Monday, July 28, 2014

Save the Children?

Diana West, author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character, delivers a one-two punch in her July 25th syndicated article, "Israel and the U.S.: Whose Survival Instinct is Stronger?"

The subject is the use of children by terrorists in Gaza as "human shields," and the use by President Barack Obama of children as "invasion shields" at the U.S. and Mexican border.

Terrorists and Obama lie; children die.

Children have been used as a Trojan Horse for all sorts of statist and collectivist initiatives: to ban smoking, to ban guns, to ban obesity, to ban Barbie Dolls and other "dangerous" toys, and so on. But West discusses the nearly unprecedented use of children as weapons of war in the Middle East and in the U.S.  As she describes the phenomena:

There’s something darkly coincidental in the fact that the latest weapon to be deployed against the survival instinct of both Israel and the United States is an alleged “heartlessness” when it comes to children.

Most stories appearing in the MSM in the U.S. and overseas are nearly maniacal in their focus on the "civilian casualties" of "Palestinians" in Gaza as a result of Israel's campaign against Hamas, with "personal" stories accompanied by photographs of devastated streets and homes, sorrowful pictures of Gazan children sitting in the rubble, and even faked photographs of supposedly dead children, or second-hand, recycled faked photographs used in Syria.

Is Hamas's use of children as "human shields" unprecedented? No. Hitler, when he began to run out of adults to fight the Allies, filled his shrinking armies with adolescents and boys. Japan counted on women and children to fight the expected invasion by Americans, with guns, if available, with bamboo sticks, if necessary. Mao employed uncounted children to enforce, by violence and force, his "cultural revolution." Islamic jihadists have employed children to don suicide vests and blow themselves up among Jews and American soldiers. So, the "human shield" tactic isn't new.

But all that is conveniently forgotten by the MSM. It's easy to decide whether that forgetfulness is a symptom of a short-term memory or deliberate repression. It's deliberate repression.

Discussing an article in the London Telegraph about Israel's alleged war crimes, West writes that the Telegraph headline is not untypical: “Israel’s offensive in Gaza has ‘killed more children than fighters,’ say human rights groups. Israel has been accused of waging ‘war on the children’ of Gaza …”

 No mention in the article, however, of Gaza’s purposeful, strategic use of “human shields,” which leads to such civilian casualties. No mention of the directive from the Hamas-controlled Ministry of the Interior instructing civilians to remain in their homes on receipt of advance warnings from Israel to vacate before a military attack, as the Washington Free Beacon first reported. No mention that despite building networks of military tunnels, Gaza authorities neglected to build any bomb shelters for civilians! No mention of Gaza’s use of schools and other civilian sites to store rockets and other military material, and of its use of hospitals as Hamas command centers, and other civilian sites to store rockets and other military material, and of its use of hospitals as Hamas command centers.

It's the children who must be spared injury or death. That's the unspoken moral imperative. Never mind that "Palestinian" children are taught to hate Jews and Israel and are indoctrinated in Hamas run schools (which succeeded the PLO's and Fatah's schools) from the moment they can read and even tote an AK47. West continues excoriating the London Telegraph article:

No, the story is tightly focused on Israel’s supposed “war on children.” This libel is tweeted, screamed and news-anchor-intoned into poisonous propaganda designed to sap the life from Israel’s survival instinct, or at least alienate her supporters. In the stage-managed furor, the pressure on the Jews of Israel builds: Stop defending your borders, your people and your nation. Stop everything and “save the children of Gaza.”

Only emotion to the point of frenzy bursts into such agitprop, but it is vital to note that the emotion showing through is hatred for Jews, not love for children. If it were the latter, we would see rage directed at the society that steeps its young in the Jew-hatred of jihad and then turns them into “martyrs” – not at the Jewish society seeking to protect its people, young and old, and, at far too much risk, Gaza’s as well.

The MSM is largely successful in stirring up demonstrations of hate and even a pogrom in France, comprised of mobs of Muslims and Leftards. Truth to these people is not "optional" – it is unwelcome because without Jews to hate, they are purposeless, empty manqués. The Leftards among the Muslims and who are vehemently anti-Israel protesters, are basically malign Mortimer Snerds. And that's a "kind" appraisal of their character and mental equipment.

Hamas, it seems, is such a great valuer of children that it employs them to build the underground matrix of tunnels Hamas had planned to use to launch mass murder against the men, women, and children in settlements and towns bordering Gaza come the Jewish holiday in September. On July 25th, Tia Goldenberg of Business Insider ran a story about the complex, "Hamas' Massive Network of Underground Tunnels Is a Military Game-Changer."

A network of tunnels Palestinian militants have dug from Gaza to Israel — dubbed "lower Gaza" by the Israeli military — is taking center stage in the latest war between Hamas and Israel. Gaza's Hamas rulers view them as a military game changer in its conflict with Israel. The Israeli military says the tunnels pose a serious threat and that destroying the sophisticated underground network is a key objective of its invasion of Gaza….

Gaza has two sets of tunnels — those reaching Egypt and those reaching Israel.
The underground passages to Egypt are meant to bypass a border blockade on Gaza that was tightened by Israel and Egypt after Hamas seized the territory in 2007. The tunnels provide an economic lifeline and are used to deliver building supplies, fuel, consumer goods, and even cattle and cars.

In some of those tunnels, Gaza militants received weapons and cash from their patrons abroad, particularly Iran. Egypt has destroyed virtually all of the tunnels over the past year, driving Hamas — which was taxing the smuggled imports — into a severe financial crisis.

 The story goes on to describe how the tunnels are used to stock rockets, anti-tank rockets, and other arms, how they have their own maintenance shops, and how they are interconnected with cross-tunnels.

Hamas also moved many of its rocket launching sites and storage sites underground, making it more difficult for Israel to target them. Since the current round of Israel-Hamas fighting began on July 8, Gaza militants have fired more than 2,000 rockets at Israel and repeatedly tried to sneak into Israel through tunnels.

And just where, geographically, is this tunnel complex located? In a treeless no-man's land between Israel and Gaza? Think again.

Israel says Hamas has dug dozens of tunnels, linking them to one another as well as to rocket manufacturing sites, maintenance facilities, launch sites and command and control centers. It says the tunnels are meant to facilitate mass attacks on Israelis as well as kidnappings, a tactic that Hamas has used in the past….

Soldiers have uncovered 31 tunnels in the current round of fighting, the military said Thursday.

Palestinian militants trying to sneak into Israel through the tunnels have been found with tranquilizers and handcuffs, an indication that they "intended to abduct Israelis," according to the military.

"Hamas has dug terrorist tunnels under hospitals, mosques, schools, homes, to penetrate our territory, to kidnap and kill Israelis. Now, in the face of such wanton terrorism, no country could sit idly by," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told visiting U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon this week.

So, you would probably conjure up a picture of "resistance fighters against the occupiers" sweating away carving out tunnels and risking their lives in possible cave-ins and the like, in the spirit of 1963's "The Great Escape." Wrong picture.

The tunnels are largely built by…children.

Myer Freimann's July 25th article in The Tablet, "Hamas Killed 160 Palestinian Children to Build Terror Tunnels," gives us the details.

…Israel cites the need to stop Hamas from firing thousands of rockets at its own children, who are being forced to live in bomb shelters, as well as the need to eliminate the tunnels that Hamas dug into Israel in order to carry out terror attacks against Israelis. One tunnel opening was found underneath an Israeli kindergarten.

But who built those tunnels? The answer is Hamas, of course—using some of the same children who are now trapped under fire in Gaza.  The Institute for Palestine Studies published a detailed report on Gaza’s Tunnel Phenomenon in the summer of 2012. It reported that tunnel construction in Gaza has resulted in a large number of child deaths.

“At least 160 children have been killed in the tunnels, according to Hamas officials.”

Only 160? Doubtless that figure is vastly underestimated. Considering that Hamas places absolutely no value on human life – most particularly not on the lives of the "Palestinians" compelled to act as "human shields" – and taking into account Hamas's record of lying and falsifying data, the number probably runs into more hundreds.

The author, Nicolas Pelham, explains that Hamas uses child laborers to build their terror tunnels because, “much as in Victorian coal mines, they are prized for their nimble bodies”.

President Barack Obama (and please know that I hate having to extend the courtesy of an official designation to the nihilist scumbag) has now demanded an "unconditional ceasefire" between Israel and Hamas – most especially for Israel to stop its tunnel-eradicating operations – and talk, talk, talk while Hamas resupplies itself through smuggling and more financial aid sent to it by the U.S. and Europe. Read the whole sorry, hackles-raising story in Daniel Greenfield's FrontPage article of July 27th, "Obama: “Immediate, Unconditional” Surrender of Israel to Hamas." If you are looking for a model of thuggish, unapologetic truculence, look no further than Barack Obama.

Speaking of tunnels…..

Diana West next turns to the "unconditional cessation" of stopping Obama's "invasion by invitation" of thousands of Mexican and Central American "immigrants" across the U.S.-Mexican border.

Admittedly, there are great differences between Israel’s plight and our own. For one thing, the Israelis are more fortunate in having a government that actually wants to protect its people from invaders. Israel enforces its own border, having fortified it with a fence. Now, it fights for its inviolability. Our government, meanwhile, has left our border effectively open, even after 9/11, and has demonstrated no interest in re-establishing national sovereignty.

That said, there are similarities to note in the political attacks on Americans who hope to repulse what they see as deathblows to our remnant republic coming out of the “border crisis.” Anyone worried about the nullification of the southern border; the accelerating usurpation of dictatorial powers by the president; the perils to national security and public safety of open borders; the perils, also, to the survival of our English-speaking culture rooted mainly in Europe, is excoriated in the public square for having no “humanity.” Just like Israelis, such “mean-spirited” Americans must hate children, too, because this is all about “immigrant kids” in need, right? No – but that’s the dominant narrative.

Such a narrative tells us that the only “humane” solution to the “crisis” is asylum for “the kids” (and throw in their gang-banger brothers, felon-uncles and whoever else is leaving those prayer rugs on the border). Talk of “rule of law,” and “deportation” is “racist.” Talk of already overstretched American towns where the social fabric has ripped under the stress of refugee resettlement, talk of local public school systems broken by the extraordinary demands of supporting impoverished, illiterate alien populations, is the talk of the “xenophobe.”

Again, it's the children. An altruist code of sacrificing one's values for the needy, for the impoverished – for illiterate alien adults and their children, or even for "unaccompanied" alien children – is what is fueling the government's campaign to swamp our culture and population. To oppose this unconstitutional program is to earn the foul smears of racism and xenophobia.

I stress altruism here because no one else seems to want to challenge it. It's a Christian ethic, and a Jewish one, as well. It has been compartmentalized as the default morality by countless people who live otherwise rational, productive lives. And it is killing this country as a tool in the hands of this country's enemies – in and out of political office – here and overseas, who expect Americans to do the "decent" thing and allow themselves and their values to be sacrificed to the greater good of the Zero. They are counting on American "decency" to make their plans work. And as their plans are implemented, our enemies snicker on- and off-mike, because they are vile, drooling nihilists. "Ozero," a popular nickname for Obama, fits his nihilist policies perfectly.

"Humanity," in the parlance of the committed altruists, is the will to sacrifice one's values.

What becomes clear is that such “humanity” is only for the foreign-born. Such “humanity,” such concern, is never expressed for our own people – the Americans who, far from TV news studios and government offices, live with and support the aliens and refugees, young and old, in many of America’s less affluent cities and hardscrabble towns.

And perhaps that’s another difference between the Israeli and the American predicament. Israel still prizes the lives of its citizens very highly – not above all, as we see in their all-too-costly efforts to avoid civilian casualties (an effort the U.S. military also makes at similar high cost). But I can’t say the same for America.

Obama's actions are definably treasonous, and a violation of his oath of office.

Who are the allies of Obama's invasion by invitation? Corrupt Central American and South American governments – and the drug cartels. The drug cartels have burrowed probably hundreds of miles of tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., chiefly to smuggle drugs into the country.

On April 4th, The London Telegraph also ran a story on another kind of tunnel, the drug cartel tunnels, "Drug smuggling tunnels with rail systems discovered under US border with Mexico."  

Tunnels used for the transportation of drugs, linking warehouses in Tijuana, Mexico, and the Otay Mesa area of San Diego and including rail systems, the sixth and seventh found in the area in the last four years….
Two drug-smuggling tunnels with rail systems stretching hundreds of yards across the US-Mexico border were discovered by law enforcement officials, and a 73-year-old woman was charged with helping run one operation, federal authorities said Friday.
No contraband was found in connection with the tunnels, which linked warehouses in Tijuana, Mexico, and the Otay Mesa area of San Diego, according to a statement from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations.

The authorities know only about the tunnels they've discovered, which are also used to smuggle people into the country. To judge by the pictures in the preceding links, it would be easy to funnel numberless terrorists into the country in the cartel's tunnels.  There is a rumor that some cartels have sealed deals with Hamas and other Islamic terrorist organizations to help them smuggled jihadists into the U.S. Doubtless many Islamic terrorists have openly crossed the border posing as Mexicans or other Latino "refugees."

West ends her column with:

Our government doesn’t enforce our border – its basic charge – and it is frantically engaged in a vigorous program of what I can only describe as population replacement. We seem to be poised before an unprecedented, anarchic demographic shift bringing large swaths of Central and South Americans into the USA – and the federal government seems to be doing everything it can to enable the shift and make it permanent. My late father ruefully predicted the U.S. would one day become the northern tip of South America. I don’t know if he thought it would happen so quickly.

Who would have imagined, though, that the existence of Israel, surrounded by Islamic enemies sworn to its annihilation, could in some ways seem more assured than our own?

Undoubtedly, most Americans want America's sovereignty preserved as a distinct nation, and the border closed to the Obama-instigated invasion of Third World foreign nationals – most of whom will choose to remain "foreign nationals" yet expect to be bequeathed the rights and privileges of certified Americans, as the Muslims have demanded. Most Americans, including Latinos who underwent an arduous citizenship process (such as the patriotic Cubans) want America to survive as America.

West's point is that before we can save any children, America must save itself from the depredations of our own government.

Safe the children? Whose?

Saturday, July 26, 2014

The Outer Limits of Censorship

We want to control what you read, see, and hear, so very much.

I couldn't have asked for a better lead-in for this column than Hillary "I Wannabe Prez and Order You All About and Make You Eat Your Veggies" Clinton's complaints about three anti-Clinton books that are making her Hard Choices eat their dust in sales. Clearly, the pseudo-autobiography of all her non-accomplishments is destined overload the remainder tables of bookstores and the shelves of book warehouses, because its sales are so dismal.

I do not know the quality of the three books critical of the Clanton Gang – excuse me, the Clinton Clan – but even a book of Clinton caricatures or of political cartoons without text would be preferable to reading the ghost-written mush of Hard Choices. (I have read excerpts of it – yawners.)

Or perhaps she deserves a book in which Hillary moderates a panel of would-be mentors in the acquisition of political power: Darth Vader, Josef Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Pol Pot, FDR, Otto von Bismarck, Adolf Hitler, and Hubby, with her fielding leading questions from an audience of one. As for her potential for censorship, see my article, "The OIC Organizes for Censorship" from December 2013.

Clinton spared us her spittle and let a spokesman express his anger over the anti-Clinton books. Alexander Marlow, writing for Breitbart, reported on July 25th :

The First Family Detail by Ronald Kessler, set for release next month, will join Clinton, Inc. by the Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper and Blood Feud by Ed Klein on bookshelves. Yesterday we reported that Clinton, Inc. has shot up the charts and now both Halper and Klein’s books are outselling Hillary Clinton’s recent memoir Hard Choices.

“With Klein, Halper and Kessler, we now have a Hat Trick of despicable actors concocting trashy nonsense,” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in an interview with the Washington Examiner. “Their behavior should neither be allowed nor enabled, and legitimate media outlets who know with every fiber of their beings that it is completely made up should not get down in the gutter with them.”

What does he mean “not allowed”? The interview doesn’t detail any specific behavior that drew Team Hillary's ire beyond the simple act of writing a book. Without the benefit of full context, it appears as though Hillary's flack is suggesting the books be banned. At a minimum he is imploring the overwhelmingly pro-Clinton mainstream press to freeze out these authors and prevent their ideas and findings from being discussed on the media stage. 

That's the lead-in, and an appropriate one, because if we're going to discuss censorship, this news is of vastly more importance. It's news that Hillary the Harridan would welcome because it would help her books sales.

It's nothing less than a stealthy move by the government to regulate book publishing. Thank you, Hillary, for the overture. Fox News ran a story on July 23rd by Judson Berger, "FEC Chairman warns book publishers at risk of regulation at heated meeting."

The Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission warned Wednesday that his agency colleagues could try to regulate book publishers, during a heated session over a forthcoming book by GOP Rep. Paul Ryan. 

During the meeting, the FEC declined to definitively spare book publishers from the reach of campaign finance rules. 

This triggered a clash between Republican and Democratic members, with Chairman Lee Goodman warning that the deadlock could represent a "chill" for constitutional free-press rights. 

Paul Ryan's book, The Way Forward, by the way, is not about the virtues of capitalism, freedom, and freedom of speech. It is about a Republican plan to perpetuate the welfare state. See The Patriot Post's revealing review of it here. This makes the proposed squashing of the book all the more ironic.

Ryan was doing booksignings in Wisconsin and other states during an election cycle. That's an FEC prohibition, because Ryan's book questions the policies of his opponents.

At issue during the meeting was a book by Rep. Ryan, R-Wis., being published by Grand Central Publishing. Goodman and other GOP members of the commission wanted the FEC to affirm that the book and its publisher are exempt from FEC regulation under what's known as the "media exemption" -- the same exemption that typically lets newspaper editorials, television channels and other outlets say what they want about political figures without worrying about campaign finance laws.  Goodman argues that book publishers are entitled to the same rights. 

The commission did clear the Ryan book under a separate, more limited exemption. But they could not muster the four votes necessary to do what Goodman and other Republican members wanted. [Italics mine]

"I think that's unfortunate," Goodman said during the meeting, even raising the specter of book-banning. "We have effectively asserted regulatory jurisdiction over a book publisher." 

What were the Democrats' objections to the exemption?

Democratic members of the committee, though, were quick to downplay Goodman's complaints as a technical quibble. Commissioner Ellen Weintraub noted that the Ryan book was still going forward unencumbered by FEC regulations. She said the public probably doesn't care "which exemption we use," and accused Goodman of using "overheated language." 

"That doesn't mean that we're banning books, that doesn't mean that we're regulating books," she said. 

Yes,, darling, it does. If a burglar is using a lock-pick to break into your home, it means that he intends to rob you but hasn't quite jimmied the pins and tumblers. That he hasn't yet broken in is irrelevant. The intent is obvious. He's not there practicing how to break into his own home should he ever lose his keys. The FEC is in partnership with the MSM in an unholy alliance.

And no one, neither Republican nor Democrat, questioned the existence of the FEC, a harpy of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Goodman and Weintraub sit on the FEC. Clearly, they believe that it's a legitimate vehicle for policing speech.

Remember that the BCRA is indeed bipartisan, sponsored and lobbied for by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI).  Chairman Goodman of the FEC ought to have said, "It's a shame this organization exists at all. It doesn't and hasn't boded well for the First Amendment. We can only go downhill from here" – to selective censorship of books and ads that may appear during political campaigns, regardless of the state or other venue, political activism on the part of individuals donating to candidates' campaigns, and of spoken speech itself.

Which, of course, is the slide to full-scale censorship, whenever the government wishes to impose it and thinks it can get away with it without anyone noticing.

But the government isn't the only entity complicit in the trend to suppressing or regulating information speech in any form. There is our Left-dominated news media. Scott Whitlock, in his July 24th Media Research Center article, "Amid Deluge of Foreign Crises, Network News Shuts Out Obama Critics."

Over the last 15 days, the world has been rocked by two troubling and growing international crises: the shootdown of a civilian airliner over the Ukraine; and the intense fighting between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. While the three evening newscasts have offered considerable coverage of the unfolding events, CBS, NBC and ABC have made almost no attempt to evaluate the performance of Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry or the administration generally, and critics of the administration have been ignored….

It's not as though Americans were unified in appreciation and approval of Obama's reaction to the attack on the Malaysian jet or the violence in Gaza. The President received a considerable amount of criticism from Republicans and conservatives for attending Democratic fundraisers just hours after almost 300 airline passengers were killed in a missile strike. 

Yet, viewers wouldn't know it from the July 17 NBC Nightly News, ABC's World News or the CBS Evening News. NBC reporter Chris Jansing blandly parroted, "I asked if there was any consideration of not attending fund-raisers tonight. A senior White House official said, simply, 'we are sticking with the schedule.'" 

No, if Obama broke his schedule of appearances at fundraisers and golf courses and during a Martha's Vineyard and visits to pool halls and burger joints to attend to international crises, never mind his invasion by invitation by Mexico's and Central America's Third World castoffs, criminals, and illiterates, people might think he's inconsistent and unreliable. What would that do to his spotless image of integrity? The MSM must not contribute to any sullying of his reputation, however disgraceful that reputation may be. So, we won’t discuss his policy failures at home and abroad.

And when Hillary makes up her mind to run for the Democratic nomination after her disastrous showing in the book marketplace, they'll do her the same favor. After all, documenting her growth from a skinny, geeky-looking coed to a grasping, distaff version of Jabba the Hutt will only dispel the image of her as a benevolent despot who only wants to "do good." Just like her soul-mate, Bill.

Cue "Outer Limits" theme and narrator:

"There is nothing wrong with your newspaper, book, television set, or news report. Do not question what you see and hear. Do not attempt to find the truth. We are controlling the information flow. We determine the truth.  If we wish to make it louder, we will raise the volume and numb your brain. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper, or not transmit anything at all and you will not know that anything important happened.

We will regulate the content and when it appears. We can bias the information, make it flutter, and cause your eyes to cross. We can change the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity, or simply blank out the information if it is not fit to print or broadcast or otherwise does not comply with our vetted information standards.

From now on, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: There is nothing wrong with the evidence of your senses. You have been inducted into a great social experiment. Participation is mandatory. Resistance is futile. And punishable.

You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from our inner minds to the Outer Limits of veracity and credibility, to your conditioned docility and gullibility.

"Criticisms of our policy will incur severe financial and criminal penalties. Financial ruin and ostracism are guaranteed. Furthermore, criticisms and infractions of our penalty policies, as well, will earn additional targeting for legal action against any and all perpetrators. We cannot over-emphasize these dire and punitive consequences."

Let us be thankful that we have the Internet as an antidote to the government and the news media – while we still have a relatively free Internet.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Western Death Wishes

It is quite obvious that Islam inculcates a death wish among Muslims, even in the "pacific" numbers of the "silent majority" of them. Wishing death on non-Muslims of every variety and stripe, even at the price of a Muslim's own life, is the fundamental fabric of the creed, which lends itself to a life-stifling, totalitarian politics, an imperative that brooks no question. This is patently demonstrated, for example, by Hamas's determined and suicidal attack on Israel. It's almost as though Hamas pinned a "Kick Me" sign on its own filthy derrière.

Hamas wants to be "martyred," in the name of killing Jews.

No other religion, to my knowledge, is the foundation of an existing polity. Christians claim that the U.S. is founded on Christian principals, and that is clearly not true. Nor has it ever been true. The Puritans came to our shores to establish a communistic religious state. It failed when its crops failed.

Israel is claimed to be founded on principals founded in the Torah. That is clearly not true. There are no governments founded on Buddhist tenets, either. The U.S., Israel, and other Western nations are governed by secular rules and laws, however faulty they might be, and are called "democracies." There is nothing "democratic" in any religion. Christian congregations do not vote on whether God sports a long beard, wears a nightgown, and traipses around the universe in sandals, or uses a Gillette razor and Aqua Velva, dons an Armani suit, and hikes around in L.L. Bean mountain boots. They simply accept the standard iconography.

To my knowledge, only one of the three main religions of the world specifically prescribes a nihilistic, totalitarian way of living – or of dying: Islam. Shintoism, or emperor worship, was a driving force behind Japanese belligerency in the last century. Nazism was a kind of religion, as well.

However, Western philosophy has sired its own death wishes. Kant, Hegel, Comte, and other thinkers concocted ways for Western culture to implode and leave bloody messes on floors, ceilings and windows of history.

Western death wishes, metastasized by such irrational elements as moral relativism, multiculturalism, diversity, subjectivism, and so on, all contribute to the overall Western death wish, and manifest themselves in a number of realms. Such as in the news media.

I left this comment on a Washington Post article that grieves over Palestinian casualties. The story ran July 21st with the headline, "More than 100 Palestinians dead in worst day of Gaza conflict; Israel denies soldier captured."

Why does the Post and other American newspapers stress, emphasis, and beat us over our heads about the number of alleged "Palestinians" killed? Why should we care? The "Palestinians" and Hamas use "civilians" as human shields. Hide them in ambulances with Hamas "soldiers," plant rocket launch sites and arsenals in the midst of civilian neighborhoods, near hospitals and schools. Aside from these alleged Palestinian casualties, why don't the Post and other Leftard newspapers report on the hundreds of Israelis killed by Hamas, Al Queda, the Al-Asshole Brigades and the like? Is this paper anti-Semitic, or what? Israel is the only civilized, developed, free country in the Middle East. Why do you people hate it? Why do you wish to see it destroyed? Are you people hoping for a massacre of Israelis? Hamas initiated force against Israel; Israel has retaliated, and it's hoped Israel levels Gaza to the ground. I'm getting really tired of the MSM stressing the "suffering" of the Palestinians. They are not to be pitied, but held in contempt. They are the true butchers, who kill for the sake of killing. They have no other reason to live.

The next day the Palestinian toll had risen to 200, the next day to 300, and so on.  It will always rise, and the Western MSM will trumpet it, because Hamas wants it to and the MSM obliges. Rarely headlined are the Israeli casualties, and there is only an oblique reference to the fact that, first, Hamas initiated force against Israel with its rockets aimed at Israeli population centers, and then that Hamas and the Brotherhood employ "human shields" of civilians, hoping that an Israeli drone or bomb kills dozens or more Palestinians. Hamas is waging a propaganda war as well as a war of aggression.

Then Hamas and its "journalist" propagandists can send the MSM gory pictures of Palestinian civilian casualties, a policy opposite that of Israel's, which, while it will report Israeli civilian casualties, doesn’t send gory photographs of them. Not that if it did, those photographs would ever elicit sympathy in the West.

Had today's MSM been present during the sacks of Rome in 410 and 453 A.D., doubtless they would have shed tears over the Visigoth and Vandal casualties, and few over the murdered, raped, tortured, and enslaved Romans.

And those photographs of Palestinian casualties are largely bogus, or borrowed from other wars. To wit, this one, allegedly of children and their mother killed by Israeli bullets or bombs. There are two problems with the photograph: the original was taken in Syria. The second problem is that they may be staged. The special effects may be dirt scattered on the floor, and perhaps dollops of Heinz-Kerry catsup splashed near the kids to act as blood. Jihadist photographers are notorious for staging "massacres" and Israeli brutality. But the MSM eats up these pictures every time. It wants to. Our MSM is fundamentally anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic.

They don't know – or care – that those "graphic" pictures are the result of jihadist casting calls.

Islam is completely incompatible with western classic liberal Constitutional government and culture. Therefore Muslims must be denied access to the west and they must be defeated militarily where they exist as a government. The greatest example of the need to defeat Muslims militarily is in reference to the Israelis, and what must be dropped as a "solution" is the illogical, failed, deceptive, destructive, and dhimmi and Chamberlainesque “Two State Solution.” It is impossible by mere human persuasion to defeat or thwart the powerful, compelling, motivating and extremely evil message of Islam. Any attempt to "reconcile" Western civilization and Islam is like introducing cancer into a healthy body.

By the same token, Progressivism, or whatever other name one may call incremental socialism or nihilism, or fascism, is incompatible with western classic liberal constitutional government and culture. The ideology of fascism must be refuted and its practitioners in government defeated on intellectual grounds first, then at the ballot box. Fascism, and any species of statism, is illogical, deceptive, destructive, and carries the seeds within it of inevitable failure and misery.

It is nearly impossible by rational means to persuade Progressives, liberals, and statists of every stripe of the delusionary character of their "ideals." They hold altruism as their moral touchstone of "right." Altruism means sacrifice. Not their sacrifice. But that of their victims.

But the purveyors of the Western death wish reject or discard the evidence of the failure of their goals and agendas. They reject reality. Ostensively, their only reality is a fantasy land where their policies work. They wish to sacrifice reality – and lives – to their "ideal" make-believe worlds.

And like Barack Obama, they refuse to accept responsibility for the failures and destruction. Obama would reply to criticisms of his policies:

Don’t blame me. I'm just a vessel of dialectical forces, a mere sock puppet of historical necessity. Why do you think I play golf or fund-raise during crises? I'm a figurehead. I just communicate the imperatives. You may as well blame Hell for being too hot. It's not my problem. It's yours. I'm the One, the Messiah. You're not. And I'm invoking my executive powers to ensure historical necessity.

The Western death wish is not shared by all Westerners, only by those who side with and encourage evil under the guise of "tolerance," "ethnic and cultural diversity," "diversity of opinion for its own sake," and Marxism masquerading as benign-sounding "Progressivism," and who froth at the mouth in a self-righteous fury directed at anyone or any institution that resists being suffocated by or cajoled into mind-melding with the collectivist fold.

Another instance of the Western death wish is visible in popular culture,  in the Planet of the Apes movies, beginning with the Charlton Heston one decades ago in which he damns man (Heston in his best "original sin" outburst), all the way up to the current Apes movie, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Investors Business Daily made an important observation about the current offering in a July 14th editorial, "Energy-Starved 'Planet Of The Apes: What Greens Want":

What mankind needs most to survive and restore a semblance of normal life is electricity — aka power.  Without it, we have no light, no communications, no way to travel but on foot, no computer power, no heat, no stoves. The apes want to keep the humans poor, disoriented and in a hopeless state.

A turning point arrives with cheers in the theater when the humans return an electric power dam to operation and the entire city powers up again.

Before you cheer as well (and a cheering theater is at least a sign that Americans haven’t completely surrendered to the trolls of collectivism), the editorial makes this prescient reservation:

Which leads us to wonder if this movie is a metaphor for what we face in our real future. Not a future of apes, but a future without cheap and abundant power.

Is this where the radical green movement is guiding us with rolling brownouts and even complete blackouts in the years ahead as the Sierra Club, billionaire Tom Steyer and the Obama administration wage war against coal and other fossil fuel?

The apocalypse confronting America may not be "climate change," but the havoc and slow return to the Stone Age the left envisions for us to fight an alleged man-made effect on the weather.

Actually, the environmentalists' secret dream is the extinction of mankind, not his mere reduction to subsistence level in a new Stone Age. They would just rather man not be around to despoil the earth (and probably not Mars, Venus, Titan or even the Moon, either). Discover the Networks had this to say about "radical" environmentalism:

According to radical environmentalists, Nature has an "intrinsic value" and goodness that is to be revered for its own sake. In this simplistic moral calculus, any human action that changes the environment is unethical.
"The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature. That is why environmentalism is fundamentally anti-man. Intrusion is necessary for human survival. Only by intrusion can man avoid pestilence and famine. Only by intrusion can man control his life and project long-range goals. Intrusion improves the environment, if by 'environment' one means the surroundings of man -- the external material conditions of human life."

The misanthropy at the heart of radical environmentalism is well  expressed by biologist David M. Graber, who, in a glowing review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, writes: "Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet…. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

To "rejoin nature," as Graber well knows, means death, for lighting a campfire to keep warm or cook a meal would be a capital crime. Thus his hope that man is wiped out by a virus.

And you don’t need to much wonder about all the Apes movies and their companion disaster movies in which man is responsible for wiping himself out for the sole reason he exists and must take "unnatural" actions to sustain and advance his life.

What's an "extremist" environmentalist, as opposed to a "moderate" one?  Enza Ferreri on her blogsite quotes Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch about what a terrorist outfit like the Taliban means when it's against "extremism":

A Reuters article contains the intriguing phrase, intriguing because reportedly it's from the Taliban: "Muslims also should avoid extremism in religion".

Jihad Watch remarks:
The Taliban, in saying this, demonstrate that they don’t consider themselves to be “extremist.” This word is thrown around everywhere, but like “moderate,” no one bothers to define it precisely. Everyone assumes that its meaning is obvious, but it isn’t. It would be useful and illuminating to have a debate between Muslims who support the Taliban and Muslims who oppose it on what constitutes “extremism.” But that will never happen, as it would require honest discussion of Islamic doctrines that Muslim spokesmen in the West are doing a fine job of obfuscating.

Honest discussions of Islamic doctrine are impossible to anyone but Muslim spokesmen. Ferreri clarifies Spencer's remarks:

It's true: nobody has defined "moderate" or "extremist" in Islam. That's how and why these terms are used to foster the Islamophilic agenda: because they're useless. The fact that the Taliban can use the term "extremism" to dissociate itself from it (and to condemn it), as they don't consider themselves extremist, tells you a lot about the vagueness and consequent inutility of the word.

Similarly, what is the difference between a "radical" environmentalist and a "moderate" one? A "radical" one wishes mankind would run off the side of a mile-high cliff, right now. A "moderate" will provide picnic tables and box lunches cliffside. That's all. But it's the same end.

What's the psychology of Muslim "extremists," "radical" environmentalists, Progressive politicians and their supporters, and even many creatures in the MSM? Nicolai Sennels and Nancy Kobrin, in New English Review's May 2010 article, maintain:

Sennels adeptly outlines the key problems of why Muslims are not able to integrate into Western culture. What he doesn’t say, I shall name. We are dealing with nothing more than paranoia. Sennels stresses that the West must set boundaries because otherwise they will kill you. This kind of rage is malignant borderline behavior as in serial killing. We must come to understand such politically incorrect observations as Sennels does in order to connect the dots concerning criminal Muslims even though it is brutal.
Happy well-adjusted children do not become suicide bombers nor do they become criminals. Let us choose to know what we are dealing with rather than bury our heads in sand out of terror. Let us meet the challenge straight on as Sennels has. …

The paranoia of Muslims, environmentalists, and Progressives is that they see that most other adults and "happy, well-adjusted children" may live their lives fully, and because Muslims, environmentalists and Progressives can't, they wish to extinguish the lives of those who can. It's that simple. If paranoia it truly is, that's their motivation. They prefer to live in thrall to an arbitrary, whimsical, malevolent deity who denies them any personal values or lives. (See my November 2013 column on Sennels's findings, "The Psychology of Islamic Culture.)

How does the Western death wish extend to foreign policy?

But it also could be said it started with FDR and his alliance with Soviet Russia during WWII, or with Eisenhower in 1956 when he scuttled the British, French and Israeli military effort to retake the Suez Canal from Egypt's dictator Gamal Abdul Nasser, who wished to nationalize it. Eisenhower pressured Britain to abandon a successful initial effort to reclaim the Canal.

This year our government has signed an $11 billion deal with the government of Qatar, a major funder of Islamic terrorism and owner of Al Jazeera, Qatar's propaganda "news" outlet. Defense News on July 14th reported that:

Qatar will buy US Patriot missiles for the first time in a major arms deal worth $11 billion, officials said Monday, as Washington awaits a decision by the Gulf state on a lucrative fighter jet contract.
The sale will provide Qatar with roughly 10 batteries for Patriot systems designed to knock out incoming missiles, as well as 24 Apache helicopters and 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles, the US officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AFP…..
The weapons deal was the biggest for the United States in 2014 and came as Qatar weighs proposals in a fighter jet competition, with US aerospace firm Boeing vying against British BAE Systems and Dassault Aviation of France.

Breitbart announced the deal on July 17th with the appropriate headline: "US Signs $11 Billion Weapons Deal with Muslim Brotherhood-Friendly Qatar."

The arms deal was signed at the Pentagon in Virginia by U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and the Qatari equivalent, Hamad bin Ali al-Attiyah.

A Pentagon spokesman said of the major arms deal, “Today’s signing ceremony underscores the strong partnership between the United States and Qatar in the area of security and defense and will help improve our bilateral cooperation across a range of military operations.” He continued, “This is a critically important relationship in the region, and the secretary is pleased to be able to continue to make it stronger.”

Qatar is a strong ally and openly supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood. Although countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia have recently designated the organization a terrorist group, Qatar maintains that its goal is simply to preach the good tenets of Islam.

Billions for the defense of a medieval monarchy, but not much for this country's defense. And while Barack Obama undoubtedly approved of the agreement, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is nearly as loony as Vice President Joe Biden. It's also rumored that he converted to Islam.

Paul Alster on May 9th, 2013, for The Investigative Project on Terrorism, wrote:

American business giants such as the Boeing Corporation, Lockheed Martin, Conoco Philips, and Exxon Mobil all have significant interests and partnerships with Qatar. And the U.S. government appears willing to overlook Qatar's failings. But Palmor has no qualms in spelling out the dangerous game being played on Israel's doorstep that Qatar and its Al Jazeera network cannot disguise.

"The Emir of Qatar has visited the Hamas-controlled Gaza, has embraced Hamas rulers, and has promised money which in this case he has sent into the hands of Hamas. At the same time he has never visited the Palestinian Authority (PA) or the government in Ramallah [even though] he has repeatedly promised to do so. Ignoring Israel is one thing, but taking sides in Palestinian politics and clearly taking the side of a terror organization, is another thing. That is clearly taking part in armed and violent conflict and that is what Qatar is doing. It has always been on the side of terrorists and on the side of violence."

The history of the association of American and Western businesses with tyrannical régimes makes the charge of "crony capitalism" sound like an illicit office romance. The most notorious instance was oil man Armand Hammer's deep connections with the Soviet Union, an unprecedented relationship emulated by many big corporations in later decades with a variety of dictatorships, authoritarian régimes, and communist governments. To wit:

Money News on July 22nd reported:

They left out Turkey. It is great that more people are coming to this realization and that books are being written about it, but it doesn’t seem to be significantly changing the policies of the West (apart from a growing rift between the U.S. and the Sunni powers in the region over how we’re dealing with Iran). We have yet to designate the major institutional terror donors in Qatar Saudi Arabia as terrorist entities. Kuwait was never blacklisted by FATF even though it took it 10 years after 9/11 to outlaw terrorist financing. NATO has retained Turkey as a member even though it is partnering with Al Qaeda in Syria and helps Iran evade sanctions. And we mostly ignored attacks by Qatari-backed rebels in Mali fighting against our oldest ally, France. Instead of doing something significant, we just nod our heads and say, “yep, the Gulf is where the money for terrorism comes from,” and then we turn the page of the newspaper to something else.

And on July 21st:

The jihad in Syria against the Alawites has been wholeheartedly funded by millionaires in Qatar. The Qatari ministry of culture oversees some of the volunteer operations to fund terrorism like this, and counter-terrorism expert Juan Zarate says the financial support for jihad comes “from the top.” This isn’t new information, but seeing video of the players involved may help some people to grow up and out of the old-fashioned 1990s view of Qatar as an ally in the Gulf.

The U.S. government's relationship with various dictatorships, beginning most prominently with FDR's recognition of the Soviet Union in 1933, has a checkered and disgraceful history, as well. The Soviet Union was granted the status of a legitimate government in defiance of the knowledge of Stalin's campaign of starvation against the Ukraine, known in the Ukraine as the Holodomor,  in which some nine million people perished. (For a detailed account of FDR's role in propping up the Soviet government, see Diana West's outstanding book, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character.)

The pragmatism evident in the relationships of our government and private citizens with oppressive foreign governments is also a form of the West's death wish, as well.

Finally, the Mexican border imbroglio is so steeped in pragmatism, corruption, and a deliberate Obama policy of swamping the U.S. with tens of thousands of illegal "immigrants" in order to "transform" the country to sustain the welfare state and the Democrats' grip on the country that it beggars imagination. Mac Slavo on reported on July 20th about the invasion getting a violent assist from the drug cartels, "Mexican Drug Cartels Lay Down High Powered Suppressing Fire For Crossing Immigrants":

Shots rang out Friday night in Rincon Peninsula, Texas, forcing U.S. border patrol agents to take cover. The shots originated from south of the Rio Grande River and according to Border Patrol sources they came from a high-powered .50 caliber rifle….

When the shooting stopped, about 40 to 50 people came out on the U.S. side and turned themselves in. So clearly the rounds were being fired to suppress every effort to stop anybody intervening with anyone or anything coming across,” Gohmert added. “We have no idea what or how many or whom came across with the other illegal immigrants.” Sources said they believe the gunfire came from members of Mexican drug cartels, which include former military members trained in shooting that type of weaponry….

The shooting has prompted fears that Mexican drug cartels, known to be extremely dangerous and responsible for over 75,000 deaths in the drug war that has plagued the country for the last seven years, are now bringing their brand of violence into the United States via the unsecured 3000-mile southern border.

Obviously with the sanction of the Mexican government, which has accelerated the "legal" passage of Central American dross through Mexico to invade the U.S. by proxy. Is this not a declaration of war against the U.S.?

The American death wish is spectacularly enabled by President Barack ObamaCare, who wants to force American cities and towns to accept them. This is an invasion by invitation, similar to Europe's invitation of millions of unassimilatable Muslims, with the same end, to "transform" Western countries into satrapies of culturally "diverse" malignancies, erected on the ashes of freedom and the ruins of Western civilization.