»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: Monday, June 29, 2015 ::

Barack Obama’s Swamp of Evil: Part II 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 9:26 PM


As Jean-Luc Picard, captain of the Enterprise, said of the Borg:  "In their collective state, the Borg are utterly without mercy; driven by one will alone: the will to conquer. They are beyond redemption, beyond reason."

This is true of not only Islam and of the Marxist/Progressive agenda for this country, but now of the LGBT movement, whose political agenda has been boosted by the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. To paraphrase Islam authority Robert Spencer’s criticism of Australian Prime Minister’s public statement that divorces Islam from religion and totalitarian theocracy, the Supreme Court’s and the MSM’s responses to the LGBT’S political power play remain “blind, uninformed, and based on falsehood.” The principal falsehood is that homosexuality is not a matter of volition, but of external and/or intrinsic factors beyond the realm of choice. That is, of sociological or biological influences and pressures.

The other falsehood is that the Law of Identity does not apply to one’s sex, and can be defied because one’s sex or “gender” is based on the notion of the primacy of consciousness and not on the primacy of existence. It is the former that governs contemporary thinking, that is, in believing that reality is what the mind makes it to be, fueled by one’s feelings.

The idea that emotions are not tools of cognition is an idea rejected by the whole homosexual advocacy movement. The LGBT movement is moved by a will to conquer, politically and socially, in accordance with Barack Obama’s campaign to “transform” America, and is demonstrably beyond reason.

But, back to the Mexicans, that is, all Central and South Americans who invade the U.S. through Mexico. We left off in Part I by noting that Mexicans can also take another leaf from their Muslim  compañeros de armas in Europe once they become permanent, “legalized” settlers in America who refuse to assimilate, and by highlighting the strategy laid out in the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. I’m sure the National Council of La Raza has a similar organization that researches and describes how the gringo politics and culture can be made to bend to the Hispanic will.

Let’s substitute Mexican for Muslim and see if it rings a bell:

The manifesto could explain "Mexican Minority Affairs" as more than an organization or a social concept, but as a calculated foreign policy of the La Raza Foreign Affairs, designed to achieve these specific goals. Now, don’t start denigrating the immigrating Mexicans. They’re our “friends,” aren’t they?

1) Recruit individual Mexicans who live in a non-Mexican land and transform them as a collective unit by establishing Mexican cultural centers, educational programs, churches, and organizations like La Raza and the Sinoloa and Guadalajara Cartels’ Educational Foundations that serve to discourage and prevent Mexicans from assimilating into the culture of their non-Mexican host nation, namely the U.S.

2) Encourage these Mexican residents of the non-Mexican host nation to shift the demographic scales in their own favor by means of population growth—and by a militant separatism and self-ghettoization — thereby enabling them to more effectively advance an agenda based on fundamentalist anti-West and anti-assimilation doctrines, with special stress on perceived discrimination and career victimhood.

3) Eventually the proliferation of Mexicans in the host nation will hit critical mass, tilting that society toward majority-Mexican or Hispanic status.

4) Ultimately, the host state will join
Los Estados Unidos de México. Well, at least California and most of the Southwest will join it.

As I remarked in Swamp of Evil I, it may be interesting to witness the clash between Muslims and Mexicans over who gets to lord it over a dissolved United States. I have no idea where Mexican and Muslim gays will fit into this scenario, but the Left, which champions and celebrates the submission of America to homosexuality, dismisses or is oblivious to the fact that in Islam homosexuality is forbidden and gays are tossed off of rooftops or hanged as a matter of enforcement of Sharia law.

The National Council of La Raza? What is that? Is it an organization that advocates the supremacy of Hispanics over all other races, as Islam touts itself as superior to all other religions. Discover the Network reports:

The words “La Raza” (Spanish for “The Race”) in NCLR's name have long been a source of considerable controversy. Critics claim that the name reflects an organizational commitment to racial separatism and race-based grievance mongering. By NCLR's telling, however, such critics have mistranslated the word “Raza.” “The term 'La Raza,'” says the organization, “has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as 'the people' or, according to some scholars, 'the Hispanic people of the New World.'”

According to NCLR, “the full term,” which was coined by the Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos [1882-1959], is “la raza cósmica,” meaning “the cosmic people.” NCLR describes this as “an inclusive concept” whose purpose is to express the fact that “Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.”

NCLR's interpretation of Vasconcelos's explanation, however, is inaccurate. As Guillermo Lux and Maurilio Vigil (professors of history and political science, respectively, at New Mexico Highlands University) note in their 1991 book, Aztlan: Essays on the Chicano Homeland:

"The concept of La Raza can be traced to the ideas and writings of Jose Vasconcelos, the Mexican theorist who developed the theory of la raza cosmica (the cosmic or super race) at least partially as a minority reaction to the Nordic notions of racial superiority. Vasconelos developed a systematic theory which argued that climatic and geographic conditions and mixture of Spanish and Indian races created a superior race. The concept of La Raza connotes that the mestizo is a distinct race and not Caucasian, as is technically the case."

In short, Vasconcelos was not promoting "an inclusive concept," but rather, the notion of Hispanic racial superiority.

Over all others. As Islam refers to all non-Muslims of other faiths (or of no faith) as the “People of the Book” and enemies to be conquered, converted, enslaved, or slain, La Raza’s own “People of the Book” are all non-Hispanics, i.e., Caucasians, blacks, and probably even Asians.

“O People of the Book! Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partners unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah. (Al-i Imran Surah, 3:64) That is, let us not call others Lord, God, Creator. Let the order of Allah (SWT) and His Pleasure be our criteria for our deeds Let all of us be servants to Allah (SWT). Let us consider ourselves responsible to Him. Let us be dependent on and loyal to each other in accordance with these rules.” (Yazır, II, 1132)

Or else: “Fight against such of those who have been given the Book as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” (At-Tawbe Surah, 9:29)

If race is the issue regarding Mexicans or Hispanics, it is central to La Raza’s manifold aims and purposes, as can be seen in this information-rich Discover the Networks report. As the Muslim Minority Affairs report and the Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America clearly state, among other things, that the cultural and political assimilation of Muslims in the U.S. is not the goal of the waves of Muslim settlers consciously facilitated by Obama, La Raza’s own overall “strategic end” is to turn large chunks of the country into Mexican or Hispanic enclaves in which non-Hispanics become the minority, an end also consciously facilitated by Obama.

Daniel Greenfield’s fine June 3rd essay, “How Islam in America Became a Privileged Religion” reveals aspects of Islam in America that can be equally construed to apply to the aggressive pursuit of Hispanic hegemony and the LGBT movement as well.

Criticism of Islam is denounced as racist even though the one thing that Islam clearly isn’t is a race. Islamist organizations have figured out how lock in every advantage of race, religion and culture, while expeditiously shifting from one to the other to avoid any of the disadvantages.

The biggest form of Muslim privilege has been to racialize Islam. The racialization of Islam has locked in all the advantages of racial status for a group that has no common race, only a common ideology.

Islam is the only religion that cannot be criticized. No other religion has a term in wide use that treats criticism of it as bigotry. Islamophobia is a unique term because it equates dislike of a religion with racism. Its usage makes it impossible to criticize that religion without being accused of bigotry.

By equating religion with race, Islam is treated not as a particular set of beliefs expressed in behaviors both good and bad, but as an innate trait that like race cannot be criticized without attacking the existence of an entire people. The idea that Islamic violence stems from its beliefs is denounced as racist.

And by equating race with culture, or culture with race, or religion with race, or race with religion, Muslims have the advantage coming or going, and very, very few defenders of the West and of Western civilization have been able to call their bluff.

Anyone who criticizes Islam and Muslim settlers, illegal Mexican immigrants or settlers, and homosexuals risks being accused of Islamophobia, Hispanophobia, or Homophobia. These are the handy blanket smears which the Left, Islamic supremacists, and homosexuals use as weapons to disarm or neutralize their critics. To the MSM, anyone accused of these phobias is an automatic pariah to be denigrated and shunted aside as the vanguards of these ideologies – and, yes, homosexuality has now become an official political player in the pursuit of power for power’s sake – trample underfoot the rights and civil liberties of Americans. And each group seeks absolute, craven, supine submission to its particular Hive, Cube, Umma, or Collective.

And the irony is that they expect the boot each plans to plant on our faces to be supplied by us.

Is resistance futile?

Not on these pages.

:: Permalink | 3 Comments ::

 

Mohammad a Suicide? 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 4:34 PM


Ancient Scrolls Say Prophet Mohammed Committed Suicide

Reuters, June 8, 2015, Cairo, Egypt. British and Pakistani archeologists working at an undisclosed site in Jordan have found what they say is hard evidence that the founder of the Islamic religion committed suicide.

While analyzing scrolls dating back approximately to the year 630 A.D., Dr. Jummara Hashish, chief archeologist of the Islamabad Institute of Islamic Studies in Pakistan, says a hand-written note at the bottom of a common prayer scroll revealed that one of Mohammed's wives witnessed the suicide. She later wrote a brief account of the event, and hid it and the suicide note in a clay pot used for storing grain, along with several other scrolls. It is believed by scholars that the documents are authentic. They and the other documents found in the jar were subjected to carbon-14 and other tests to determine their age.

Scholars who have been painstakingly translating the documents, which were in a remarkably well-preserved state, say the scroll written by the wife details the last moments of the prophet's life.  His final message, never seen until now, says:

"To all those who have faithfully followed my blessed example and supported the campaign to bring the true message of Allah to the world these past decades… I bid farewell.  I have made an unforgivable error which must not go uncorrected or unpunished.  Yesterday I drew a picture of myself to send to my nephew in Benny al-Hill.  I did this of my own free will and with what little skill I have at sketching.  During the night, I had a revelation in which Allah through Gabriel told me that anyone who drew an image of me (blessings and peace be upon me!) was to be put to death, preferably by beheading.  I do now what must be done, what Allah commands."

Unfortunately, no sketch or self-portrait of Mohammad was found with the two documents. It is thought that his nephew was at the time living in Dumat al-Jandal (also known then as Benny al-Hill) with the Banu Tayy tribe (nicknamed then as the Banyan Trees), near what is now Amman, Jordan.

The rest of the account, in the words of his wife, whose name remains unknown, is a bit difficult to understand because of changes in the Arabic language over the past fourteen centuries. But it appears to indicate that after signing his mark to the aforementioned suicide note – also drafted by his wife since the prophet could neither read nor write nor knew how to hold a stylus except as a weapon – Mohammed took up a knife used for butchering sheep and attempted to cut off his own head.  About a quarter of the way through, he expired from blood loss.

The wife’s account indicates that in addition to the blood loss, it was attempting to cut through his own neck bone that gave Mohammad the most trouble.

When the wife determined that her husband was dead, she wrote that she immediately informed his sixteen other wives, who all embarked on a week-long period of mourning, fasting and Sharia-mandated ululation.

It is not known how the Islamic world at the time received news of the prophet’s passing as a suicide. Islamic historian Bilious Hisham Kabboomi, head of the Center for Islamic Dawa at the University of Cambridge, noted that “While it is written that if at death Mohammad’s body was indeed lifted by angels and taken directly to Paradise where his partially severed head was restored by a merciful Allah, then the person buried in the Al-Masjid an-Nabaw, or the Prophet’s Mosque, in Medina is an imposter. This is indeed an unprecedented conundrum facing the Ulema. By that I mean the Sunni or Wahhabist Ulema, not the Shi’ite or Heretical Ulema.”

This week, upon hearing the news, a representative from the Islamic State paused in video-recording the cutting off the head of a 10-year-old Christian boy in Raqqa, Syria, and commented, "This scroll shows the ultimate Jihad, and just proves the prophet was the real deal!  I only hope that I too might be given a revelation from Allah and find the strength to follow his example. What good is an intact head compared to mindless devotion to the one true religion of peace?! See this kid? Soon he will be at peace – and in two pieces! Hah, hah, hah!”

Mohammad would have been between sixty and sixty-two years old at the time of his suicide. He was buried in Medina, where he and his family spent his retirement after the prophet’s career of conquest, slaughter, rape, mayhem, banditry, looting, and habitual bloody-mindedness. It is not known how the scrolls made their way to Jordan from Medina, a distance of over 560 miles or 960 kilometers, except by camel caravan.

Additional reporting by Jack Battler and Ed Cline

:: Permalink | 2 Comments ::

 

:: Sunday, June 28, 2015 ::

America’s Screaming Mimi Syndrome 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 7:17 AM



It is America’s congenital, generations-old anti-intellectualism that renders the country easy prey to hysteria, the kind of hysteria that results from educational policies that stress the unimportance of ideas in daily life. But this hysteria is taken advantage of by the Left and the Mainstream Media, both of which are always ready to stoke up the fires of emotional, headless chicken behavior if the destruction of the object suits their agenda.

The public hesitantly follows suit. There are polls now that prove that Americans hate the Confederate flag, always hated it, and wish it consigned to the flames. Or at least that’s what the Left and the MSM claim, or wish us to believe. It isn’t true.

Protesting the Confederate flag flying anywhere or appearing on iconic toys and other objects leads to the hysteria of protesters (professional, career protestors, on-call 24/7 for any emergency protestors, please note) burning the American flag. It’s not insanity. It isn’t a matter of the protestors not being able to distinguish between one flag or another.  It’s part and parcel of the true object of the orgy of hatred:  America. I link to only a few reports of it here and here and here.  There were dozens throughout the country.

One of the most ludicrous calls for banishment came from Lou Lumenick of the otherwise conservative New York Post on June 24th, in “’Gone With the Wind’ should go the way of the Confederate flag.’” While conceding that the 1939 film had some merits, Lumenick nearly had a conniption fit over the film’s “racist” overtones.

The more subtle racism of “Gone with the Wind’’ is in some ways more insidious, going to great lengths to enshrine the myth that the Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery — an institution the film unabashedly romanticizes.

When I reviewed the graphically honest “12 Years a Slave’’ in 2013, I noted, “It will be impossible to ever look at ‘Gone with the Wind’ the same way.’’

That’s news to me. I’ve seen GWTW many times, and was unaware that it romanticized slavery. I thought it was about Scarlett O’Hara’s loves and hates and mercurial temper, with the Civil War and plantation life as a background. I must be thick, and Lumenick must be as bright as a button. Somebody crown me with a dunce cap. But the totalitarian inside Lumenick reveals itself like a flasher opening his raincoat on a city street.

But what does it say about us as a nation if we continue to embrace a movie that, in the final analysis, stands for many of the same things as the Confederate flag that flutters so dramatically over the dead and wounded soldiers at the Atlanta train station just before the “GWTW’’ intermission?

Warner Bros. just stopped licensing another of pop culture’s most visible uses of the Confederate flag — toy replicas of the General Lee, an orange Dodge Charger from “The Dukes of Hazzard’’ — as retailers like Amazon and Walmart have finally backed away from selling merchandise with that racist symbol.

That studio sent “Gone with the Wind’’ back into theaters for its 75th anniversary in partnership with its sister company Turner Classic Movies in 2014, but I have a feeling the movie’s days as a cash cow are numbered. It’s showing on July 4 at the Museum of Modern Art as part of the museum’s salute to the 100th anniversary of Technicolor — and maybe that’s where this much-loved but undeniably racist artifact really belongs.

Well, why not ban or send to the museum of cinematic curiosities that promoted “racism” a few more gems. How about 1964’s Zulu, which depicts a company of British soldiers beating back an attack of Zulus? Surely that film can be interpreted as racism.   Or 1939’s The Four Feathers, which depicts Britain’s combating Islamic racism and colonialism in North Africa….No, wait! Don’t I have that backwards? Islamic supremacists were never guilty of colonialism and racism, were they? Isn’t ISIS just a kind of vigorous knocking peacefully on people’s doors, just like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, to spread the “good news”? Then there’s 1939’s Gunga Din, surely one of the most racist movies of all, competing at the box office with Gone With the Wind.

1939 seemed to have been a banner year for racist movies!

Morgan Brittany’s June 27th article, “Ban ‘Gone With the Wind’?? Is John Wayne Next?” counters Lumenick’s berserker lunacy.

This country is completely out of control. It is running at the speed of social media making knee-jerk decisions with no thought as to what the consequences will be. Just like a stupid tweet that goes out impulsively, the media is rabidly grabbing on to any narrative that the left decides to push, runs with it and twists the story into something that it was never intended to be!

That is what we are experiencing right now with this whole Confederate flag issue. This uproar has absolutely nothing to do with the tragic murder of nine innocent people in Charleston last week, yet the left and the media have somehow forgotten that a deranged psychopath was to blame and “not” a flag designating a part of our American history….

Now, a film critic from the New York Post has opined that the film “Gone With The Wind” should not be shown on TV or in theaters anymore due to its “racist” subject matter. He wants it locked away in a museum where only people who like “that sort of film” can go and see it. He wants it to become a pariah like “Birth of a Nation” and “Song of the South”, two amazing films that you can’t even get access to anymore…..

So if the left gets its way, what’s next? Will all John Wayne war films be banned because they offend Asians or Europeans? Will every western that he ever did be sent to the dustbin of history because they show racism against Native-Americans? What other films and books will be banned a la “Fahrenheit 451” written in 1951 by Ray Bradbury? When an independent thinking populace starts threatening the government will they start to burn all of our books, censor all of our films and rewrite all of our history to fit their agenda? Whatever happened to the individual making their own decisions about what they want to read or see or buy? Does the government now make even these decisions for us?

The teeming wonks in government and their overseers would just love to make those and other decisions for us.

I have a question for readers: Which thing should they be more exercised about: the Confederate flag, or a Che Guevara T-shirt or poster? The Confederacy, which stood for slavery, was defeated and crushed. Communism, however, has not been defeated or crushed. Communists, pinks, fellow travelers, and sympathizers in and out of government abound in this country. They are in the White House and in our schools and in our streets, demonstrating, smashing windows, attacking people, calling for another kind of slavery.

When I see someone flaunting a Confederate flag license plate or T-shirt, think: There’s a good-ole-boy idiot whose notion of intellectual prowess is winning an arm-wrestling contest.

But when I see someone wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt, or see a Guevara poster in a college dorm room, I think: There’s an enemy. He may be an idiot and an ignoramus (oblivious or indifferent o the fact that Guevara was a monster), but he’s still an enemy.  Or will be when his ideological gauleiter gives him his marching orders to occupy, smash, grab,-and-burn.

He may as well be wearing a Hitler T-shirt, or waving a Nazi flag.

Of course, the Confederate battle flag was and has been acceptable to the Democrats for how long? Oh, I’d say for over 150 years. See these revealing campaign posters and buttons here.  Obama? It was fine with him in 2008. During a speech that year in Philadelphia in which, with a great deal of snark, excoriated the Founders and authors of the Constitution for being slave-holders,  he said, “Where the Confederate flag still flies, we have built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans” You can interpret that any way you wish, it’s such an ambiguous statement.

But, must we remind people that it is the Democrats who have perpetuated black slavery with the welfare state, and that the Republicans, historically, opposed slavery, but today aren’t so sure? Daniel Greenfield discusses Bill Clinton’s copsectic connection to the Confederacy and its now-maligned banner in his June 21st FrontPage article, “The Clintons and their Confederacy Flip-Flopping.”

After the Charleston church shootings, the media rushed to interrogate Republican presidential nominees about their position on the Confederate flag in South Carolina. They don’t appear to have asked Hillary Clinton, who has a lot more connections to the topic than Scott Walker or Mitt Romney.

But then the media doesn’t ask Hillary Clinton any hard questions. Or any questions at all.  Like everything else, the Clinton position on it depends on their political interests at any given time….

This type of hypocrisy is nothing new for Democrats considering their long history with the Confederacy (like John Kerry, they were for it before they were against it). Their official revisionist history is that all ‘those types of Democrats’ became Republicans.

At the same time, it is the Democrats who are proposing expanding the powers of the state to impose slavery on all, the Marxist/Fascist kind. So, Dylann Roof, mass murderer and racist, waved the Confederate flag? And the Democrats never?

What a hysterical proposition! Excuse me while I laugh.

:: Permalink | 2 Comments ::

 

 

» Recent Posts

» Barack Obama’s Swamp of Evil: Part II
» Mohammad a Suicide?
» America’s Screaming Mimi Syndrome
» Stolen Words: Plagiarism à la carte
» Barack Obama’s Swamp of Evil: Part I
» Book Review: Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty
» The Prancing Unicorn of Bruce Jenner
» Blindfolds and Trigger Warnings
» Hate Crimes vs. Hate Speech: A False Dichotomy
» Islam in the Academy

» RSS Feed


» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.


» Feedback
We want to hear from you!

 


Blogs We Love:
» Alexander Marriot
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
»
GMU Objectivists
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
»
History At Our House
» How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Intel Dump
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Michelle Malkin
»
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Powell History Recommends
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Sandstead.com
» SCOTUSBlog
» Scrappleface
» Selfish Citizenship 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Objective Standard
»
Thrutch
» Truth, Justice and the American Way

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy


SPONSORED LINKS


 

Copyright © 1998-2013 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
Email: 
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Comments Policy · Privacy Policy · Webmaster