Monday, February 20, 2017

Fake News: Islam Is Blameless!

The Amish Strike Blow for Freedom of Movement!

Lancaster, Penna. Feb. 22 – We are still reeling from the news of Christian terrorism when a fast-moving Amish buggy deliberately side-swiped a tractor-trailer hauling steel plates to go into the new border wall with Mexico, sending the trailer into a ditch, injuring the driver and his companion, and scattering the fifty one-ton plates in the the highway divide on State Route 30. The driver and his co-driver were taken to Lancaster General Hospital.

An Amish Weapon of Terror

The “road rage” snarled traffic for hours, backing traffic up for several miles from as far away as East Petersburg. Arrested at the scene was Amos Yoder of Lancaster, a farmer and the driver of the buggy, and his son, Elmer, age 17.

In a statement, Mr. Yoder said they took the perilous action to protest the “Mexican Trump wall” and President Trump’s immigration ban of Muslims. Mr. Yoder said he would like to see more illegals and Muslims settle in the region.

“We have always opened our hearts to the dispossessed and the oppressed in this country. We are not worried about the government settling Muslims in our midst or allowing Mexican illegals to flourish here. We are a peaceful people and are not concerned about Muslims or wayward Mexicans raping our daughters and women, or invading our homes to rob us, even though we could not protect ourselves, for we do not believe in violence. They would never cause us harm. They know this.”

When asked how he and his family could know anything about Muslim rapes and murders and how Islam is a religion of peace, when they have no electric conveniences at home such as a  television, he said that he and his family watch a lot of news on TV in a local Wal-Mart store.

  Lancaster Police and the state Highway Patrol have deemed the incident an “unmistakable act of terrorism.” The incident puts paid and contradicts the recent statements by Pope Francis that there is no Christian terrorism, or Jewish terrorism, or Islamic terrorism, and statements made by German leader Angela Merkel that Germany needs more Muslims. Mr. Yoder and his son have been remanded to the custody of the local office of the State Police and the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas to await arraignment,

This, of course, is a “fake news” report that could have easily have been broadcast by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the BBC, or MSNBC. They are all fake news outlets. It’s fake except for these quotations from Angela Merkel and Pope Francis. Those are very real. Also very real is the government’s concerted campaign to salt the Lancaster region with especially Muslim “refugees” so that the largely “white” communities there are upended with populations of different colors and creeds and non-peaceful outlooks on the world. Angela Merkel claims that the European Union still has a “responsibility” to take in more so-called refugees, and pleaded to Islamic governments to help convince people that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

Angela Merkel can’t seem to make up her mind.

Amid the tragedy there’s the horrible irony that just some three months ago German national daily Die Welt here published a piece with the title:

Truck drivers wanted’ – Merkel gives refugees tips”

Die Welt reported that Merkel was working hard to “rapidly integrate the refugees” and called on industry to get involved. Merkel said that refugees would be able to trade in their driver’s licenses for a German one for 500 euros, but that of course loans need to be offered to help them finance it. Paying back the loan should be no problem, Merkel said:

When one earns, he can then pay this 500 euros back. Everywhere truck drivers are being sought.”

This was said in the immediate aftermath of the Berlin festival truck attack on Germans.

Germany is in shock after yesterday’s terrorist attack on a Berlin Christmas market, which is a stark symbol of German culture. The latest figures show 12 dead and 48 injured – some seriously. Also the Polish driver of the hijacked truck allegedly was killed.

The Daily Star reported on February 19th:

The embattled leader says Europe has an obligation to take displaced people from Syria and Iraq. She also said Islam "is not the cause of terrorism" and that combating extremism needs the cooperation of Muslim countries.

A reelectable revanchist?
But previously, in October 2016, she sort of panicked and said that some migrants must be deported from Germany. Breitbart reported:

After an influx of almost 900,000 migrants last year, some Germans fear their country is being overrun by foreigners. Merkel has attracted criticism for her migrant policy and her conservatives have lost some support to the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD).

An understatement with a red Magic Marker, to be sure.

In the past, when smaller numbers of asylum seekers arrived, those who were not granted the right to stay were not deported rigorously enough and that needs to change now, given the high number of refugees and migrants, Merkel said.

“We need a national push to deport those who are rejected. That’s indisputable and we’re working hard on that at the moment,” Merkel told a conference of the youth wing of her conservatives in Paderborn.

That’s not going to happen. If she tried it, there would be “peaceful” rioting and camp-burnings by Muslims. So, it’s unlikely she will be doing much “pushing.”

Deporting those migrants was only one element of Germany’s refugee policy, Merkel said, adding that the integration of those who are granted protection must be expedited.

Unless I’m consulting the wrong thesaurus, integration is not the same thing as assimilation. And assimilation is not what most Muslims in Germany have in mind, unless it’s into the German welfare state. And Merkel’s policy is that it’s the Germans who must integrate into Islamic “culture,” if there is such a thing.

A Breitbart article of February 18th reports Merkel’s oscillating position on Islam:

“So co-operation with the United States of America is most important for us, but what’s also very important to me is that Islamist, Muslim states have been incorporated in this coalition, because I think those countries, first and foremost, have to give a contribution.”

According to Chancellor Merkel, however, working with such states is the only way “we will be able to convince people that it is not Islam that is the problem, but a falsely understood Islam, and the religious authorities of Islam have to find strong language in order to delineate themselves and distance themselves from this fundamentalist and terrorist [version of] Islam.”

Was the Pope “channeling” Mohammad? Was Merkel? The planets must have been in magical alignment for them both to deny the existence of Islamic terrorism within 48 hours of each other. Did they have a conference call to coordinate their statements?

In an impassioned address Friday, Pope Francis denied the existence of Islamic terrorism, while simultaneously asserting that “the ecological crisis is real.”

“Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” Francis said in his speech to a world meeting of populist movements.

What he apparently meant is that not all Christians are terrorists and not all Muslims are terrorists—a fact evident to all—yet his words also seemed to suggest that no specifically Islamic form of terrorism exists in the world, an assertion that stands in stark contradiction to established fact.

In keeping with the Marxist notion that men’s characters are formed by their economic and material conditions and circumstances, Francis added:

“No people is criminal or drug-trafficking or violent,” Francis said, while also suggesting—as he has on other occasions—that terrorism is primarily a result of economic inequalities rather than religious beliefs. “The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence yet, without equal opportunities, the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and will eventually explode.”

Pope Francis: “Upon this staff I will
nonviolently build a caliphate,
depending on the environment.”
At brief glance at his statement, reveals that Francis seems to be denying the role of economic determinism, a core tenet of his politics. He also, in the same breath, conceded that terrorism – specifically Islamic terrorism – does indeed exist, but failed to cite examples of Christian or Jewish terrorism.

On that note, I am unable to recall the number of Christians or Jews (whom Francis did not mention) who are terrorists and who have made headlines in my lifetime.

They are as imaginary and fake as the Amish terrorist.


Rob McVey said...

Ed: Do you have a separate url or email for questions about your novels? I'd like to ask you what Skeen means in 'First Things' between 'freedom' and 'liberty.' It's a very intriguing issue; and I think I got it. Thanks.

— Rob McVey, T4B

Edward Cline said...

Rob: Here is the pertinent paragraph (p. 9, paperback): Skeen writes -- “Freedom is not of metaphysical importance. Rather, it is a metaphysical condition, or a metaphysically important condition or state, in the absence of which I could not function or be able to act. But is it synonymous with liberty? Freedom cannot be abridged. Liberty can be, through obstructionist laws and regulations. Liberty is a socially important requisite to one’s freedom.” I think this explains everything. Freedom can't be taken away from you by the state. It's a metaphysical given. But liberty is dependent on society, or rather by the political condition under which one might live. For example, you can purchase a gun or a can of pepper spray, and you'd have the freedom to purchase it, limited only by the state's regulation or prohibition of the purchase of it. An outright ban would rob you of the liberty to purchase it or anything else. Ideally, the state should not have any say in the matter; in such a circumstance, there would be little difference between freedom and liberty, they would be nearly synonymous. At present they are not synonymous.

Rob McVey said...

Ed, Thanks. That's how I take it, having learned from Skeen not to always treat them as synonyms. Plus, I can see it as an instance of Rand's distinction of the metaphysical versus man-made.


Edward Cline said...

Freedom can be "abridged" per the First Amendment, but only if certain actions are treated as government dispensed "liberties."

Rob McVey said...

Speaking as Cdn, but I think this is correct: freedom can be abridged if the 10th amendment is ignored in the feds acting beyond their enumerated powers to infringe on individuals' liberties (I'm excluding the idea of states' "rights.")