the freemen. This also increases their own burdens, but because they are slaves who’ve had the pride and independence trained out of them, this doesn’t rankle them all that much. Indeed, the elite education process is now more one more appropriate to the conditioning of a slave class (which is what it produces) than a class of free men befitting a noble republic.

This system is not particularly wisely put together, nor is it likely to survive, if only because slaves are such terrible fighters, and helots are also terrible fighters. The slave classes are making very loud noises about how much they distrust the praetorians, and how much they would prefer it if the praetorian caste came to be either replaced by helots, or made into a helot praetorian caste.

Why this is doesn’t seem to be from any sort of rational thought process. It’s more that the slave mentality within them has gone to a runaway, ‘left singularity’ signalling competition, in which the slaves are desperate to show that they are more humble and submissive to the needs of the oligarchs than the slave next to them. It’s a sort of groveling competition. The slaves also like to think that their influence over the helots — and their lauding of them as more holy and important than themselves — will also help them use those helots as proxy armies against their real rivals, the freemen.

The reason why the republic temporarily triumphed in Europe was because of physical and moral superiority of the republican army to the degenerating, unreliable monarchical military orders. Some combination of independent free fighters, privateers, mercenaries, and disciplined professional armies came to dominate the globe. Numbers aren’t really nearly as important as superiority in discipline and a sacred mission.

Slaves also lack the audacity and courage of free men, because they gain nothing when they either win or lose, whereas the freemen have everything to gain from conflict and everything to lose from surrender.

Similarly, a slave class intent on degrading the quality of their own praetorian protectors is not one which is likely to survive. It may be a typical example of slaves passive-aggressively retaliating against their own feckless masters, without really understanding what they’re doing on a conscious level.

Because freedom is unthinkable to a slave — the very thought terrifies them — appeals to liberty have no impact on their hearts. They would prefer death, and act according to their true preferences.

Any mystery around Western birth rates dissipates if you think of them as a slave class who prefer sterilization on the female side and adopting the physical and emotional persona of a court eunuch on the part of the males. An odd development in demographics becomes normal, predictable, categorizable in a logical historical context.

Similarly, the oligarchs are merely an advanced class of slave, being educated in the same religious institutions, having the same disdain for the art of war, and are themselves more predisposed to flight than fight.

The private jet is their favored vehicle for a reason. Delicate, fast, expensive, and it puts them above the land and the water, keeps them away from the zombie port rituals of security-purification, and carries no weapons or defenses whatsoever.

In this, the slaves ought to be cheered on, as they walk as in a trance state towards their own mass-suicide.

Drink the Kool-Aid: it’ll taste sweet. That burning sensation in your throat is just that feeling of liberation, as your soul separates from your flesh.

So in North America and to some extent in Europe, the political task is a bit difficult, but not all that dire, necessarily. A good first step is to call the slaves what they are, and to treat them as free men treat slaves of a foreign empire with an alien religion, which is with contempt and pity, rather than with awe, respect, and fear. The absurd slaves of a dying empire, eager to flagellate themselves and their fellows for public entertainment, can do nothing independently worth fearing. They ask to be broken, they ask to leave no traces to history, so work to break them and then erase them.

That’s only what they’re asking for, proudly so, loudly so, dramatically so, so they’re not even likely to complain when it happens to them.

Identitarians may quibble — “these slaves, they are our own people! The urban elves are us!” Which is somewhat true, and a good enough reason to needle some of them to flee the court, if only to deprive the rival system of useful human and material resources.

A few slaves, even of the better class, will often react with shame upon realizing what they really are, and in being called what they are. But most are comfortable with slave life, and should not be told that freedom would be better for them, because it wouldn’t be. But their interests and desires as slaves shouldn’t be of much concern to you, nor should you feel any special responsibility towards maintaining their happiness or the modern bureaucro-court system which they would not be able to survive without.

It’s just a matter of separating the slaves from their protectors, which they themselves seem to be eager to do, so this isn’t even pushing on resistance, but pushing with their own suicidal impulses. Once they are left with nothing but an erratic force of terrible, barbaric helot dregs, they won’t be capable of projecting force to any long term end — certainly not overseas. The primary difficulty faced by freemen is more a lack of territorial integrity, but that’s a solvable problem. The slave mentality of unquestioning obedience is also an obstacle, but a surmountable one, especially as the imperial capitol becomes more erratic, incompetent, and self-destructive.

What must be also articulated and demonstrated is a better type of civilization more appropriate to Western men who have become alienated from their own history. The reason why we dominated the globe — and still do, even in a weakened state — is because, unlike all other peoples, we have this ingrained understanding of the motive power of liberty, as it’s properly understood.

The problem with slave systems, as compared to even relatively free systems like that of feudalism, is that slaves just ain’t all that loyal, nor are they willing to go above and beyond pleasing the master and staying comfortable. When a contest appears, slaves will reliably break instead of fighting. They build up resentments, and those resentments can be used to motivate betrayals. Our modern slave system is so full of traitors that traitors have even become national heroes, as the slaves look up to them, and see the traitor that they could be if they only had the courage.

Seeing it in this light, while the suicidal empire might be dangerous in the same way that a crocodile bleeding to death from a mortal wound may lash out in fury with its remaining energy, the better course of action is to work to contain it, physically, until the animal’s body goes cold.

From http://www.henrydampier.com/2015/04/about-the-corporate-slave-class/

Transgender Freaks

 Transgenderism: A Return to Pagan Mythology

By Fay Voshell

A great prophet once asked the question, “Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots?” Later, Jesus Christ asked, “Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?”

The prophet’s questions were meant to cause the listener to think about the nature of reality and human inability to change certain realities by fiat or wishful thinking.  Declaring one’s self to be other than what one is created is an assault on material and human reality — an exercise in magical thinking that is bound to run up against the reality of the created order, including the reality of humankind created as male and female.
Yet a recent article in the Daily Beast contains a complete glossary of gender options. The glossary is currently comprised of 51 genders, among them an option to be “gender fluid,” that is, having the ability to flit from one gender to another according to what the individual would like to be. The idea is that though biologically one may be born with male or female parts, gender is a choice, not a fixed category. Instead, gender is determined by how an individual feels about his or her self.

According to the latest gender-bending theology, apparently each of us is able by mere wishful thinking about to transform ourselves from man to woman and from woman to man.  It’s a bit like Lewis Carrol’s Alice in Wonderland: “I knew who I was this morning, but I’ve changed a few times since then.”

The quote from Alice in Wonderland encapsulates via satirical means the theology of gender promoted by the increasingly radical left. And, yes, “genderism” is theology, as it deals with the intrinsic nature of human identity, humans’ place in the universe and humans’ concept of God.

The fact is that the Left’s struggle against the clear-cut distinctions between the sexes is not about civil rights. It is not about equality. The struggle amounts to a religious war between the Jewish/Christian view of humanity and the pagan view of mankind.

The belief that magical transformation of material reality, including the material reality of the human being can be accomplished by magical thinking of gods and goddesses is characteristic of the pagan worldview, a world the West left behind centuries ago, but to which it is rapidly returning. To believe the material world, including the human being, is infinitely malleable and capable of instantaneous transformation belongs more to the thought of ancient Greek and Roman mythology than it does to the Western concept of reality as defined by the Judeo/Christian tradition and modern science. The left’s current belief in human’s ability to achieve metamorphosis at will owes more to Ovid’s Metamorphosis than it does to Milton’s Paradise Lost.

Paganism believes in metamorphosis by an act of will, human or divine. Transformation from one form to another is a constant theme in Greek mythology. The gods could become whatever or whomever they wished, often because they wished to have sex with humans who were unaware they were about to be raped by a god who had chosen the disguise of an animal. Zeus became a bull in order to seduce Europa. Once she was captured, Zeus returned to human form and raped her. The gods could also transform humans into flowers and trees. Ovid wrote that Apollo changed the nymph Daphne, with whom he wanted to have sex, into a laurel tree. Hyacinth suffered a similar fate. He was turned into a flower by the god Apollo, who fell in love with the youth’s beauty. The enchanting Leda was seduced by Zeus, who took the form of a swan.

In brief, pagan mythology is characterized by the extreme malleability of material reality, including the malleability of human beings and animals. It is anti-Christian and anti-science. The pagan viewpoint is the current mythology of the Left and is the dead end of the sexual revolution begun in the sixties and now culminating in the abolition of man and woman. The chief difference is that today’s gods and goddesses are human beings who abrogate to themselves the ability to metamorphose into whatever form (sex) they choose. The mantra “You can be whatever you want to be” has expanded to include transforming one’s self into a man or woman by proclamation of the divine, autonomous self. Self-will is as effectual as the will of the gods and goddesses of Greek and Roman mythology.

Add to the pagan myths of metamorphosis by an act of the will of gods the religion of gnosticism, which ran alongside of Greek/Roman mythology. Gnosticism proclaimed material reality is lower than spiritual reality, and that humans are trapped in a lower form. Thus the person who says he’s trapped in a male body by mistake and wants to change into a woman sees himself as ascending to a purer and wholly spiritual reality. Each of us can, at will, shake off this mortal coil of sex for a better state of being, becoming as gods.

What about us mere mortals who accept the reality of their God-given sex? What about the vast majority of us human beings who not only accept the reality of male and female, but actually rejoice in the fixed distinctions between the sexes as a blessing from the Almighty?

As it turns out, we are the ones who are regarded by the Left as delusional, hate-filled people. Though we align ourselves with the scientific knowledge that the human race is divided into male and female, though we believe that “gender” is not infinitely malleable; though we align ourselves with the knowledge every civilization past and present is built on, the Left regards us as delusional and lovers of myth. We are children who don’t realize the emperor really is clothed, not naked; that he is an android, not a man at all.

Like all mythical delusions and fantasies the Left embraces, force is required in order to get the common sense populace who believe in material reality to knuckle under to nonsensical myth. Political fantasies about reality always lead to tyranny.

The uppity person who notes the emperor has no clothes or that a man claiming to be a woman is in the ladies bathroom exposing himself is quashed as a bigot. How dare anyone question the made up reality of the Left’s gods or goddesses? That is not really a man you see. It is a woman. You, dear reader, are crazy, not the gods. You are no longer sane enough to be a member of the Planet called Fitness. Further, your pizzerias will be shut down if you don’t bow down to the gods of the Left. In the long run, you hate-filled people who don’t buy into the multitudinous fantasies of the gods — fantasies more than fifty-one and counting — must be destroyed entirely because you don’t agree with the Left’s religion. You are the problem because, as Carroll notes, you “don’t believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

In sum, we common sense religious types who believe Jewish and Christian theology actually matches reality — “male and female created He them” — are the ones who are guilty of magical thinking, not progressives. It’s the bitter clingers to religion who are certifiably insane, not the Left. It’s those who believe there are two created sexes and that marriage is between a man and a woman who are nut cases. We are the ones who are out of touch with reality. We should be as “logical” as the Left. We should be like Alice in Wonderland, who said:
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?”

“Contrariwise,’ continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

Ultimately, the dead end of the sexual revolution is accession to the Devil’s lie to Adam and Eve when he urged them to eat the forbidden fruit and thus poison themselves with sin against the Reality of Good, Truth and Love: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

There can scarcely be a more deliberate attempt to separate ourselves from the God who created us than the attempt to reverse or annihilate the creation of humankind as man and woman. The hubris to claim we can by fiat reverse the image of God as man or woman by decree is insanity. We are not gods, even if we proclaim ourselves gods.

As theologian Paul Tillich wrote, we are inclined toward idolatry, including idolatry of self-worship — what Pastor David McGee and others call the unholy trinity of Me, Myself and I. Tillich writes that humans are inclined to worship anything but God, thinking we can “we ourselves can produce the presence of the divine Spirit.”

Or, to put it another way, the modern conceit is that we ourselves can be divine when we are actually mere mortals, male and female, in dire need of the divine intervention of redemption, wherein lies true freedom to be man and woman as God means us to be. Therein lies freedom and sanity. It does not lie in the insane idea that our identity as man and woman is completely fungible and can be created by the will of gods and goddesses.

The Left probably will not stop thinking like children who believe myths and fairy tales unless those with a grip on reality confront and demolish the mythology now mesmerizing the so-called “civil rights” movement.

As C.S. Lewis noted, even “A child can only indulge his imagination if he has the rock of stability to return to.” If the rock of reality of humanity as man and woman is destroyed, so is freedom to be human. There is no hope of freedom when magical thinking parades as logic and the natural order is repudiated in favor of myth.

Finally, the West cannot go the way of India without winding up with a sexual caste system comprised of multitudinous genders. India’s Supreme Court has created an official third sex for eunuchs and transgenders, saying, “It is the right of every human being to choose their gender.”  There is absolutely no reason why the new gender caste, which is to be afforded special entitlements in government jobs and university placements, cannot expand into fifty-one or more privileged castes based on self-affirmed gender identity. All the new castes could be created out of thin air, with as many gender castes being created as there now are ethnicities — all clamoring for entitlements.

As the article states, “India’s transgenders include those who feel they were born into the wrong sex, men born with deformed genitals and effeminate boys disowned by their families and sent to live in eunuch colonies.”

While one can only feel compassion for those mutilated by their fellow men and those born with deformed genitals, the category to note is “those who feel they were born into the wrong sex.”

In the long run, the fabled ability to achieve self-metamorphosis provides opportunities as limitless as the stories in Greek mythology, but it may well lead to a new caste system similar to that so detested by the hated colonizers and Christian missionaries who repudiated reincarnation of the human race in favor of redemption of mankind through Christ. To divide society among variants of gender is to invite total disintegration of Western society because the variety of such categories is almost infinite, confined as they are only by imagination and not the reality of the created order.

The West must seek to return to and to vigorously defend the Christian view that the material world, including the human being, is designed by God; and that the created order of man as man and woman as woman cannot be changed without extreme spiritual and societal deformation.

It is one thing to wish to be like God.

It is quite another to wish to be a god.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Seminary, where she received a prize for excellence in systematic theology. Her articles have appeared in American Thinker, National Review, PJMedia, RealClearReligion and many other online publications. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

From AMerican THinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/transgenderism_a_return_to_pagan_mythology.html
 

Signs of the Great Falling Away

Chris-lam?

(Before It’s News)

Chrislam is the merging of apostate christianity and the ideology of Islam, and it is truly a pit of serpents and devils. One of the main founders of Chrislam and one of it’s main drivers is Rick Warren from Saddleback Church in Southern California. Warren at the same time passionately denies his connection with Chrislam while at the same time promoting it through his many ministries and outlets.

To understand where it all started, journey back with us to 2009 where Rick Warren addressed a the annual meeting of the Islamic Society of North America. He opened by telling the audience how much he had in common with Muslims and the ideology of Islam. He preached a pro-globalization message of uniting together at any cost by laying down our differences.

Where Chrislam Was Born: Rick Warren at the ISNA 2009 Conference from Now The End Begins on Vimeo.

He quoted no scripture from the bible, and only mentioned the Name of Jesus Christ once in passing. But what he did repeat over and over was how Muslims and Christians needed to “band together” and start work right away on “interfaith projects”. Warren poured out his interfaith slop, and the Muslims ate it up.

Chrislam Starts To Spread In America
Why does John Hagee’s son use the Muslim crescent moon and christian cross in his logo? That’s Chrislam!

By the time he was done speaking, Chrislam was born. But Warren was only just getting started. The Yale Covenant was right around the corner.

A Common Word Between Us and You

Around this same time, Rick Warren was instrumental in the creation and signing of the Yale Covenant Between Islam and Christianity. This is the preamble to that covenant:

As members of the worldwide Christian community, we were deeply encouraged and challenged by the recent historic open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars, clerics, and intellectuals from around the world. “A Common Word Between Us and You” identifies some core common ground between Christianity and Islam which lies at the heart of our respective faiths as well as at the heart of the most ancient Abrahamic faith, Judaism. Jesus Christ’s call to love God and neighbor was rooted in the divine revelation to the people of Israel embodied in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18). We receive the open letter as a Muslim hand of conviviality and cooperation extended to Christians worldwide. In this response we extend our own Christian hand in return, so that together with all other human beings we may live in peace and justice as we seek to love God and our neighbors.

Muslims and Christians have not always shaken hands in friendship; their relations have sometimes been tense, even characterized by outright hostility. Since Jesus Christ says, “First take the log out your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (Matthew 7:5), we want to begin by acknowledging that in the past (e.g. in the Crusades) and in the present (e.g. in excesses of the “war on terror”) many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors. Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world. Yale Covenant

You will note that the Yale Covenant preamble ends with this esteemed board of Laodicean apostates asking for “forgiviness from the All-Merciful One, Allah”. They have placed the Muslim moon god on the same playing field as the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob from the bible. This Covenant was signed by hundreds of religious leaders from all across America.

So though Rick Warren issues a constant stream of denials about his role in Chrislam, everywhere you look there he is. All the evidence always leads back to him. And he has recruited many others to join him.

Spreading Rapidly

Today in 2013, Chrislam is rising rapidly. John Hagee’s son Matthew has a ministry that uses the crescent moon of Islam and the christian cross as a logo.

Glenn Beck went to Israel and made a video promoting a universal religion with Christianity and Islam as its core. Note how he equates the God of the bible as the same as the moon god of Islam, this is the essence of what Chrislam is all about.

Beck’s universalist message is in perfect harmony with Rick Warren’s global interfaith vision of Chrislam. We are seeing more and more pastors getting in line behind Warren’s demonic vision.

From BIN: http://beforeitsnews.com/religion/2013/11/rick-warrens-chrislam-becomes-one-of-the-fastest-growing-religions-in-america-videos-2458484.html

The Liberal Mind, Evil, Demonic, Death, and allah

Holy Saturday

By David Warren

“Security questions” were the reason so many Christian students were massacred in Kenya this week. This analysis dominates the headlines, as I write, of the BBC, CNN, and so forth.  Owing to “security questions,” Christian students were separated from Muslim students at the Garissa university campus (many of the former identified because they were praying). By some strange and unaccountable coincidence, only the former were slaughtered. But wait, but wait, there were Muslim victims, too! At least four of them: wearing suicide vests, who blew themselves up at the end.

All the dead died because of these “security questions,” which are raised by liberal journalists to deflect attention from the Muslim killers to the Kenyan government. In extenuation, it must be remembered that the typical liberal journalist is also, thanks partly to environmental influences beyond his immediate control, a malicious idiot. He has no clear idea what he is doing. In this case he probably thinks he is promoting multicultural harmony. He is not: Western Christians know perfectly well who is killing whom around the “bloody borders” of the Dar al-Islam, but do not habitually retaliate against harmless and defenceless Muslims in the West.

The truth is that the “liberal” mind (I am using the term in its current sense; or if gentle reader prefers, “progressive” means the same thing) spontaneously identifies more with the perpetrator than the victim, and thus devotes most of its cruelly limited wattage, like the criminal himself, to finding someone innocent or uninvolved to blame.

Of course the Kenyan security agencies are “incompetent.” So are all security agencies, by the standard of Omniscience. They had not yet increased the number of armed guards on that particular university campus, even though they had received intelligence (mostly in the form of threats) that there would be more attacks on Christians in Kenya. As intelligence of this nature is received constantly, today, and the attacks also continue, one may pretend that the security agencies are always to blame. Constant repetition of this vicious lie has conditioned much of the public to react in that way: to blame, without thinking, anyone but the perpetrator.

The secondary level, in the media analysis — that this hit was “payback” for Kenyan government attacks on Muslim terrorists in Somalia — notably cancels the first. For the Kenyan “security questions” are indeed doing what they can. They are tracing their problem of Muslim terrorism to its root cause, which is Muslim terrorists — in this case coming mostly from Somalia.

Godspeed to them in their task, which requires courage from the least of them, along with skill in the use of firearms.

Then we get to the third and most abstract level of this analysis, which takes us out of the direct news reporting, to the cloud cuckooland of liberal pundits and White House flacks. “Poverty and unemployment” accounts for this terrorism. This is fatuous to an extreme that beggars comprehension. It is opposite to the truth at so many points that I’m tempted to write an Idlepost simply listing them. Suffice to say, terrorists seldom come from impoverished families, and even if they did this would not explain why the impoverished, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, so seldom become terrorists. Or, why the ones who do are almost always Muslim.

I find this “media selectivity” — which is to say, constant semi-conscious lying and misrepresentation — almost annoying. Honest reporting in this case would shine light on al-Shabaab, and the explicitly Muslim ideology which accounts entirely for their choice of targets. But I’ve been a journalist myself, and have many years of aggregate experience in newsrooms, and I have observed the root cause of this problem. It is the liberal ideology, or in a word, liberals. They long for destruction of what remains of Western civilization in the same way al-Shabaab and al-Qaeda long for it, but being pant-wetted cowards they restrict their activity to what is within current law. Notwithstanding, at a deeper level, they share with the murderous an allegiance to the “culture of death,” and peristent opposition to the “culture of life.”

The liberal mind naturally identifies with the criminal. This is why, for liberals, freedom of speech and press means licence for pornographers, and human rights reduce invariably to permission for “the transgressive” against civilized norms. They instinctively identify with Muslim fanatics because they share a common enemy: Christians. But when the terrorists do things so utterly repulsive that even they are appalled, they do not attack the motivating Muslim ideology, or a Shariah which is simply a rotation of their own political correctness, but instead “religious fundamentalism” — intending to tar all faithful Christians with the same stinking brush.

We are not dealing here with “another point of view.” We are dealing instead with the satanic. It takes many forms, but when “Allah” is deemed to have commanded massacres of the harmless and defenceless, it may be seen that devil-worship is directly in play. For the poisonously befogged liberal mind, demonic service is less conscious. The liberal is not so much the Devil’s worshipper, as the Devil’s plaything. But this may be rationally demonstrated, by the consistency of his support for the more evil of any two rival causes — for whichever side promises the greater reduction of human life, up to the stage where it becomes so visibly icky that natural mechanisms are triggered, and he throws up.

Jesus was not a conservative, incidentally. He was, and He remains, very purposefully, off the political chart. The true opposite of liberalism is not conservatism, but instead the apolitical — the taking personal responsibility instead of assigning it to others. The trap of liberalism is that only through politics can the political agenda be fought.

And as for Jesus: He is dead at this liturgical moment, the Nietzschean position in the Christian calendar, when one might even say that, “God is dead.” This gives us a chance to consider what is implicit in that proposition. We are in mourning for a Christ who has been judicially murdered. But, too, for a Christ who caught even His own Apostles by surprise, as we will recollect tonight.

If liberals did not love death, they would not so consistently encourage it.

If God did not hate death, He would not have defeated it.

Remember that, and remember that the latest Christian martyrs in Kenya are not dead, despite the terrorists’ best efforts. Like the good thief, they will rise with Our Lord.

From David Warren: http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2015/04/04/holy-saturday/

Freedom of Association

The Struggles of Conservative Inc.

The war on Christian pizza makers has the professional Right sorely vexed. I think most of their outrage is legitimate. They truly are offended by this latest assault on normal Americans. The fund raising by the pizza joint in Indiana suggests normal Americans are growing weary of the lunatics and their causes. Still, I think a part of what vexes the professional Right is their fear of stating the obvious conclusion.

That conclusion is you cannot have freedom of any sort without freedom of association. If you must get permission from the state to associate or disassociate from others, you have no freedom. The state may allow you some options, but everything you do must come with a permission slip. Otherwise, putting two people who hate one another in the same room ends up with blood on the walls.

Here’s a recent screed from National Review struggling to avoid stating the obvious.

Policies come to us with principles attached to them, and when debating public policy we should consider the principles not only of legislation that has passed but also of legislation that has been rejected. No one to my knowledge is discussing where the principles implied in the Left’s rejection of the RFRA lead. Responsible statecraft entails an examination of a principle’s logical conclusion. In the case of liberalism, the conclusions to which its principles lead help us see just how deeply opposed those principles are to the constitutional order we’ve inherited.

When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it invites compelled speech. When photographers are forced under threat of fines to shoot weddings or religious services that they believe are immoral, the assumption is that we are sometimes legally bound to participate in certain kinds of speech, and the state becomes the arbiter of what that speech is in specific instances.

Well, no. Forcing someone to work for someone else is not forcing them speak. It is forcing them to participate. Put another way, it is compulsory association. The state is saying to the photographer, “We really don’t care about your opinions of these people. You must do what we say, act as we say or else.”

Of course, the reason Andrew Walker of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the guy who wrote the piece in question, must fetishize speech is he cannot mention association. To do so, to draw the obvious conclusion from the events in Indiana and elsewhere, would risk his job and career. Rand Paul almost saw his career come to end in 2012 because he dared utter this conclusion.

The reason, ostensibly, is that letting stores refuse service to homos would lead to stores not serving blacks. That has things exactly backwards. Separate public accommodations in the South were falling apart on their own. Basic economics makes such practices self-limiting and self-destructive. The reason Progressives pushed through laws against private discrimination was to eliminate private association.

It’s rather amazing how easily Americans were willing to surrender their liberty, but there it is. Now, there’s no reason to think things like Christianity, private clubs, fraternities, etc will hold up much longer. After all, if you cannot deny admissions based on your own peculiar criteria, why have an organization at all?

The thing I think is vexing to the professional Right is the mounting proof that they were wrong about the Left. They were convinced that the “other side” (as if there are only two sides) was acting in good faith, but just need convincing. Recent events show that to be nonsense, but Conservative Inc. can’t bring itself to admit it.

Which leads to my final point. When the Left rejects the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it invites the imposition of state-enforced morality. The Left requires obedience and punishes dissent. It insists that all citizens must, against their will, act only in a manner that liberalism judges to be accommodating and politic. Anyone acquainted with progressive thought knows that it is founded on unexamined assumptions, but seldom until now have we seen its unhinged hostility unmasked, as the Left reacts to our defense of a cherished freedom written into our Constitution.

There’s no evidence from Progressives that they see any of this as a flaw or even unintentional. Yes, they fully expect to impose their morality – at gunpoint if necessary – on the rest of us. That’s how political cults operate. Hell, it’s how Christianity operated for over 1,000 years. But, admitting this is the case would point out that Conservative Inc has been wrong for thirty years now.

From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

LGBT Crazies go Crazy over Pizza

TV Reporter’s Cheap ‘Gotcha’ Story Incites Hate Mob Against Indiana Pizza Shop

Posted on | April 1, 2015

“RFRA: Michiana business wouldn’t cater a gay wedding.”
“Restaurant denies some services to same-sex couples.”

That’s how Alyssa Marino “reported” a story Tuesday on ABC affiliate WBND-TV in South Bend, Indiana, with the result that a firestorm of hatred came raining down on a pizza shop:

There were no complaints nor denials of service to anyone ever, but because of their religious beliefs, Memories Pizza stands in ruin and the family who owns it has had their lives threatened countless times. How did the O’Connor family, owners of Memories, find themselves in this situation? They were honest with a reporter in search of a story to fit the media’s narrative.
Alyssa Marino is a reporter with ABC 57 News in South Bend, Indiana. With her state in the center of a hurricane over religious freedom, Marino must’ve thought she’d had a coup – a devout Christian business owner willing to speak on camera about their religious beliefs and how it impacts the operations of that business.
The issue of gay marriage is not one that generally comes up when talking about a pizzeria. Neither is straight marriage, for that matter. Local pizza joints aren’t generally hotbeds of wedding receptions. Yet, Marino found herself wandering into Memories Pizza to get the unsuspecting owners to weigh in on an emotional issue which has never come up in the course of the business’s nearly 10 year existence.
When owner Crystal O’Connor told Marino, “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” she had to know she’d struck gold.

You know what would be awesome right now? A fresh hot slice of Indiana pizza, with pepperoni, mushrooms and FREEDOM!

Legalize sodomy, and next thing you know, it’s illegal to disapprove of sodomy. How long until taxpayer-funded compulsory sodomy?

At what point did Americans begin to believe they had a “right” not to be offended?

Liberals always demand “tolerance” until they get enough power to silence their opposition. Then dissent is banned as “hate speech.

In 2015, Democrats are calling in death threats to a pizza shop whose owner agrees with what was Barack Obama’s official position in 2008.

Democrats have succeeded in fostering violent hatred against Christians, capitalists, heterosexuals and fetuses.

(Hat-tip: Moe Lane on Twitter.) The pizza shop was forced to closeWednesday and the owner told Dana Loesch they might not re-openbecause of all the death threats. Ace of Spades:

Death threats are only publicized to the extent they can portray the left as sympathetic victims.
When the left threatens to murder political opponents, the media covers it up.

The Democrat-Media Complex has hyped this Indiana RFRA controversy into an LGBT lynch-mob scenario that compares to nothing I’ve seen since the L.A. riots in 1992. Some people seem to have lost their minds over this:

A Concord High School coach has been suspended after she tweeted about arson in relation to a Walkerton pizzeria whose owners told the media they agree with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Jess Dooley, who is the head coach of the girls golf program and also an assistant coach with the softball and girls basketball programs, took to Twitter Wednesday, April 1, to voice her opinion about the RFRA.
She was adding to the conversation about Memories Pizza, a Walkerton restaurant whose owners announced in a television news segment that they would not cater gay weddings.
Her tweet read: “Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?”

Hey, arson advocacy, public education, to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to, right?

 

People: Calm down. If your TV is making you crazy, turn off the TV. If the Internet is making you crazy, get off the Internet.

Except this blog, of course.

This blog will continue providing all the high-intensity craziness anybody could ever need. Because we know you need it.

From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/

“Diversity” is Turning Into Slavery

How to make slaves to the state in the name of “diversity”

image

You’ve heard it all by now. Bakers are being forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, photographers are being forced to participate in gay weddings, chapels are being forced to officiate gay weddings, etc. And it’s all being done in the name of “equality.” Liberty, of course, is never mentioned.

This is not a religious issue, it’s a liberty issue.

There are those who would make this a religious issue but I believe that it is both short-sighted and unprincipled to do so. Yes, it’s true that most of the cases that we’ve had thus far have involved religion and religious objection, but it is certainly possible to have a case that doesn’t involve religion. Laws that exclusively exempt religious people from following laws that others must follow, do nothing but give religious people special privileges. This is both unconstitutional and inconsistent. There are any number of reasons that a proprietor might refuse service to a customer — and they don’t all involve religion.

But because we have made it about religion, we now have a false argument that has created a division between religious people and non-religious people. This doesn’t have to be the case. After all, at the heart of all of this, it’s not about religion, it’s about liberty. If we would all stay principled, we can avoid problems like this in the future.

Many have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a right is.

There are those who would say that customers have a right to buy something. And this is absolutely true! But here’s the distinction: They don’t have the right to force someone to sell them something. Gay people, straight people, religious people, non-religious people, rich people, poor people and any other group of people have the right, in the United States of America, to purchase a cake. They don’t, however, have the right to force someone to bake them a cake. This should be obvious.

Forcing people to work against their will is slavery.

There is no other way to describe it. The reason they might not want to do the work is utterly irrelevant. If a baker is forced to bake a cake, or a photographer is forced to take pictures, or a plumber is forced to unclog a drain or a farmer is forced to harvest his crops or if any other person is forced to perform labor against his will, it is slavery plain and simple. You can pretend that it isn’t. You can try to justify it by using words like “equality” or “fairness.” You can even demonize the opposition with ad hominem attacks and demagoguery. But the fact will remain, forcing people to work against their will is slavery. And it’s immoral.

Business owners have first amendment rights too.

The typical response to this is always something to the effect of: “if you advertise a service or product, you must be able to provide it with no exceptions.” But this is ludicrous on it’s face. A person does not give up his first amendment rights just because he started a business. Advertising for a business is not the same thing as entering into a contract. I see Lexus ads all the time but I can guarantee you that the Lexus dealership will not give me a Lexus for the amount of money in my bank account. I am ineligible to purchase a Lexus. I am not a potential customer even though they advertised to me as if I was one. “Yeah! But not having enough money is different!” Why is it different? If you have no *principled* response as to why it’s different, then you have no good argument. Furthermore, as I’ve already stated, a business owner might have any number of reasons to refuse service to a potential customer: Lack of money, unruly behavior, difficult delivery logistics, lack of customer license, product or service disputes, age, appearance, etc. It would be a ridiculous fool’s errand to try to determine which of these things should be “illegal” and which shouldn’t be.

We must remain consistent.

A potential response to the above argument is to suggest that all of the other reasons listed for refusing service directly affect the bottom line of the business and, therefore, should be permitted. But, again, not only is this not true, there are plenty of examples that parallel quite nicely with the current controversy. For example, should the gay owner of a community meeting facility be forced to rent it out to, say, The Westboro cult? Obviously not. Should a Christian web developer be forced by the government to design a pornographic website? The vast majority of people would rightly say “no” (remember, this is an analogy, not a comparison). But if they are to remain consistent, those who use the old “If you advertise, there must be no exceptions” argument, must argue that a developer should be forced to design a pornographic web site. These hypothetical scenarios and the current controversy all involve a refusal of service based on (dare I use the phrase) conscientious objection. These businesses should reserve the right to refuse service if they so choose.

Who gets to decide what kind of objection is acceptable?

Whenever analogies like the one above are used, the response often meanders around to the notion that only certain types of objection should be allowed or that we should have certain “protected classes.” In other words, we should define when a business can refuse service and when it can’t. But is that really what we want? Do we really want an all-powerful government determining the things that are acceptable and things that aren’t? Who wins? The people with the most lobbyists? The largest special interest group? Similarly, do we really want the government defining identity groups and then determining which of them should have special rights? Of course not! But that’s exactly what would be (and is) happening.

Free people should be able to enter into contracts with one another.

Rarely have I heard anyone disagree with the notion that people should be able to enter (or not enter) into contracts freely. When a customer purchases something from a business, the two entities have entered into a private contract. The terms of that contract are nobody else’s business. Similarly, the reasons one might choose not to enter into a contract are also nobody else’s business. This is not a hard concept. Yet, for some reason, this principle goes out the window when the feelings of a member of a so-called victim class are on the line.

As usual, liberty is the solution.

You know, I would complain all day if a company didn’t serve me for some petty reason. I would blog about it. I would alert the media. I would protest. I would call for boycotts, etc. But here’s what I would not do: I would not expect (or want) the government to coerce that business into serving me. After all, I’m free to shop somewhere else. I’m free to start my own business and do what I please with it. I’m free to never interact with the business that rejected me. I’m free to live my life as I see fit. And really, that’s the beauty of liberty. All people are free to make their own decisions. No one owns anyone. No one’s identity is defined by bureaucrats. No one is forced to do something they don’t want to do. Yes, within liberty, someone’s feelings might get hurt but that’s life. Yes, within liberty, there will be people who behave badly. But I would take that liberty over an authoritarian government any day.

From Poor Richard: http://poorrichardsnews.com/#

The Organic Food Scam

Organic food is a waste of money and a scam

By P.D. Mangan

organic
So-called “organic” food is everywhere now, as the striking success of Whole Foods shows; even major chain supermarkets have organic sections. All the hip people eat organic, and even plenty of not-so-hip people.

But why? Do they know something I don’t know or is it just possible they are the victims of a giant scam? Somehow I’m thinking it’s the latter…

Let’s get one thing out of the way first: “organic”, as science uses the word, means something that is composed mainly of the element carbon, as are virtually all molecules in any living creature. (Exceptions would be minerals such as sodium and potassium.) “Organic”, as Whole Foods and others use it, means free of artificial chemicals such as pesticides or fertilizers.

The idea behind eating organic food seems to be that pesticide residues in food cause harm to health. The idea makes some sort of sense; after all, pesticides are used to kill pests, so they must be toxic. But there are a few problems with this logic.

One is that conventional food doesn’t have enough pesticide residue to be of concern:

Organic fruits and vegetables can be expected to contain fewer agrochemical residues than conventionally grown alternatives; yet, the significance of this difference is questionable, inasmuch as actual levels of contamination in both types of food are generally well below acceptable limits. Also, some leafy, root, and tuber organic vegetables appear to have lower nitrate content compared with conventional ones, but whether or not dietary nitrate indeed constitutes a threat to human health is a matter of debate. On the other hand, no differences can be identified for environmental contaminants (e.g. cadmium and other heavy metals), which are likely to be present in food from both origins.

The average consumer of organic food would, I suppose, say that they’re going to be extra cautious, just in case. If they want to spend their money paying double the price of regular food, and if Whole Foods is willing to take their money, fine by me.

What makes the case against paying more for organic food more damning is the fact that our natural, human diet is loaded with pesticides, natural ones. All those dietary phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables that are so good for us are composed largely of chemicals made by plants to defend themselves from predators. It may be surprising for some to learn that plants do not want to be eaten.

Animals defend themselves either by fight or by flight. Plants cannot flee, literally rooted to the ground as they are, so they fight using the only means possible: chemical warfare. Coffee plants don’t produce caffeine in order to satisfy human consumers; they do it to poison animals and insects that want to eat them. The sulforaphanes in cruciferous vegetables, the solanine in potatoes, the epicatechins in tea: none of those were put there for our benefit. The difference between an edible and an unedible plant lies merely in our ability to tolerate the toxins of an edible plant.

This was spelled out in a classic paper by Bruce Ames, Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural) (PDF). The abstract:

The toxicological significance of exposures to synthetic chemicals is examined in the context of exposures to naturally occurring chemicals. We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested [as of 1990] in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods. We conclude that natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests. We also conclude that at the low doses of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant

Nearly all of the pesticide chemicals that humans are exposed to are natural, produced by the plants themselves, and the fact that there’s little if any difference between natural and synthetic pesticides can be seen in the fact that half of the natural pesticides tested caused cancer in rodents.

Furthermore, the quantity of natural pesticides that humans ingest daily is many orders of magnitude greater than the amount of synthetic pesticides:

Concentrations of natural pesticides in plants are usually measured in parts per thousand or million rather than parts per billion, the usual concentration of synthetic pesticide residues or of water pollutants. We estimate that humans ingest roughly 5000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products.

The natural pesticides that are known to cause cancer are present in the most common foods ingested too.

…the 27 natural pesticides that are rodent carcinogens are present in the following foods: anise, apple, apricot, banana, basil, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, caraway, carrot, cauliflower, celery, cherries, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, coffee, collard greens, comfrey herb tea, currants, dill, eggplant, endive, fennel, grapefruit juice, grapes, guava, honey, honeydew melon, horseradish, kale, lentils, lettuce, mango, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, orange juice, parsley, parsnip, peach, pear, peas, black pepper, pineapple, plum, potato, radish, raspberries, rosemary, sesame seeds, tarragon, tea, tomato, and turnip. Thus, it is probable that almost every fruit and vegetable in the supermarket contains natural
plant pesticides that are rodent carcinogens. The levels of these 27 rodent carcinogens in the above plants are commonly thousands of times higher than the levels of synthetic pesticides.

Science, real actual science, shows that virtually every plant food we eat contains large amounts of natural pesticides, some of which are known to cause cancer in lab animals.

The conclusion must be that organic food is a waste of money, and to the extent that some people and corporations profit from the ignorance of the public, and even feed that ignorance, a scam.

From Rogue Health and Fitness: http://roguehealthandfitness.com/organic-food-waste-money-scam/

Only Whites Can Be Racists…and Other Bullshit that Liberals Believe

 

 

Nonwhites Can’t Be Racist Cuz My Teacher Told Me So

by Jim Goad

March 09, 2015

Although it was released over three years ago, there were audible sounds of indigestion online recently at the discovery of a textbook called Is Everyone Really Equal?: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education. The book is intended for all students of high school age and above. From a cursory glance of the book’s advertising materials, it appears to be roughly as full of shit as its title would imply.

At issue recently was this specific passage:

There is no such thing as reverse racism or reverse sexism (or the reverse of any form of oppression). While women can be just as prejudiced as men, women cannot be “just as sexist as men” because they do not hold political, economic, and institutional power.

Some would agree that there is indeed no such thing as “reverse racism,” but they’d argue so for different reasons than the authors. They’d say racism is racism no matter who’s practicing it. Unlike the authors of Is Everyone Really Equal?, at least they’re being consistent.

But sensible citizens such as you and I realize that the voodoo term “racism” is purely a social construct and thus has no innate meaning. That’s why different groups are always fighting one another to define it. The ability to define words is the root of cultural power. In my lifetime, the word’s definition has expanded with the ravenousness of a malignant tumor. Nowadays, everything white is racist. Even pointing that out is racist. And it’s racist of me for making fun of the fact that pointing this out is racist. And every word I keep saying from hereon out merely compounds the racism.

“The ability to define words is the root of cultural power.”

Will this tired conga beat never end? “Nonwhites cannot be racist” is a transparently nonsensical statement. It’s a freeze-dried and vacuum-sealed bag of pure bullshit, one of those innately fraudulent Newspeak mantras that bother me more every time I hear them—you know, obvious lies such as “alcoholism is a disease,” “rape has nothing to do with sex,” and “race doesn’t exist, but racism is rampant.” It’s an idea that makes no sense, which may be why its proponents feel compelled to constantly hammer you in the head with it until you finally relent merely because your head hurts.

More importantly, it’s a blatant act of moving the goalposts. It’s an attempt to redefine the term “racism” in a way that effectively silences whites and cripples their ability to address the topic with any level of meaning, honesty, or emotion.

Read it all at Taki Mag:

http://takimag.com/article/nonwhites_cant_be_racist_cuz_my_teacher_told_me_so_jim_goad/print#ixzz3U5KVPyvs

The Cancer of islamic sharia law Explained

ISIS is the Syndrome, Sharia the Real Malignancy

As the US-led kinetic war against ISIS continues with indifferent success and less than certain prospects to date, answering the obvious question of what motivates that murderous organization becomes more pressing by the day. Remarkably, there have been no visible efforts in that direction by either the White House or the Defense Department. Indeed, the much touted Obama Administration-sponsored conference on “countering violent extremism” further obfuscated the issue by its oxymoronic definition of terrorism as “acts of violence” committed “against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths.” Neither did the “Team America” high-level Pentagon-sponsored recent meeting in Kuwait help much with its lapidary conclusion that the US strategy against ISIS is correct.

Against that meager analytical background, a much discussed and praised effort to decipher ISIS ideology by journalist Graeme Wood in the March issue of the Atlantic Magazine deserves close scrutiny, because it is a good example of just how muddled and unrealistic our understanding of radical Islam with respect to ISIS has become.

Titled “What Does ISIS Really Want,” the article’s main contribution is its common sense proposition that ISIS is Islamic, indeed, “very Islamic.” Unfortunately, the rest of it is a largely failed effort to explain what drives ISIS to do what it does with a confused exegesis of its Islamic beliefs and interviews with several sympathizers. Key emphasis is given to its ostensible eschatological predilections as a “key agent of the coming apocalypse” and a “headline player in the imminent end of the world” when the messiah Mahdi will show up on Judgment Day. Mr. Wood also makes much of ISIS’s reported faithfulness to something called the “prophetic methodology of the caliphate” and implies strongly that what they practice is a “distinctive variety” and a “coherent and even learned interpretation of Islam,” which aims “returning civilization to a seventh century legal environment.”

Much of this makes little sense to anybody who’s familiar with the foundational texts of Islam. It is true that the Quran does deal with Judgment Day in Sura 75 (Yawm al-Qiyamah), but much of what it says appears to be borrowed from the Bible and Mahdi, an essentially Shia concept, is not mentioned at all. ‘Prophetic methodology’ is a propaganda term used by ISIS and means nothing, especially in connection with the caliphate, which is not mentioned in either the Quran or the traditions (Sunna) of Muhammad. As far as the “seventh century legal environment” is concerned, it’s worth noting that during Muhammad’s life time and that of his immediate successors, there was no Islamic corpus juris in existence and to the extent that a legal system existed at all, it was mostly the old Arab customary law (urf) and arbitration that were practiced. In fact, the codification of sharia as Islamic law did not begin until the middle of the 8th century and was not completed until the end of the 9th century, or 2nd and 3rd century of Islam.

If ISIS ideology thus has little to do with “prophetic methodology” and eschatological propaganda, it has everything to do with sharia. And the reason for that is very simple, for sharia is the most radical possible interpretation of Islam and a real source of legitimacy for those practicing it among the millions of Islamist sympathizers.

So what exactly is sharia? To radical Islamists, salafis and jihadists of all kinds, sharia is ‘God’s sacred law’ to be obeyed to the letter if a Muslim were to end up in heaven. More than that, it is also the constitution of the Islamic state and the guarantee of the perfect synergy between religion and the state (din wa dawla). To reform-minded Muslims and most non-Muslims it is nothing of the kind. Rather it is a post-Quranic, man-made doctrine designed to legitimate the imperialist policies of the hereditary Muslim empires that followed Muhammad and his successors and the open discrimination against non-Muslims and women widely practiced by them. Moreover, sharia was based for the most part not on the Quran, but on secondary and often unreliable sources such as the hadith (Muhammad’s sayings).

To the extent that sharia is based on the Quran, the cornerstone of its interpretation is the doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which invalidates most of the peaceful and tolerant verses of the earlier Meccan period and replaces them with the later violence-preaching Medinese verses. As a result, sharia is not only radical and intolerant, but is also in direct conflict with many Quranic injunctions. Thus, the punishment for apostasy is death in sharia, but 100 lashes in the Quran. The former makes the establishment of the caliphate and sharia a religious obligation for Muslims, while the latter does not mention either one of them at all. In the Quran, Muslims are enjoined to fight in self-defense, sharia makes offensive jihad for the spread of Islam mandatory among many other examples. If one were to characterize sharia today, which Muslims have been obligated to follow blindly (taqlid) since the 10th century, what comes readily to mind is the Catholic faith at the time of the inquisition.

The discriminatory and violent nature of sharia’s injunctions made it impractical as a law early on in Muslim states that were multi-national and multi-confessional, as most of them were, and though it was regularly paid lip service to, it was seldom practiced, except occasionally as family law. In the early Muslim empires, for instance, justice was administered mostly by courts of grievance (mazalim), police courts (shurta) or market judges (sahib al souk), rather than sharia, while in the historically greatest Muslim state of all, the Ottoman empire, the law of the land was kanun osmanly, an essentially secular law.

In fact, sharia’s political fortunes did not change for the better until the patron saints of contemporary radical Islam, Abul ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, elevated the imposition of sharia as the sole criterion of whether or not a state is Muslim or apostate in middle of the 20th century. Since then, with the help of huge amounts of Saudi money and the spread of Muslim Brotherhood networks, sharia has become the sine qua non of the radical Islamist idiom that currently dominates the Muslim establishment worldwide. It is simply a fact that from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on down to countless mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim organizations, no rule, regulation or bylaw is viewed as legitimate if it contradicts sharia.

What the widespread support for sharia among Muslims means is that President Obama’s repeatedly expressed belief that there is no radical Islam, but just individual terrorists, is widely off the mark. In just a couple of examples relevant to ISIS, a recent open letter signed by 126 prominent Muslims from around the world, including many US Islamists, denouncing ISIS’ tactics, nonetheless endorses sharia. In another example, a radical Wahhabi preacher and passionate sharia supporter named Mohamed al-Arefe, approved of raping kidnapped Yazidi women in a tweet to his 10 million followers, while the prominent Islamist and member of the influential “senior council of clerics” in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa arguing that whoever denies the legitimacy of slavery in sharia becomes an infidel.

For jihadist organizations like ISIS, being sharia-compliant in a self-proclaimed caliphate bestows them huge legitimacy in the eyes of the devout. What we view as barbaric practices, including raping and enslaving “infidel” women, crucifixions, killing homosexuals and Muslim apostates, are fully justified in sharia. Undoubtedly, the ISIS cutthroats believe that some of their more recent gruesome innovations, such as chopping off women’s hands for using cell phones or beheading smokers, are also legitimate under sharia.

Muslims are also obligated by sharia to emigrate to the caliphate, which helps explain the huge number of volunteer jihadists who continue to flock to ISIS. The ISIS’ self-anointed “Caliph Ibrahim” enjoys yet another political benefit under sharia, which orders Muslims to obey him even if he is “unjust,” because “a rebellion against a caliph is one of the greatest enormities.”

What is beyond doubt is sharia’s absolute incompatibility with basic human rights, democratic norms and the law of nations and its highly seditious nature in calling for violence against non-Muslims and non-conforming Muslims both. Until the community of nations and the Muslims themselves come to terms with this malignant doctrine and act to delegitimize it, its poisonous offshoots like ISIS will continue to thrive.

Alex Alexiev is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center (IASC) in Wash. D.C. and chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) in Sofia, Bulgaria. His latest book on Islamism “The Wages of Extremism: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West and the Muslim World,” is available as a pdf file from the Hudson Institute.

As the US-led kinetic war against ISIS continues with indifferent success and less than certain prospects to date, answering the obvious question of what motivates that murderous organization becomes more pressing by the day. Remarkably, there have been no visible efforts in that direction by either the White House or the Defense Department. Indeed, the much touted Obama Administration-sponsored conference on “countering violent extremism” further obfuscated the issue by its oxymoronic definition of terrorism as “acts of violence” committed “against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths.” Neither did the “Team America” high-level Pentagon-sponsored recent meeting in Kuwait help much with its lapidary conclusion that the US strategy against ISIS is correct.

Against that meager analytical background, a much discussed and praised effort to decipher ISIS ideology by journalist Graeme Wood in the March issue of the Atlantic Magazine deserves close scrutiny, because it is a good example of just how muddled and unrealistic our understanding of radical Islam with respect to ISIS has become.

Titled “What Does ISIS Really Want,” the article’s main contribution is its common sense proposition that ISIS is Islamic, indeed, “very Islamic.” Unfortunately, the rest of it is a largely failed effort to explain what drives ISIS to do what it does with a confused exegesis of its Islamic beliefs and interviews with several sympathizers. Key emphasis is given to its ostensible eschatological predilections as a “key agent of the coming apocalypse” and a “headline player in the imminent end of the world” when the messiah Mahdi will show up on Judgment Day. Mr. Wood also makes much of ISIS’s reported faithfulness to something called the “prophetic methodology of the caliphate” and implies strongly that what they practice is a “distinctive variety” and a “coherent and even learned interpretation of Islam,” which aims “returning civilization to a seventh century legal environment.”

Much of this makes little sense to anybody who’s familiar with the foundational texts of Islam. It is true that the Quran does deal with Judgment Day in Sura 75 (Yawm al-Qiyamah), but much of what it says appears to be borrowed from the Bible and Mahdi, an essentially Shia concept, is not mentioned at all. ‘Prophetic methodology’ is a propaganda term used by ISIS and means nothing, especially in connection with the caliphate, which is not mentioned in either the Quran or the traditions (Sunna) of Muhammad. As far as the “seventh century legal environment” is concerned, it’s worth noting that during Muhammad’s life time and that of his immediate successors, there was no Islamic corpus juris in existence and to the extent that a legal system existed at all, it was mostly the old Arab customary law (urf) and arbitration that were practiced. In fact, the codification of sharia as Islamic law did not begin until the middle of the 8th century and was not completed until the end of the 9th century, or 2nd and 3rd century of Islam.

If ISIS ideology thus has little to do with “prophetic methodology” and eschatological propaganda, it has everything to do with sharia. And the reason for that is very simple, for sharia is the most radical possible interpretation of Islam and a real source of legitimacy for those practicing it among the millions of Islamist sympathizers.

So what exactly is sharia? To radical Islamists, salafis and jihadists of all kinds, sharia is ‘God’s sacred law’ to be obeyed to the letter if a Muslim were to end up in heaven. More than that, it is also the constitution of the Islamic state and the guarantee of the perfect synergy between religion and the state (din wa dawla). To reform-minded Muslims and most non-Muslims it is nothing of the kind. Rather it is a post-Quranic, man-made doctrine designed to legitimate the imperialist policies of the hereditary Muslim empires that followed Muhammad and his successors and the open discrimination against non-Muslims and women widely practiced by them. Moreover, sharia was based for the most part not on the Quran, but on secondary and often unreliable sources such as the hadith (Muhammad’s sayings).

To the extent that sharia is based on the Quran, the cornerstone of its interpretation is the doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which invalidates most of the peaceful and tolerant verses of the earlier Meccan period and replaces them with the later violence-preaching Medinese verses. As a result, sharia is not only radical and intolerant, but is also in direct conflict with many Quranic injunctions. Thus, the punishment for apostasy is death in sharia, but 100 lashes in the Quran. The former makes the establishment of the caliphate and sharia a religious obligation for Muslims, while the latter does not mention either one of them at all. In the Quran, Muslims are enjoined to fight in self-defense, sharia makes offensive jihad for the spread of Islam mandatory among many other examples. If one were to characterize sharia today, which Muslims have been obligated to follow blindly (taqlid) since the 10th century, what comes readily to mind is the Catholic faith at the time of the inquisition.

The discriminatory and violent nature of sharia’s injunctions made it impractical as a law early on in Muslim states that were multi-national and multi-confessional, as most of them were, and though it was regularly paid lip service to, it was seldom practiced, except occasionally as family law. In the early Muslim empires, for instance, justice was administered mostly by courts of grievance (mazalim), police courts (shurta) or market judges (sahib al souk), rather than sharia, while in the historically greatest Muslim state of all, the Ottoman empire, the law of the land was kanun osmanly, an essentially secular law.

In fact, sharia’s political fortunes did not change for the better until the patron saints of contemporary radical Islam, Abul ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, elevated the imposition of sharia as the sole criterion of whether or not a state is Muslim or apostate in middle of the 20th century. Since then, with the help of huge amounts of Saudi money and the spread of Muslim Brotherhood networks, sharia has become the sine qua non of the radical Islamist idiom that currently dominates the Muslim establishment worldwide. It is simply a fact that from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on down to countless mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim organizations, no rule, regulation or bylaw is viewed as legitimate if it contradicts sharia.

What the widespread support for sharia among Muslims means is that President Obama’s repeatedly expressed belief that there is no radical Islam, but just individual terrorists, is widely off the mark. In just a couple of examples relevant to ISIS, a recent open letter signed by 126 prominent Muslims from around the world, including many US Islamists, denouncing ISIS’ tactics, nonetheless endorses sharia. In another example, a radical Wahhabi preacher and passionate sharia supporter named Mohamed al-Arefe, approved of raping kidnapped Yazidi women in a tweet to his 10 million followers, while the prominent Islamist and member of the influential “senior council of clerics” in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa arguing that whoever denies the legitimacy of slavery in sharia becomes an infidel.

For jihadist organizations like ISIS, being sharia-compliant in a self-proclaimed caliphate bestows them huge legitimacy in the eyes of the devout. What we view as barbaric practices, including raping and enslaving “infidel” women, crucifixions, killing homosexuals and Muslim apostates, are fully justified in sharia. Undoubtedly, the ISIS cutthroats believe that some of their more recent gruesome innovations, such as chopping off women’s hands for using cell phones or beheading smokers, are also legitimate under sharia.

Muslims are also obligated by sharia to emigrate to the caliphate, which helps explain the huge number of volunteer jihadists who continue to flock to ISIS. The ISIS’ self-anointed “Caliph Ibrahim” enjoys yet another political benefit under sharia, which orders Muslims to obey him even if he is “unjust,” because “a rebellion against a caliph is one of the greatest enormities.”

What is beyond doubt is sharia’s absolute incompatibility with basic human rights, democratic norms and the law of nations and its highly seditious nature in calling for violence against non-Muslims and non-conforming Muslims both. Until the community of nations and the Muslims themselves come to terms with this malignant doctrine and act to delegitimize it, its poisonous offshoots like ISIS will continue to thrive.

Alex Alexiev is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center (IASC) in Wash. D.C. and chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) in Sofia, Bulgaria. His latest book on Islamism “The Wages of Extremism: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West and the Muslim World,” is available as a pdf file from the Hudson Institute.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/isis_is_the_syndrome_sharia_the_real_malignancy_.html#ixzz3TzNcIEEz

Obama’s Selma Speech. More of the same Marxist Propaganda spewing out of a filthy fountain.

Obama’s Unscrupulous Selma Speech

Under the guise of commemorating justice, on the 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday March in Selma, Alabama, Barack Obama engaged in his usual artful deception by exploiting the event to further his agenda.

While placing the subtext of blame upon the shoulders of racist white men, to make a self-serving point concerning illegal immigration Obama used black Americans as beasts of burden to haul the weight of his reprimand.

For starters, historical revisionist Barack Obama left out the fact that those doing the beating in Selma were members of the Democratic Party. The president dared not reveal that, 50 years later, both he and his political cronies are now politically and economically billy-clubbing the very people he pretends to defend.

Keynote speaker Obama opened the discourse by extolling civil rights leader/Martial Law advocate John Lewis (D-GA). Predictably, before long, Obama’s words started to sound more like he was discussing his own struggles as a ‘fundamental transformer’ than commemorating a half-century old injustice.

Identifying with freedom marchers at Selma, Obama began to compare the struggle for civil rights with the need for unnamed oppressors to accept his “idea of a just… fair… inclusive… generous America.”

At one point, the president went so far as to side with phone-buddy Kanye West by mentioning that white newsman Bill Plante confirmed Kanye’s Beyoncé vs. Beck and Taylor Grammy assertion when he said that on the day of the original Selma march, “white people lowered the quality of the [hymn] singing.”

Then, what came across as a leftist jab to the jaw of those who disagree with his illegal immigration policy, Obama said, “We are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them.”

“Back then, they were called Communists, half-breeds, outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse,” Obama explained, “Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism was challenged.

Then he asked:

What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people — the unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many – coming together to shape their country’s course?

Rest assured that when Barack Obama names ‘dreamers… shaping [the] country’s course… [and]… America being not yet finished,’ and when he proposes “closely align[ing] with our highest ideals” what he is really referring to is a nation remade entirely upon progressive principles.

Moreover, know this: when this president speaks of “a more perfect union,” and then says this is “a roadmap for citizenship and an insistence in the capacity of free men and women to shape our own destiny,” the underlying theme is a cry for an America flooded to overflowing with illegal immigrants.

Take for instance his reference to “pick[ing] up torches and crossing the bridge,” which was followed by his hinting at the moral equivalency between coyotes on jet skis smuggling illegals across the Rio Grande and those who legally migrate to America.

By equating illegal immigrants with Iwo Jima and the moonwalk and obscuring insinuation behind commendation, Barack Obama managed to successfully use Selma to denigrate two of America’s greatest accomplishments.

Then, mid-speech, the president justified stirring racial tensions when playing the “race card,” brought up the “long shadow… [of]… this nation’s racial history,” the inequity of black incarceration, and the need for voting rights, something he apparently believes illegals deserve. Subsequently, while skirting his own policy contribution to a situation he stressed was indicative of racial injustice, Obama broached the volatile subject of black poverty.

Quickly returning to illegal immigration, Mr. Obama introduced his own selfish agenda into a moral issue by sharing his skewed view of “American exceptionalism.”

The president seemed to suggest that individuals who cling to the rule of law simply do not understand that those who risk everything to realize the promise of citizenship are the ones who truly love and believe in America.

According to President Obama, American exceptionalism contains the “imperative of citizenship.”

That’s why Obama implied that border jumpers are somehow on par with black Revolutionary era heroes like Crispus Attucks or U.S. refugees such as Holocaust survivors, Soviet defectors, and the Lost Boys of Sudan, and why he believes true Americans “brave the unfamiliar” by doing things like “stowing away on ships.”

Forgetting to state that both freemen and black slaves as well as Scottish stonecutters built the White House, Obama, raised in Indonesia and schooled at Columbia and Harvard, said “We the people” are “slaves who built the White House.”

Then, after likening the plight of MS-13 gang members to Holocaust survivors, Obama related DREAMers in the military to “the Tuskegee Airmen, Navajo code-talkers, and Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied.”

The black civil-rights crowd, who view equal rights for sexual orientation as vastly different from race, must surely have appreciated the mental imagery Obama concocted when he identified Selma with the LGBT community saying, “We are the gay Americans whose blood ran on the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge.”

When paraphrasing, “You are America… Unencumbered by what is, and ready to seize what ought to be,” America’s first community activist president again paid homage to his late mentor, Saul Alinsky, who often spoke of “the world as it is and the world as it ought to be.”

Before suggesting that “Yes We Can” belonged in the same context as “We the People… [and]… We Shall Overcome,” the Mt. Rushmore hopeful mocked those who revere an iconic American identity when he said that America is “Not stock photos or airbrushed history or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American than others.”

Barack Obama ended his sermon by once again reminding those in attendance that our “union is not perfect,” and by quoting Isaiah 40:31, a Scripture he botched at the National Prayer breakfast in 2013.

Renewed in strength, tireless transformationist Barack Obama said he considers himself among the “we”… who “abhor unfairness, and despise hypocrisy… give voice to the voiceless, and tell truths that need to be told.”

And while that sounds magnificent, underneath all the flowery rhetoric, this president promotes inequity, personifies hypocrisy, funds and supports silencing the voice of the voiceless and, even if his life depended on it, is completely incapable of telling the truth.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com

Under the guise of commemorating justice, on the 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday March in Selma, Alabama, Barack Obama engaged in his usual artful deception by exploiting the event to further his agenda.

While placing the subtext of blame upon the shoulders of racist white men, to make a self-serving point concerning illegal immigration Obama used black Americans as beasts of burden to haul the weight of his reprimand.

For starters, historical revisionist Barack Obama left out the fact that those doing the beating in Selma were members of the Democratic Party. The president dared not reveal that, 50 years later, both he and his political cronies are now politically and economically billy-clubbing the very people he pretends to defend.

Keynote speaker Obama opened the discourse by extolling civil rights leader/Martial Law advocate John Lewis (D-GA). Predictably, before long, Obama’s words started to sound more like he was discussing his own struggles as a ‘fundamental transformer’ than commemorating a half-century old injustice.

Identifying with freedom marchers at Selma, Obama began to compare the struggle for civil rights with the need for unnamed oppressors to accept his “idea of a just… fair… inclusive… generous America.”

At one point, the president went so far as to side with phone-buddy Kanye West by mentioning that white newsman Bill Plante confirmed Kanye’s Beyoncé vs. Beck and Taylor Grammy assertion when he said that on the day of the original Selma march, “white people lowered the quality of the [hymn] singing.”

Then, what came across as a leftist jab to the jaw of those who disagree with his illegal immigration policy, Obama said, “We are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them.”

“Back then, they were called Communists, half-breeds, outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse,” Obama explained, “Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism was challenged.

Then he asked:

What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people — the unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many – coming together to shape their country’s course?

Rest assured that when Barack Obama names ‘dreamers… shaping [the] country’s course… [and]… America being not yet finished,’ and when he proposes “closely align[ing] with our highest ideals” what he is really referring to is a nation remade entirely upon progressive principles.

Moreover, know this: when this president speaks of “a more perfect union,” and then says this is “a roadmap for citizenship and an insistence in the capacity of free men and women to shape our own destiny,” the underlying theme is a cry for an America flooded to overflowing with illegal immigrants.

Take for instance his reference to “pick[ing] up torches and crossing the bridge,” which was followed by his hinting at the moral equivalency between coyotes on jet skis smuggling illegals across the Rio Grande and those who legally migrate to America.

By equating illegal immigrants with Iwo Jima and the moonwalk and obscuring insinuation behind commendation, Barack Obama managed to successfully use Selma to denigrate two of America’s greatest accomplishments.

Then, mid-speech, the president justified stirring racial tensions when playing the “race card,” brought up the “long shadow… [of]… this nation’s racial history,” the inequity of black incarceration, and the need for voting rights, something he apparently believes illegals deserve. Subsequently, while skirting his own policy contribution to a situation he stressed was indicative of racial injustice, Obama broached the volatile subject of black poverty.

Quickly returning to illegal immigration, Mr. Obama introduced his own selfish agenda into a moral issue by sharing his skewed view of “American exceptionalism.”

The president seemed to suggest that individuals who cling to the rule of law simply do not understand that those who risk everything to realize the promise of citizenship are the ones who truly love and believe in America.

According to President Obama, American exceptionalism contains the “imperative of citizenship.”

That’s why Obama implied that border jumpers are somehow on par with black Revolutionary era heroes like Crispus Attucks or U.S. refugees such as Holocaust survivors, Soviet defectors, and the Lost Boys of Sudan, and why he believes true Americans “brave the unfamiliar” by doing things like “stowing away on ships.”

Forgetting to state that both freemen and black slaves as well as Scottish stonecutters built the White House, Obama, raised in Indonesia and schooled at Columbia and Harvard, said “We the people” are “slaves who built the White House.”

Then, after likening the plight of MS-13 gang members to Holocaust survivors, Obama related DREAMers in the military to “the Tuskegee Airmen, Navajo code-talkers, and Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied.”

The black civil-rights crowd, who view equal rights for sexual orientation as vastly different from race, must surely have appreciated the mental imagery Obama concocted when he identified Selma with the LGBT community saying, “We are the gay Americans whose blood ran on the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge.”

When paraphrasing, “You are America… Unencumbered by what is, and ready to seize what ought to be,” America’s first community activist president again paid homage to his late mentor, Saul Alinsky, who often spoke of “the world as it is and the world as it ought to be.”

Before suggesting that “Yes We Can” belonged in the same context as “We the People… [and]… We Shall Overcome,” the Mt. Rushmore hopeful mocked those who revere an iconic American identity when he said that America is “Not stock photos or airbrushed history or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American than others.”

Barack Obama ended his sermon by once again reminding those in attendance that our “union is not perfect,” and by quoting Isaiah 40:31, a Scripture he botched at the National Prayer breakfast in 2013.

Renewed in strength, tireless transformationist Barack Obama said he considers himself among the “we”… who “abhor unfairness, and despise hypocrisy… give voice to the voiceless, and tell truths that need to be told.”

And while that sounds magnificent, underneath all the flowery rhetoric, this president promotes inequity, personifies hypocrisy, funds and supports silencing the voice of the voiceless and, even if his life depended on it, is completely incapable of telling the truth.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/obamas_unscrupulous_selma_speech.html#ixzz3TzKJXvWj

Enviro-fascism

green_armageddon.jpg

“Green Alarmism does not derive from science. It comes from a religion, the faux pagan worship of Gaia, the earth goddess. She is angry and must be propitiated by the sacrifice of human babies. The white liberals who are votaries of this religion have chosen brown and black babies to be the victims of the rituals of “population control”, “zero population growth” and “reproductive choice”.

“Why has this bizarre cult arisen among what are supposed to be our most intelligent and skeptical class?

“First we must observe the collapse of Christian belief in this class.

“They are all Marxists now, not industrial grade Stalinists, but cultural Marxists theorized by Adorno, and Gramisci, and the French lumpen-philosopes such as Foucault and Derrida. But, even those variants of Marxism demands atheism.

“Also atheism, especially, the nasty anti-intellectual atheism of Dawkins et. al., allows them to indulge their favorite passion — Contempt for the unwashed masses of Americans — the obese bitter clingers who inhabit fly-over country and cling to their guns and religion.

“Having chosen atheism does not mean that they believe nothing. As Umberto Eco wrote:

“G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: “When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing. He believes in anything.” Whoever said it – he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity.

“The “death of God”, or at least the dying of the Christian God, has been accompanied by the birth of a plethora of new idols. They have multiplied like bacteria on the corpse of the Christian Church …”

— Posted by: Fat Man in comments on The Top 40: The Green Left’s Fascist Roots

From AD: http://americandigest.org/

Obama Really Believes He is a god.

A Question of Personality

By Richard Fernandez

Excerpts from this article below.

A charismatic leader derives authority from himself;  from an astounding life story, from attributes possessed by no other man.

Obama’s chosen model for greatness was to become a charismatic leader.

…the Legend is Obama’s Achilles Heel.  It’s Obama’s weakness and it is growing all the time.  The president has been doubling down on his charismatic leadership model. When the president decided to pass Obamacare without a single Republican vote;  by vowing to veto any attempts to amend his ‘signature’ legislation;  by announcing he was going to throw open the borders to illegal aliens by executive action; by suggesting he would conclude an agreement with Iran without necessarily seeking Congressional approval — with each step he was progressively narrowing his basis for governance.  He was isolating himself on the lonely rock that was his life-story…

The authority for his actions is increasingly himself…

 …questions are all off limits even though they are interrogatories of the most ordinary kind.  And they are off limits for a reason.  They undermine the root of the legend…

No republic, especially one as great as the United States, should ever be based on the such a fragile thing as the biography of a single man…

Read more: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/02/22/a-question-of-personality/#ixzz3Tl9GfBkr

ISIS is islam.

European Colonialism is the Only Thing That Modernized Islam

Islam never became enlightened. It never stopped being ‘medieval’. Whatever enlightenment it received was imposed on it by European colonialism. It’s a second-hand enlightenment that never went under the skin.

ISIS isn’t just seventh century Islam. It’s also much more recent than that. It’s Islam before the French and the English came. It’s what the Muslim world was like before it was forced to have presidents and constitutions, before it was forced to at least pay lip service to the alien notion of equal rights for all.

The media reported the burning of the Jordanian pilot as if it were some horrifying and unprecedented aberration. But Muslim heretics, as well as Jews and Christians accused of blasphemy, were burned alive for their crimes against Islam. Numerous accounts of this remain, not from the seventh century, but from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Those who weren’t burned, might be beheaded.

These were not the practices of some apocalyptic death cult. They were the Islamic law in the “cosmopolitan” parts of North Africa. The only reason they aren’t the law now is that the French left behind some of their own laws.

Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia that were never truly colonized still behead men and women for “witchcraft and sorcery.” Not in the seventh century or even in the nineteenth century. Last year.

The problem isn’t that ISIS is ‘medieval’. The problem is that Islam is…

Read it all at Sultan Knish:  http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

Violent muslim Immigrants taking over Minnesota. Obama hopes they will take over the entire country.

As Barack Hussein Obama continues to flood the country with mostly illiterate, unskilled and violent Somali Muslims, Minneapolis will soon become a NO-GO zone for non-Muslims

images-22Growing Somali Muslim mall in Minneapolis now boasts one of the state’s largest mosques. But where are they getting the money since more than half of Somali Muslims in America live on welfare?

Star Tribune Developer Basim Sabri says setting out to build one of Minnesota’s largest mosques at his Karmel Square mall wasn’t a vanity project. Instead, the space — part of a major expansion at Karmel — was meant as a goodwill gesture to the local Somalis who rent and shop at the south Minneapolis mall.

SOMALI MUSLIM immigrants demand more funding for the halal-compliant free food bank in Minneapolis

The expansion has tested Sabri’s famously tense relationships with the city and the mall’s neighbors, who have voiced concerns over parking and traffic issues. Part of the construction collapsed in May, cutting off electricity to the neighborhood and briefly stalling the project.

Read it all at BNI: http://www.barenakedislam.com/

“Swishing Faggotry” and Evil Men. It is too Late Now.

Ann Barnhardt lays it all out in easy to understand terms.

Laboravi clamans…

1.) I start writing, and while I certainly could comment on everything, I simply have no drive to do so. I warned and warned, screamed and screamed. It’s too late now.

I wrote a piece for AmericanThinker.com nearly four years ago titled, “We the Stupid”. And people are STILL convinced, after all of this, that their government is legitimate, and that this can all be undone and fixed peacefully, through elections and the extant paradigm. It can’t. Someone told me just a few weeks ago that “there isn’t going to be any war, and you are crazy to think that there will be.” And you know, he may be right. War involves fighting. At this point, I don’t think there will be any real resistance. And I’m not just saying that as some sort of reverse psychology trick in order to get people riled up. This culture, even the “good” part, is so far gone and so effeminate (more on this below), that it is incapable of even the most mild act of resistance or self-defense.

This is what I wrote four years ago.

Finally, I do not understand how it can possibly be that conservative writers are still addressing Obama as if he is actually trying to help the economy, but his well-intentioned policies are failing.

Obama is the enemy. Obama is a Marxist-Communist usurper and puppet front for a cabal of Marxist-Communists who are actively trying to destroy the United States of America. Everything they have done, are doing, and will do has the single goal of collapsing and destroying the U.S. economy, military, constitutional government and culture. What part of “Marxist Revolution” do you not understand?

The Obama regime is not a failure. The Obama regime is not incompetent. The Obama regime has achieved more in two and a half years than anyone could have possibly foreseen. It has debased the currency by 50% of the GDP and guaranteed that our economy will collapse. It has looted the Treasury for more than the size of a top-ten economy and embezzled that wealth into the hands of their fellow Marxists in preparation for the final collapse of the United States. It has ground the economy of the United States to a screeching halt. It has destabilized the entire Muslim world and ensured that there will be a nuclear war centered around Israel within the decade.

The Obama regime has no interest whatsoever in “stimulus” or “getting folks back to work.” How can you not understand this? How can we possibly win this war if we refuse to come to terms with the fact that we are, in fact, fighting a war?

God save the United States of America, because the people are far too stupid to do it themselves.

2. I want to make a distinction between effeminacy and, for the sake of clarity, “swishing faggotry”. Most men today are still, in fact, heterosexual. But they are extremely effeminate. Whilst being sexually oriented towards heteronormative acts (simply put, they “like girls”), their mode of being, of addressing the world, is almost completely feminized. When confronted with a problem, their method of dealing with it is to first DENY THAT THE PROBLEM EXISTS. Eyes down. Look away. DON’T TALK ABOUT IT. Pretend nothing is wrong, and eventually the problem will either go away, fix itself, or someone else (namely “a man”), will solve the problem for us, out of sight, and then we won’t ever actually have to deal with it. This is how females are generally wired, because women are physically weaker than men, and the best way for a woman to keep from getting raped and murdered is to AVOID combat situations in the first place. This is what today’s post-Christian western man has been trained to do and be since infancy.

The other profoundly feminine mode of avoidance is something I observe on a near-daily basis. It is the strategy that says, “Let’s wait to do anything until it is too late to do anything. Then it won’t be our fault, because it will have been too late to do anything.” This is such transparent cowardice, but oh, so attractive to the effeminized men of today. It is painted not as the abject cowardice and impotence that it is, but rather as “prudence”. It is now believed that the prudent man is not the man who discerns and does the right, but rather the man who does NOTHING.

I am reminded of Bonhoeffer’s quote: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

No, the hallmark gesture of today’s effeminized man is not the limp wrist and swishing hips of the “faggot”. The hallmark gesture of today’s effeminized post-Christian western man is the SHRUGGING OF THE SHOULDERS. Devoid of virility, devoid of potency, and at its core, devoid of CHARITY, today’s man, when confronted with evil, turns his head away to the side, shrugs his shoulders, and bleats out his twin mottoes:

THERE’S NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT IT.

I DON’T CARE – IT’S NOT MY PROBLEM.

And so, many people look at the oligarch class, these nefarious characters infecting every corner of society, from the halls of academia, to the corporate boardrooms, to the halls of government, to the halls of the Church, and they see, generally, drooling imbeciles. And they then think that surely these drooling imbeciles will do themselves in – all we need do is wait for them to trip over their own thingamajigs and beat themselves. But that isn’t going to happen. They will continue to roll. They will continue to march down the field, because not only are we not mounting an effective defense – MUCH LESS any sort of counter-offense, WE AREN’T EVEN FIELDING A TEAM.

If two teams are playing, and one team is the “NFL Dream Team of All Time” and the other team is comprised of a blind, mentally retarded three year old, the blind, mentally retarded three year old, ALONE, can beat the NFL Dream Team of All Time IF the Dream Team never comes out of the locker room. The blind, retarded three year old can literally run up and down the gridiron, scoring at will, so long as the Dream Team remains in the locker room, watching the blind, mentally retarded three year old cross the goal line time after time, shrugging their shoulders, declaring, “There’s nothing we can do about it. Whatever. It’s not my problem.”

And what is never shown on camera or discussed is the “coach” (satan) and “assistant coaches” (demons) on the sidelines, coaxing and calling the mentally retarded three year old down the field to uncontested score after uncontested score.

Here, also from Ann is how we should be praying:

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

To Thee, highest King,
Redeemer of all,
do we lift up our eyes
in weeping:
Hear, O Christ, the prayers
of your servants.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

Right hand of the Father,
corner-stone,
way of salvation,
gate of heaven,
wash away our
stains of sin.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

We beseech Thee, God,
in Thy great majesty:
Hear our groans
with Thy holy ears:
calmly forgive
our crimes.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

To Thee we confess
our sins admitted
with a contrite heart
We reveal the things hidden:
By Thy kindness, O Redeemer,
overlook them.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

The Innocent, seized,
not refusing to be led;
condemned by false witnesses
because of impious men
O Christ, keep safe those
whom Thou hast redeemed.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/

We are not as Good as we Think we are

This Just In: Humans Are Bad at Everything That’s Important

A minority of our news stories cover what’s truly new: scientific discoveries, thriving business startups, or groundbreaking legislation. But most of our news stories are about some human being (or group of human beings) failing, in a very familiar way, to be kind, fair, or honest. Politician caught lying! Violence erupts between Group A and Group B! Company misleads customers for profit! Details at 6.

If we sat down to think about what’s really important to us, we might come up with qualities like fairness, kindness, responsibility, loyalty, and mutual respect. It seems like all of the major problems in the world are caused by a small contingent of bad apples, who simply shun these important qualities and ruin it for kind, responsible, honest and fair people like ourselves.

I think this is wishful thinking. The truth is that all of us — even those of us who feel like good people — are almost comically terrible at achieving these qualities, yet we expect them as a matter of course from each other and ourselves. Our incredulous response to scandal and selfishness suggests that we believe any of us could, at any moment, snap out of our self-interest and dysfunction, and make the world the place it should have been all along.

What makes us distinct from other species, more than anything, is that we’re able to move beyond being impulse-driven, self-interested animals, at least a little bit. We can reflect, we can refrain, we can empathize, we can plan. We can feel our impulses while at the same time understanding that they aren’t always leading us to good things.

In the relatively short time we’ve been able to explore this higher territory, we’ve come to really value these lofty qualities, and we’ve become preoccupied with public figures failing to achieve them. After all, we know it is virtues like fairness, honesty, discipline and kindness that are going to make it easier to be human, to deal with suffering and loss and all the stark realities that come with knowing you’re a vulnerable, animated bag of meat. We desperately want to get ourselves (but especially others) to embody these higher human qualities, which promise to save us from cruelty and misery. But as much as we covet them, we forget that these new capacities are in fact skills, and that as a species we’re generally not very good at them.

Essentially, this higher territory is what we call morality, and I think we tend to greatly overestimate how good we are at it. We’re a species who, as I point out frequently, can barely uphold our New Year’s commitments to ourselves, yet we seem to expect everyone else to be more or less upstanding and incorruptible. Why am I so frequently appalled by how thoughtlessly other people park their cars, when I don’t think twice about spending thirty dollars on beer instead of feeding the starving?

You can make up excuses for this kind of behavior — cognitive dissonance, meritocratic economics, drop-in-the-bucket syndrome — but I think all of that is avoiding the truth about human beings, which is that we are pitifully underdeveloped when it comes to morality. We just happen to be living in that awkward and painful stage where we recognize its supreme importance to our well-being, yet we’re so bad at it we can barely stand ourselves.

So what am I suggesting we do about this? Two things:

1) That we recognize how hard it is for human beings to be what they aspire to be.

Why are we so shocked that a politician would lie? That a company puts profits ahead of compassion? That everyday people harbor prejudices? That we have such a hard time saving enough for retirement, or giving enough to charity, or not eating too much?

For one thing, it’s so much easier to identify the right thing to do than to actually do it, and when we’re assessing the behavior of others, we only have to do the former. But even with our own selves, we trivialize the difficulty of living up to our moral standards.

To quit smoking, you only have to do one simple thing: avoid putting cigarettes in your mouth. How hard is that? Somehow, very.

How hard is it to treat others as yourself? So incredibly difficult we are bound to spend our lives failing at it.

I’m not suggesting we downplay or deny the harm that our moral failings cause, but to become more accepting of human failing in general, particularly our own. We are too quick to condemn people for not living up to what are actually extremely lofty standards, at least for a creature whose motivations are still largely reptilian.

You might think, “Well, I know I should give more to charity than I do, but I would never lie to my spouse! Only a monster could do that!” That much may be true; you may have the wherewithal to succeed (so far) at Lofty Moral Standard X, but not at Lofty Moral Standard Y. And perhaps you would argue that the standards you meet are more important than the ones you don’t — but maybe you are just lucky in that regard, and can’t really explain why something is straightforward for you that seems nearly impossible for someone else. We should be grateful for the moral wherewithal we do have, and never lose sight of how easy it is to fall short of Complete Moral Upstandingness, and how often we do so ourselves.

The name for this particular combination of empathy and gratitude is forgiveness, which is itself another lofty aspiration of human beings that we are generally terrible at. One crucial understanding we must come to, as a species that is struggling to transcend its amoral animal past, is that we can’t expect our progress to be evenly distributed across individuals of our species. That means you may know how to do the right thing at times others don’t, and for that you should be grateful instead of vindictive.

Read it all at: Raptitude.Com – http://www.raptitude.com/2015/03/this-just-in-humans-are-bad-at-everything-thats-important/

No Wonder America is Doomed

Panromantic Gray-Asexual

By: Z Man

Kathy Shaidle linked to this today.

It’s Friday afternoon during finals week, and two undergrads at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville are lounging together on a battered couch in the student center, watching cartoons. They’ve only met twice before, but they’re all over each other. Rae, a tiny pixie of a sophomore wearing a newsboy cap, nuzzles up against Sean, a handsome freshman. He’s got his arm draped across her. They giggle and tease each other, and she sprawls into his lap. Their friend Genevieve, perched on the arm of the couch, smiles and rolls her eyes.

It looks like a standard collegiate prelude to a one-night stand. But there will be no kissing, no fondling, and definitely no Saturday morning walk of shame. Sean and Rae do not have the hots for each other—or anyone else, for that matter. In fact, they’re here hanging out at the campus outreach center, a haven for all who question their sexuality and gender identity, because they’re exploring an unconventional idea: life without sex. Or mostly without sex. They’re pioneers of an emerging sexual identity, one with its own nomenclature and subcategories of romance and desire, all revolving around the novel concept that having little to no interest in sex is itself a valid sexual orientation. Rae tells me she’s an aromantic asexual, Sean identifies as a heteroromantic demisexual, and Genevieve sees herself as a panromantic gray-asexual.

Not sure what these terms mean? You’re not alone. The definitions are still in flux, but most people who describe themselves as demisexual say they only rarely feel desire, and only in the context of a close relationship. Gray-­asexuals (or gray-aces) roam the gray area between absolute asexuality and a more typical level of interest. Then there are the host of qualifiers that describe how much romantic attraction you might feel toward other people: Genevieve says she could theoretically develop a nonsexual crush on just about any type of person, so she is “panromantic”; Sean is drawn to women, so he calls himself “heteroromantic.”

The jargon is all nonsense, lifted conceptually from the managerial elite’s fetish for taxonomy, with a healthy dose of the therapeutic culture sprinkled on top. Asexuality is nothing new and it has been with us since forever. Some percentage of humans lack the normal sex drive, just as some people have a hyper-active sex drive.

There’s also the fact that societies in decline have lower fertility rates. This has been understood for a long time. In good times, people have more fun and that results in more babies. In bad times, there’s less fun and fewer babies. It’s not just material good times or bad times either. Periods of material wealth, but spiritual decline can push down fertility rates. Iran is the an interesting example of a society with a very low fertility rate, despite modestly improving material wealth.

Japan is the classic example. It turns out that a people without a unifying purpose, regardless of their material wealth, are just not all that enthusiastic about the procreative acts. David Goldman, in his book How Civilizations Die, notes how fertility rates track church attendance in the West, while the reverse seems to be true in Islam. In America, a transactional, materialistic society is probably not inspiring to young people coming into a world without purpose. In Islam, a world ruled by lunatics who believe in flying carpets and magic inspires little in the way of optimism.

From The Z Man Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Everything is Corrupt

Perhaps the reason the football deflation scandal resonates,

aside from the usual distraction from more serious matters, is that it reinforces the pervasive sense that this is a totally corrupt moment in our culture, in which everything is corrupt.

EVERYTHING is CORRUPT. Nothing is honest. Politicians lie with impunity. The media lies. Polticians steal and skim and it’s a big deal when someone prosecutes. Schools teach made up versions of history to placate minorities. Publishers change maps to placate clients. Directors change historic reality for a better story. The narrative is more important than the facts. If you don’t like your sex, call yourself the other one, and everyone will pretend it’s the case. So someone took a little air out of a pigskin, to win at a competitive sport…That is the very least of the corruption in which we live. But dismaying because … what’s left?”

Never Yet Melted

From AD:    http://americandigest.org/