Auto Added by WPeMatico

Liberal Democrat and Dalwhinnie exchange polite disagreement

I had the privilege of exchanging views with a very liberal democrat on another listserv. Herewith is the exchange. It did not start with anything I wrote, but we capture it in the middle, when Liberal Democrat is responding to other Republican commentators.

Liberal Democrat wrote:

I’d rather be smug than entertaining treasonous delights.
…. I have absolutely no shame in being a coastal liberal.  We’re a key cog in how this Union stays together. Last I checked, it was the states full of coastal liberals that subsidize all the poor, downtrodden, and left behind conservative states that cry about how horrible the federal government is while they use all the services and infrastructure it pays for, hand out for the next round of transfer payments. Do I complain about those payments? No. I see it as the price of national progress and a hope that the next generation of Mississippi kids might not live in abject poverty, get an education, and maybe escape the crushing cycle that has kept many citizens of these states in perpetual marginalization, which is exactly where their right-wing political leaders want them.
I, for one, am fine with the moderating effect that our two party system has on marginalizing political extremism, and will gladly vote for Hillary in November.  No, she is not my preferred candidate, but she is the only candidate qualified to be President. It is the outcome of compromise, just like it was when I begrudgingly accepted no public option in the ACA and less than ideal restrictions on Wall Street in Dodd-Frank. We can’t always get what we want. Somehow, there is a vocal minority who seem hell-bent on ignoring that reality.
But back to Crusty Conservative’s original point. I don’t think Twitter, Facebook, or traditional media should close speech because it’s abhorrent and it’s because of what I fear.  I am not afraid of ISIS. I have not need afraid of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, or any other Hitler of the week we’ve had propped up as our enemy in the past twenty years. I am afraid of the next Timothy McVeighs and Dylann Roofs, the people in our midst who want to destroy our consensus in this country because they think they’ve been left behind by history. And they have, because they seem to think our greatest days are in the past and they’ll do what it takes to force us backward, where women, minorities, LGBTQ and non-Christian people are second-class citizens and the advantages of being born white and male were enough to succeed. That is what scares me and if we close public speech to what scares us, that speech will go underground and rot. At least we know who to fear when these monsters speak.
The last paragraph caught my attention. I ventured a reply:
Greetings all:

I cite our worthy LD:

I am afraid of the next Timothy McVeighs and Dylann Roofs, the people in our midst who want to destroy our consensus in this country because they think they’ve been left behind by history. And they have, because they seem to think our greatest days are in the past and they’ll do what it takes to force us backward, where women, minorities, LGBTQ and non-Christian people are second-class citizens and the advantages of being born white and male were enough to succeed. That is what scares me and if we close public speech to what scares us, that speech will go underground and rot. At least we know who to fear when these monsters speak.

I would put it to people of this view that we all live and want to live in a reasonable, tolerant and dare I say liberal society. By liberal I mean freedom loving, not left wing conformist. At least I do. And you do too, else you would not be on this list. So in the  contest between Islamist nutcases and nutcases like Dylann Roof, Anders Breivik, Timothy McVeigh (name a few more if you can), the clear and present danger seems to be coming much more from the Islamic direction than from fundamentalist Christian direction. At least the body counts seem to be a numerical expression of the scale of risk, and from what direction.

The question for the pragmatic among us is: Who has the most power actually to “force us backward”?. I would put it to the people who are more concerned with Christian and white-nativist reaction than they are with Islam, that they are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

My second assertion is that vastly more people agree with this view of mine than they do with the benign views of my colleague Mr LD.

My third and wholly superfluous assertion is that this group of people are becoming very tired of the net direction of society in the post-Christian world, insofar as what appears to be a tidal wave of Islamic reaction to modernity is ignored by the bien-pensant elites, while the lingering outposts of people unpersuaded by the world view of the New York Times are held to be the true enemy. To me this seems both mistaken as to fact, in a very large way, and to be the result of a failure to imagine what a truly alien political religious ideology Islam is. It is off the map, so to speak, and cannot be conceived. Since it is inconceivable, whereas Christian fundamentalism is a more familiar target, the enemy of my enemy is somehow imagined to be my friend. Here I speculate as to motive and am less certain than I am of the previous assertions

The gap between the bien-pensants  (the well-thinkers, the morally superior) and ordinary opinion has seldom been wider, and the views of the ordinary people less tolerated by the morally superior, and held in greater contempt.

I have seen this past summer normally quite conservative (that is to say sensible, centrist, moderate, well educated ) people explode in rage at the effrontery, ignorance, cretinism, red-neckery of the less educated classes in daring to disagree with the least jot and tittle of the Official View. It is stunning to see the contempt directed at the lower orders by their social betters.

It will not end well, regardless of the outcome of the current US presidential election.


LD replied:
Excellent points.
I have to disagree on the Islamic fundamentalism threat, however, as I believe it is wholly related to conservative American Christianity. Whether a crusade in name or in practice, the Christian west has used the infidels in the Islamic world for a millennium as a useful rallying point for unity and a distraction from more localized concerns.
But, look on the other side of the equation? How easy is it to teach western decadence when we abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion was repelled? How can you not be swayed by stories of the infidels’ crusade when planes drop bombs on your civilian neighborhood? How can you not be angry when your all-knowing occupiers failed to account for civil disturbances after de-Baathification in Iraq, leading to countless deaths?  We applauded Arab Spring, but did little to nothing to help these countries transition to democracy and establish stability.
We all know Wahhabist clerics are breeding this hate, but no one wants to mess with the flow of oil from Saudi, so it’s almost American policy to let it bleed.  And don’t get me started on Turkey, where European islamophobic policies and the unaddressed Syria threat has let it drift closer to religious-based totalitarianism.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time in the Middle East and Arab World–Bahrain, UAE, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi, Morocco, to name a few–and seen both the good and bad with my own eyes. They’re still humans, still just trying to survive.  They love American movies and music and, based on the Popeye’s at Amman’s airport or the Dunkin’ Donuts in Dubai, some enjoy our weaponized cuisine, but are vastly under -educated as to who is inhabiting our countries. If we spent 1/10th the money on cultural engagement as we did on military ones, both to show them our values and counteract the nutbag imams, we’d be in a different world. But, for the most part, Americans stay here and they stay there, and the only cultural references point Americans have is screaming idiots on Fox and CNN telling us how much they hate us. That’s a horrific foundation for dialogue.
I am just not as easily convinced that the creeping Islamic threat is any worse than when it was in Spain or on the steps of the Holy Roman Empire. I am convinced that, as you said, it is alien enough to Americans–who generally only had a two week crash course in Islam during high school and still think history ended after we won World War II–that it’s still a useful crutch to rile us up and I think we’re afraid to learn that our “enemy” is not that much different than us on Maslow’s hierarchy. Parents in Virginia two years ago pulled their kids out of class for learning about Islam and Arabic script, like the language, script, and the Koran are Instant Soup-style indoctrination.  That is just fear and ignorance. We are afraid of the unknown, even if it’s knowable, and I think it makes it easier to dehumanize 1/5th of the world because of it.
The greatest risk our children have from Islam today is, as it was for our generations, one thing: Al Gebra. As it seems, fear of complex math is at the center of Republican tax policy. 😉
As for our Republicans, I wish we had a Canadian-style Conservative political party. I miss the pre-Newt GOP, one that wasn’t so anti-science and anti-compromise, even if I could not align on its policies.
My final response was this:
Thank you for a civilized and well written reply.

I remain unpersuaded that the main issue of our time is somehow American ignorance, or policy errors. They exist, and Americans in their ignorance keep making errors, as any nation does. Perhaps the US elites have been making more than their fair share of late, and this is the subject of the election now underway.

In respect of Islam you wrote:

“I am convinced that, as you said, it is alien enough to Americans–who generally only had a two week crash course in Islam during high school and still think history ended after we won World War II–that it’s still a useful crutch to rile us up and I think we’re afraid to learn that our “enemy” is not that much different than us on Maslow’s hierarchy.”

I recall a liberal American official at the FCC one time complaining about Republicans, insofar as their world view and knowledge came from one book, the Bible.

I admit the justice of that critique. One book is not enough.

But we have had a Reformation, and its subsequent wars and reorganization of the European state system;  we have religious freedom, we have social freedom, we have a large measure of political freedom, even if, in your view, it is used in error.

Muslims in Islamic countries have none of these things. They still hold, in principle, that all necessary knowledge of the world, comes from one source only, given one time to one prophet, indelibly, indisputably, inerrantly, and that not a word can be revised or re-interpreted. Exclusive reliance on the Koran for guidance in all matters has led to social, intellectual, political and economic stagnation across the Islamic world. When they had strip mined the contributions of the previous Christian, Zoroastrian, pagan, Buddhist, and pre-Islamic intellectual accomplishments, they were culturally unable to generate new insights because inquiry is haram, forbidden. Most of what we call Islamic contributions to knowledge were pass-throughs from previous cultures.

At the same time, they were promised that they would be the final revelation, and that in principle and by right, they would be the conquerors of the world by now.

So they are caught in a gigantic cognitive dissonance between what they believe they ought to be doing, that is, governing the world, and as a part of their regime using its non-Muslim women as their sex toys, on the one hand, and the fact that they are at the back of the class in every dimension of accomplishment. A UN report of 2004 or thereabouts, and written exclusively by Muslim intellectuals, pointed out that the people of Finland, population 4 million, produced more absolute GDP than 77 million Arabs produced in non-petroleum exports. The economic value created by Finns, population 4 million, was greater than the economic value created by all of the Arab world, excluding petrochemicals. Arabs are excruciatingly conscious of their inferiority, and many seek simple answers, found in the Koran, as to what is to be done. Its name is jihad.

So here is my second point.

Weighed in the balance against the 1/5 of humanity, a large proportion of whom seem to be stuck in the cultural assumptions of tribal Arabia in the 6th century AD, or who wish they were so stuck, then purely domestic squabbles among the citizens of the US do not seem to carry the weight or importance that many Americans think (or believe passionately) that they have.

My observation is that a serious engagement with the issues requires one to step back from exclusively and parochially US partisan concerns. Even if we assume that Republicans and Democrats say largely true things about one another, we do not engage the relevant question or questions. It is of very little use to suggest to an American that they see things in excessively partisan terms. You are likely to get your head shot off. Especially in a presidential election year.

I am ducking behind a wall as I write. Thank you for an entertaining discussion.

Be well.

LD’s response was a cheerful paean to the valour of the Finns, in which we were both agreed.


Nothing to do with Islam (2)

I looked through the press yesterday and today and was able to find one shooting in the western world that was not caused by Muslims, and it was caused by American black males in Florida.

Nothing to do with Islam – Muslims attack Norman church service and slit the throat of the priest.

Nothing to do with Islam – Muslim kills nine in German department store

Nothing to do with Islam – Syrian asylum seeker blows himself up in Germany after pledging allegiance to ISIL leader.



Leonid Bershidsky, writing in the National Post, now a branch of the New York Times Bloomberg News, says:

A casual racist would assume any multiple murder committed by someone with a Muslim name would be an act of Islamist terrorism, but Somboly’s case was different. Chubby, awkward, bullied at school, he would often threaten to kill his classmates. The threat was more serious than the classmates believed: Somboly was studying a German edition of Peter Langman’s “Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters,” a book written using American material. On Friday, as he fired on random people at and around a Munich shopping center, he acted in full accordance with a passage in the book.

Notice the drive-by shooting embedded in Bershidsky’s comment – “a casual racist”. Islam is not a race, Mr. Bershidsky. It is a religious/social/political totalitarianism. I could be a Muslim, Bershidsky could be a Muslim, you dear reader could be a Muslim, and we could each belong to a different race. To oppose Islam is to oppose an ideology, an ideal of society (however dismal), and an idea of a demented God that governs every molecule of the universe directly by His will.

Passing over the thought-stopping “casual racist” claim, it might be possible to argue that when Muslims have a personal crisis these days, of any kind, they are empowered and authorized by their religion, by their families, and by their societies, to slaughter non-Muslims. There is a very deep sickness in Islam.

None of this bothers Bershidsky:

The recent attacks are  grouped together because of the origin and religion of the perpetrators. They have little in common, however, and they do not represent a spike in crime by the most numerous group of immigrants to arrive in Germany lately. The media frenzy will eventually quiet down if there are no major incidents and the government does a good job explaining its strategy to combat terrorism as well as be vigilant against the random acts of madness that Germany has witnessed recently. Germans seem willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt; polls suggest that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s grand coalition government would still have a majority in parliament if elections took place now, not in 2017 as scheduled.

When I spoke of the imperturbable smugness yesterday, I did not realize that I would find it so neatly expressed so soon. All is well, nothing is statistically abnormal, Muslims are committing crimes proportionate to their population in Germany, move on, nothing to see here. Why are the centres of European cities turning into rape zones against white women? Why is the peace and security of societies declining everywhere that Muslim immigration is significant?

These are forbidden questions. To ask them is to be “casually racist”. Leonid Bershidsky knows better than to write such drivel. I will give him one free pass, for he is an otherwise astute observer.

So it was not spontaneous after all



The Nice attack that killed over 80 people had been planned for over a year. So much for any idea that it was spontaneous. Says Yahoo news:

Paris (AFP) – Five suspects have been formally charged over the truck attack in the French Riveria city of Nice that killed 84 people, the Paris prosecutor said,

Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who mowed down crowds of people enjoying a Bastille Day fireworks display, had long plotted the carnage, prosecutor Francois Molins said….

More than 400 investigators have been poring over evidence since the grisly attack last Thursday, the third in France in 18 months, and it was analyses of Bouhlel’s telephone records that led them to the five suspects.

While the Islamic State group claimed the attack, describing Bouhlel as a “soldier”, investigators have not found direct proof of his allegiance to the jihadists.

Many people interviewed by investigators described the Tunisian father of three as “someone who did not practise the Muslim religion, ate pork, drank alcohol, took drugs and had an unbridled sexual activity”, Molins said earlier this week.

However initial details of the investigation revealed Bouhlel had been fascinated with jihad for a while.

Maybe someday not too long from now nominal Christians will start exploring what it would be like to be a crusader. But by then the  coming religious war will only be a few a few years off. Then the apologists will say that “crusader” atrocities had nothing to do with the Christian religion, but Muslims might be entitled to worry. As it would seem we are not so entitled.

The amount of wilful self deception on the Islamic/jihadist connection is bewildering to me.

It’s too soon to say


It is too soon to say if ISIL had anything to do with the train attacks that saw five people wounded in Bavaria by an Afghan asylum seeker. By the same token it is NOT too soon to say that the root cause of the attack was Islam’s effect on the mind of the Afghan attacker.


Despite the ISIL claim of responsibility and a hand-painted ISIL flag found in the suspect’s apartment, authorities said so far they have found no direct links between the suspect and ISIL and believe that he self-radicalized.

Investigator Lothar Koehler said the teenager’s motivation appeared to be Islamic extremism based upon a passage, found among notes in his apartment, which read: “Pray for me that I can take revenge on these infidels and pray for me that I will go to heaven.”

In the premeditated attack, the attacker boarded the regional train after nine p.m. near the Bavarian city of Wuerzburg with an ax and knife concealed in a bag, according to Ohlenschlager. He said the suspect had learned Saturday that a friend had died in Afghanistan.

“Self-radicalized”: what a  wonderful expression! A Muslim has a personal crisis of almost any sort and, without any sort of external influence – except his culture and religion and upbringing which tell him to do these things – tries to murder non-Muslims.

I “radicalize” myself and decide I must kill people. And this is “the religion of peace”. Sounds more like the psychopathology of Satan to me.

As one wag said recently, in modern society we find one peanut-related product in a primary school and we all freak out, lest a child go into allergic shock; one Muslim and we are supposed to welcome them and make them feel at home (which is often impossible because many of  their homes are propagating the very attitudes that would destroy us).

As John Derbyshire said:

And still our leaders offer the same fool nostrums. Most Muslims aren’t terrorists, they soothe, as if anyone ever thought they were. If I give you a big box full of M&Ms and tell you just one of the M&Ms is packed full of Strychnine, I venture to speculate that you will not open the box and start decorating ice-cream cones with the contents.


A much higher degree of skepticism needs to be exercized against Islam and a much lower level against CO2 build-up.

Nothing to do with Islam

No sirree! The man who killed 84 people in a 2 kilometer-long rampage in a  truck in Nice, France was insane! That’s what his family said. That’s what the police say:

A police source has told The Telegraph that Bouhel might have been motivated more by a desire to commit suicide than by an Islamist ideology. The source who is close to the investigation said that the 31 year old attacker may have been “a suicide case who decided to make his suicide look like an Islamist attack. Investigators are being cautious about definitively ascribing a motive for the time being.”

The Guardian reports his father as saying:

On Friday night his father told Agence France-Presse that his son had suffered from depression.

“From 2002 to 2004, he had problems that caused a nervous breakdown. He would become angry and he shouted … he would break anything he saw in front of him,” Mohamed Mondher Lahouaiej-Bouhlel said outside his home in M’saken. He said he was prescribed medication to treat his depression.

He said they had heard nothing from him after he left for France. He also agreed that he had little to do with religion. “He didn’t pray, he didn’t fast, he drank alcohol and even used drugs,” he told AFP.

nothing to do with Islam

I would like to have a little chat with you about culture. Maybe it is also about religion. Why, when a non-Muslim, say some Christian cracker,  goes insane, does he rob a bank, get drunk or commit suicide by cop? Why does an American black thug shoot up a fellow male black thug in a park? Why does a Muslim, when he goes insane, strap a bomb to his chest and blow himself up in a supermarket filled with shoppers? Or drive for two miles along a famous boulevard killing scores -literally scores – of people. That is a lot of thumping bodies into the bumper, a lot of bouncing around in the cab as the truck wheels crunch bodies. It was not one or six people killed at once in a bunch outside a cafe, it was two kilometers worth of people. Slaloming down the road to kill as many as possible, that was our depressed Morroccan.

I do not care particularly if Mohamed was depressed. Why not commit suicide, then, quietly by overdoes of drugs?

He may have been suffering from depression. He might have been a failure. But what we know for certain is that jihadist organizations appeal to, and can find, such marginal types and get them to kill huge numbers of non-Muslims.

I would say that he was suffering from Islam, not depression. And, to a certain degree, so are we all.

A Muslim writing in the Telegraph has the same idea as me.

You can’t disrupt a network that was barely a network to begin with and you can’t break up a conspiracy of one. There will never be enough police to stop every runaway truck or every gunman in an airport, or nightclub, or stadium.

You can stop the flow of recruits, perhaps, or you can engage in more drastic action, like kicking them out of our countries. I suggest that both will be tried within the next twenty years.

Elite opinion going nuts

James Taub of Foreign Policy Magazine says it all: “It’s time for the elites to rise up against the ignorant masses”.

The issues are not between left and right he says, but between the wise and knowing elites and the angry know nothings who voted  for Brexit and who will he fears vote for Trump.



Given Mr. Taub’s description  of what ails the masses, it is to be expected that they are in revolt. He writes:


The issue, at bottom, is globalization. Brexit, Trump, the National Front, and so on show that political elites have misjudged the depth of the anger at global forces and thus the demand that someone, somehow, restore the status quo ante. It may seem strange that the reaction has come today rather than immediately after the economic crisis of 2008, but the ebbing of the crisis has led to a new sense of stagnation. With prospects of flat growth in Europe and minimal income growth in the United States, voters are rebelling against their dismal long-term prospects. And globalization means culture as well as economics: Older people whose familiar world is vanishing beneath a welter of foreign tongues and multicultural celebrations are waving their fists at cosmopolitan elites.

If my long term prospects were ‘dismal’, to use his words, I too would revolt.

The schism we see opening before us is not just about policies, but about reality. The Brexit forces won because cynical leaders were prepared to cater to voters’ paranoia, lying to them about the dangers of immigration and the costs of membership in the EU.

It is customary in argument to assert that the view of reality held by one’s opponents must be wrong. Usually left wingers assert that opposition is informed by wrong attitudes, ideologies, and values. It never occurs to writers like Taub that the systematic cover-up by British police and social workers of Islamic rape culture in Rotherham has come home to roost, as it were. It never seems to occur to them that the price of imposing political correctness – which is not to perceive or speak about what is in front of one’s nose – is that the pressure must build up to the point of explosion. Through miscalculation, the Tory government handed the masses a clearly worded question that asked them in effect if they wanted

  • to be irrevocably committed to unlimitable immigration and
  • the permanent subordination of their political institutions to un-elected and unaccountable foreign ones.

Despite many material advantages of the current arrangements, the people answered ‘no’. Now the elites are going bonkers. Go figure.



Elites and Brexit




There is a strange notion going about, which has only been gathering strength for twenty years or more, that common people do not have a right to be concerned, let alone express concern, for the enormous hidden (to the upper classes) costs of living with aggressively intolerant minorities, of having one’s peace disturbed by the over-privileged spokespeople for those minorities, for the decayed social trust, the increased need to lock your house,  for the inability to enforce social norms – like taking out the garbage in a timely way or keeping the common halls clean – for fear of being accused and taken away to the police station for racist incitement. Not to mention the costs of de-Christianization in terms of tribal/national solidarity, and the increasing atomization of society under the impact of multi-culturalism, and its intolerant legal requirements imposed on the native population. What else? A general contempt for the native working classes and an apparent desire to see them replaced with cheaper foreign workers.

There has been, and continues to be, a stupefaction as to why people are becoming upset, and Marie-Antoinette’s “Qu’ils mangent du gâteau” seems to be a widespread reaction among  the beneficiaries of these changes.

The people have just told the elites to stuff it, and the elites are flabbergasted at their effrontery.



Thank God Almighty, free at last: 52% vote to leave

cameron quits


“There were two referendums on Thursday. The first was on membership of the EU. The second was on the British establishment. Leave won both, and the world will never be the same again.”

Tim Stanley in the Telegraph



I do not know what factor would have failed to drive me to vote for UK independence: uncontrolled migration from within the EU, uncontrolled immigration of Muslims, the supremacism of the European High Court, or the basic fact that the European super-government is not responsible to the European Parliament. Imagine, if you can, a Canadian Parliament where the government answers questions in the House of Commons, but does not depend on the support of any party in the House: a permanent, irremovable executive. Now imagine that it has been governing you for thirty-five to fifty years. Now imagine that every critique of it is met by denunciations from the elite to the effect that you are a reactionary yobbo for daring to dissent, and to being sternly lectured by foreign government heads for even thinking of breaking out.

In the end, is it any wonder that the people revolted?

Imagine a Supreme Court composed of the most activist leftie judges overturning every social arrangement, all of whom are appointed to reign over your judicial system. We have a bad enough time with an out of control left-wing Court that is appointed by an elected Prime Minister, but the European Court of Justice has been particularly aggressive in knocking down national law.

Yes there will be uncertainty, but yes, there needs to be more fear in Brussels, so the rulers know they can be removed.

As far as I am concerned, Brexit means Trump, and for the parallel reasons. Periodically the upper classes need to get the boot. Not for a whim, but for persistent failure to care for the well-being of their electors, and a persistent deafness to their cries for understanding. Electorates  have experienced way too much condescension and contempt from their elites: whether of the left, right and centre. A purge is needed. It will come.

Mateen’s confession is not a ‘distraction’; it is the essence



By now you will have been made aware that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was forced to issue the unedited transcript of Omar Mateen calling Orlando 9-1-1.

The new transcript still replaces the Muslim god “Allah” with God:

2:35 a.m.: Shooter contacted a 911 operator from inside Pulse. The call lasted approximately 50 seconds, the details of which are set out below:

(OD) Orlando Police Dispatcher

(OM) Omar Mateen

OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.

OM: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent [Arabic]

OD: What?

OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [Arabic]. I wanna let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.

OD: What’s your name?

OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.

OD: Ok, What’s your name?

OM: I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.

OD: Alright, where are you at?

OM: In Orlando.

OD: Where in Orlando?

[End of call.]

It is hard to know what would have been left of this transcript if the references to Islam had been removed.

Said Breitbart, quoting Lynch:

“What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch declared Sunday, before the administration reversed its decision.

Again and again the liberal (I use that word with irony) communities refuse to grasp the meaning of the events in Orlando: falsely claiming the massacre is about gun control, or Islamophobia (why would you not be afraid?),that  it is about anything than what it really concerns: the Islamic admonition to assert the social codes expected by Islam anywhere, in any country, regardless of citizenship. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls it, it is the admonition by the Prophet to punish what is wrong and assert what is right. No oath of obligation to a country is binding to a Muslim. Citizenship is irrelevant.

An example of this distraction is  given by Fred Litwin, the gay conservative, in why he chose not to attend the LGBTQ-whatever vigil for Orlando victims:

Not one speaker at either rally spoke about Islamism, the murderous ideology raging throughout the Muslim world. Surely everybody knew that Mateen had claimed allegiance with ISIS. Don’t they know that ISIS regularly throws gay people off of buildings. Why wasn’t this mentioned?

Google the terms “Orlando anything but Islam”, and a rich supply of articles will appear.

You do not have to approve of gay marriage, gay sex or gay anything: you are only required not to go about killing people for being or acting gay. Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is, for the religion of peace.

As to the Obama regime, they give reason to believe that Trump was right when he said Obama was more  angry at him for drawing attention to Obama’s failure to use the words Islamic terrorism than he was with Omar Mateen for killing fifty-odd people.

But the real horror is the Obama regime’s  belief that, like Oceania in 1984, the historical record can be successfully changed. That anyone could have entertained that discussion inside the White House for ten seconds shows how far gone they are. It took me a second or so to realize quite how outrageous that kind of thinking is: that they could do this a get away with it.

what if Mateen had been a Nazi?

The discourse on the Islamic gay terrorist in the Orlando night club is proving to be the usual Rorschach test of political beliefs: gun control, Islam, immigration, homophobia.

To those obsessed with the absence of American gun control, I have a few simple questions:

What if a man claiming to be a follower of Adolf Hitler had done the same thing, in the name of cleansing the species of decadence?

Would anyone give a damn whether he had used an AR-15 rather than a Kalashnikov? Would the issue be considered the lack of suitable gun control?

No, obviously. Gun control speaks to means but not the motivation. No amount of European gun control prevented the massacre and attacks in Paris.

And if he had turned out to be a self-conflicted gay Nazi, would it make a difference to anyone’s estimate of the man and the crime?

It would elicit the same response:  deviant or minority sexuality in both Islamic and National Socialist ideologies is so savagely repressed by one’s society and one’s culture, that the incompatibility between self and ideology causes explosions of rage.

I have been appalled and amazed, even at my advanced stage of cynicism, by the extent to which the discourse is shifted by liberals to things about which nothing can really be done, such as gun control in the US, to things about which everything can be done: changing our views on the real nature of Islam.

More and more I understand what Churchill went through in the 1930s, as he railed against the Nazi menace. People in the ruling class did not want to know about Hitler. They blamed the barking dog for provoking the behaviour of the wolf pack, which was hunting the sheep in the meadow.

Certain menaces are so existential, and challenge so many assumptions of the comfortable liberal world view, that it is easier to talk about gun control than Muslim control.

Islam is not a religion; it is a totalitarian social ideology.