Auto Added by WPeMatico

“Radical Islam”, a shift in opinion?

Two things of note happened today in relation to the narrative regarding the Orlando shooting.

Today Hillary Clinton used the term  “radical Islamism”, which is a departure from her earlier statements. That is most likely indicative of focus groups and overnight polling results. This is a candidate who doesn’t do anything without polls. Recall that her husband relied on polls to select vacation spots.

Second, during times like this people rally around the president thus boosting his approval rating. But as we know, Obama is a divisive figure as WaPo noted in the article “The new norm: When tragedy hits, Americans stand divided”. The latest daily approval numbers by Rasmussen reflect this and indicate that his reluctance not to blame radical Islam did not go over well. In fact his approval rating declined.

Obama Approval Index History

Date Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Total Approve Total Disapprove
13-Jun-16 -10 28% 38% 49% 50%
10-Jun-16 -7 29% 36% 49% 49%

Random thoughts on Orlando nightclub shooting

– You won’t see the word “Islam” in the boilerplate speech by Obama but you will see the phrases that the gay nightclub “is more than a nightclub. It is a place of solidarity and empowerment” and that “This massacre is … a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon

– Obama’s view is in line with terrorist’s father, who said that the attack “has nothing to do with religion.” WaPo notes the following:

The father of Omar Mateen, identified by police as the man behind the carnage at an Orlando nightclub early Sunday morning, is an Afghan man who holds strong political views, including support for the Afghan Taliban. In a video he posted on Saturday, he appears to be portraying himself as the president of Afghanistan.

– Maaten was a registered Democrat, pledged allegiance to ISIS and “He was quite religious”.

– According to the liberals gun control is “real story” as Yahoo notes in the headline “Bernie Sanders Just Nailed the Real Culprit Behind the Mass Shooting in Orlando”. Do Bataclan concert hall and Charlie Hedbo office shooting in a country with strict gun control laws mean anything? How about the San Bernardino shooting in California, a state with much stricter gun control laws? Mateen was a security guard at a juvenile facility and thus had passed all the required background checks to be able to carry firearms. This attack also highlights the argument made by gun control proponents, who state that if you carry a gun to defend yourself then it can be taken from you and used on you. There were more than 320 people in that nightclub against the sole gunman and nobody was able to take either of the two guns away from him.

– This attack can also be chalked up as another intelligence failure. We are always told how NSA surveillance is necessary to ward off impending attacks. Boston bombers were on the FBI radar, as was Mateen.

The senior law enforcement source reports that Mateen became a person of interest in 2013 and again in 2014. The Federal Bureau of Investigation at one point opened an investigation into Mateen but subsequently closed the case when it produced nothing that appeared to warrant further investigation.

“He’s a known quantity,” the source said. “He’s been on the radar before.”

– A helpful tip on reading the CBC website, aka recognizing news that doesn’t fit the narrative. One doesn’t even have to read the article to ascertain that. Just note if the report, like the one about this shooting, has the comments disabled. Non-white, check, registered Democrat, check, Muslim, check. Narrative fault!


Islam at work for Trump

The apostasy of our intellectuals and politicians will shortly be on display. The recent massacre of over 50 people in an Orlando gay bar by a Muslim, born in America, and incidentally a registered Democrat, will bring forth the usual nonsense that Islam is the religion of peace.

Yes, for those who have already submitted, Islam promises the peace that passes all understanding. Brain death awaits them, or has already reduced them to mechanistic obedience to the mind killer which is Islam.

As a friend remarked:

Well I guess that puts the Trump presidency into concrete. Done deal.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has written several books on here experience growing up as a Somali woman Muslim. She is waging the fight to get western liberals to understand that what we see in the papers is not an aberration, it is Islam itself. I take this extract from her latest, called Heretic.

After describing how her half sister lectured her for hours and sought to involve the extended family in having Ayaan sent away for having questioned the need for prayer five times a day, Hirsi Ali writes:

This illustrates how the practice of commanding right and forbidding wrong functions in Islamic society. Debate and doubt are intolerable,deserving of censure, with the questioner reduced to silence even ins command me to do right and to forbid me to do – or even think – wrong.

This is only part of the larger truth about Islam. It is almost always the immediate family that starts the persecution of freethinkers, of those who would ask questions or propose something new.Commanding right and forbidding wrong begins at home.From there it moves out into the community at large.Totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century had to work quite hard to persuade family members  to denounce one another to the authorities . The power of the Muslim system is that the authorities do not need to be involved. Social control begins at home.

The constant personal and intellectual unease that many of the Muslim students at my Harvard seminar felt with any discussion of the political organization of the Islamic world is directly connected to this over arching concept  of commanding right and forbidding wrong.

-at page 154

OmarMateen2-640x480“No one could have predicted this,” Islamic Society of Central Florida official says:

On the contrary, murders by Muslims of others whom they believe to committing wrong are enjoined, ordained, and commanded by the Prophet.

Islam depicted

This was a briefing given in the Czech parliament by a lawyer called Klara Samkova. When you read it, you will become increasingly impressed that this speech was given at all, and on top of it given as a factual briefing in a national parliament. Think of this as you read. Those places with a closer memory of Stalin and Communism know better than we do in what totalitarian ideology consists. Lifted straight from the Czech physicist Lubos Motl’s always interesting blog, The Reference Frame.

[emphases added by Dalwhinnie]

Dear guests, [May 18th, 2016]

Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to give a speech. Today’s conference is supposed to help to answer the question whether we should be afraid of Islam. My answer to the question is straightforward: we should definitely not be afraid of Islam. We should deal with it in the same way in which the European civilization has dealt with all totalitarian and inhuman regimes which it had to face during more than 2,000 years of its history. In particular, we should fight with Islam, beat it, and prevent its proliferation once and for all, just like in the case of previous monstrous ideologies, declare the very existence of Islam as a criminal act that contradicts the human naturalness, freedom, and especially the human dignity.

Because that’s exactly what Islam is, namely a system contradicting the human naturalness, freedom, and dignity.

It’s the same as Nazism, fascism, and communism used to be. It has these characteristics despite its hiding behind the mask of a religion. In reality, it is primarily a criminal (both in the sense of committing a crime and controlled by criminals) ideology and an unreformable system of governance.

Islam is hiding behind the mask of religion for two reasons. One of them are the historical circumstances surrounding the birth of Islam when only a religion was an allowed form of an ideological presentation. Even in ancient Greece it was forbidden to build philosophical constructs that were independent of the state religion, a fact that Socrates could tell us a lot about. It was even less possible to create a paradigm composed of irreligious ideas in the seventh century AD, on the very boundary of the civilized world of that time.

The second reason why Islam likes to hide behind the religious mask is its permanent, deliberate, and purposeful abuse of the Euro-American legal system and values that the civilizations built upon the Judeo-Christian foundations have converged to. There’s nothing better or more efficient than to abuse the value system of one’s enemy, especially when I don’t share that system. And that’s exactly how Islam behaves. It wants to be protected according to our tradition which it exploits in this way, while it is not willing to behave reciprocally. It relies on our traditions, it claims that the traditions are important, while behind the scenes, it is laughing at us and our system of values.

Let us first see why it’s totally adequate to place Islam on par with the totalitarian regimes. Even though it calls itself a religion, it is primarily a totalitarian system of governance in which God only plays a substitutive role because the main content of Islam is nothing else than the arrangement of the state matters. As opposed to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Shintoism, the heart of Islam is the law, namely the Islamic Sharia law. The law is an intrinsic and inseparable part of the Islamic ideology. It constitutes the core of the content of Islam while the rules claimed to be religious or ethical are just secondary and marginal components of the ideology. From the viewpoint of Islam, the concept of religion as a private, intimate matter of an individual is absolutely unacceptable. However, that’s exactly the principle on which today’s Christianity and the civilizations derived from it rely. It’s the private relationship of an individual towards God which is more or less mediated by one of the churches. Even those members of our civilization realm who consider themselves atheists, i.e. those who claim not to believe in God, automatically extract their attitudes to life from the Christian traditions while these traditions take the form of either folklore or cultural automatisms which makes them share the generally accepted spirit of Europe and both Americas. Again, it’s necessary to remind ourselves that this view is not only unacceptable for Islam but it is also denounced and explicitly named as a crime. Islam rejects the individual conception of faith in God and in a totalitarian way, it forbids all doubts about itself. If someone thinks that we don’t have the right to judge what is totalitarianism and hegemony and that we don’t have the right to classify Islam in this way, let me say that in a country that has had foreign rulers for 300 years and spent 48 years out of just recent 78 years in totalitarian regimes, our feelers have been trained for pattern recognition rather well and made us capable of recognizing totalitarianism immediately. We have both the right and the ability to identify it and judge it.

Islam doesn’t share the Enlightenment’s idea of the social progress associated with the future. According to Islam, the good times have already taken place – in the era of Prophet Mohammed. The best things that could have been done have already been done, the best thing that could have been written has already been written, namely the Quran. In its essence, Islam is a religion based on the book of Ecclesiastes which said a whole millennium before Prophet Mohammed:

What do people gain from all their labors at which they toil under the sun? Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.

Judaism, Christianity, and the civilization that arose from them have surpassed this unjustifiable skepticism, this contempt of people for themselves. At the same moment, Islam remained a stillborn infant of gnosis, deformed into a monstrously mutated desire to blend with the Universe again, into a retarded obsessively psychopathic paranoiac vision about the exceptional nature of one’s own path towards the reunification of the essence of one’s devotee with God. This faulty conception also gives rise to the idea penetrating all of Islam about the identification of matter with evil and the contempt for our civilization which is considered materialistic, and therefore intrinsically evil and clashing with God. It’s a genuine tragedy of the Muslims themselves that they have eternally closed their journey to God by pursuing this dead end.

Depression, perishing, the absence of faith in the human and his irreplaceable value, skepticism towards the dignity of every human being regardless of his characteristics such as religion, social status, sex, and nationality, that’s what characterizes Islam. Islam has rejected philosophy as we know it, as a possibility of a critical and rational view into the nature of reality. This attitude is also preventing Muslims from thinking about the questions on human freedom, dignity, the role of a person and the state, and – paradoxically – also the questions about God which became, within the Euro-American civilization context, an inherent component of the schemes of thought pursued by top scientists – astrophysicists, mathematicians, biologists, who are touching the very foundations of the Universe and therefore the essence of God by their research. However, Muslims are forever forbidden to gain any direct contact with God which they lost at the moment of Prophet Mohammed’s death. How immensely desperate their life must be when it’s essentially just the waiting for death.

Thanks to this total spacetime paralysis of Islam, the nations suffering from the Muslim ideology are the most devastated ones. Exactly these nations are belittled by the pitiful quasi-religious conditions and their potential which was given to them as to all human beings can’t be turned into accomplishments although they consciously or subconsciously long for them. Just like the Russians were the most miserable victims of communism because the total communism was born in Russia, just like the first victims of the German Nazism were Germans, the people most devastated by Islam are the Arabs and other nations forced to live under the hegemony of Islam. I use this venue to express my deepest compassion with these peoples and especially with the Muslim women who suffer more than others.

For Muslims, the road to doom is the only one because they are denied even the essence of the human naturalness, namely evolution. Islam doesn’t respect development, progress, and humanity. In its despair, it is attempting to take the rest of the mankind with it because from the Islamic viewpoint, the rest of the world is futile, useless, and unclean.

Islam and its Sharia law is incompatible with the principles of the European law, especially with the rights enumerated in the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (and Freedoms). How is it possible that our law experts don’t see this conflict? How is possible that they remain silent? How is it possible that they approve all requests of the Muslims who refer to Article 9 of the aforementioned Convention which guarantees the freedom of thinking, conscience, and religious faith? And how is it possible that the Muslims in our world are demanding to be protected according to this legal document while our legal system doesn’t seem to provide the same protection to the opinions, ideas, and religious faiths that disagree with Islam? Are our lawyers only capable of counting up to fourteen when the Article 14 of the Convention says the usage of the rights and freedoms described by the Convention must be guaranteed without discrimination based on any criteria? Let me assure everyone that we can count at least to seventeen because Article 17 of the Charter says:

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

This article was introduced to the Convention by Winston Churchill personally who did it for a special reason, namely as a protection against the totalitarian regimes. He was obviously thinking of the relevant ones of that time, the communist regimes. I have Islam in mind which is equally totalitarian and threatening as the regimes that Winston Churchill was fighting against and which he defeated. The protection by Article 17 correctly applies against any ideology and the fact that the European countries constrained by the Convention decided not to enforce the article so far doesn’t mean that they don’t have the will to do so. These countries are just too kind and benevolent, too aware of the price they have paid while learning about the highest value of the humanity, and too patient. The assumption of the Muslim countries and leaders who have decided to terrorize Europeans by their understanding of the world that the cause of Europe’s inactivity is its weakness, is entirely flawed. Europe has been converging to its opinion and to its world view for the price of tens of millions of human casualties, it has paid by suffering that no Muslim can even imagine.

Nowadays, Europe keeps on asking the Muslims: “Do you want to live with us?” Because not our fear of Islam but this is the paramount, crucial question that should be answered and only the Muslim nations may give the answer.

So far it seems that the Muslims don’t want to peacefully share the planet with the (non-Muslim) rest of the world. Their terrorist acts, loudly declared and committed in the name of Islam, are suggesting that they aren’t interested in the brotherhood between the nations and the people. They’re shouting words about the superiority of Islam and their legal system and they assert that we have the duty to subordinate ourselves to them. We aren’t finding any evidence that the Muslims don’t feel to be superior relatively to us – non-Muslims or women or gays or anyone else who doesn’t strictly adhere to the Quran.

For some time, Europe will keep on asking this question about the peaceful co-existence. At some moment, the question will undergo a metamorphosis and it will sound very differently. It will no longer be DO YOU WANT TO LIVE WITH US but DO YOU WANT TO LIVE? Do you, the Muslims, want to survive? Because if the devotees of Islam won’t want to live in peace, Europe and America will do what it has done twice when they were threatened by ideologies attacking the essence of the humanity: it will wage a war and crush the enemy. Just like in the wars of the past, this conflict will incorporate some grandiose scientific, technical, or technological progress, this time undoubtedly associated with obtaining the total energy independence. I don’t have an idea in what way this will take place: maybe the tokamak (nuclear fusion generator) will be completed. Maybe we will extract energy from the zero-point quantum fluctuations, maybe we will bring a chunk of dark matter here to serve us [LOL]. At any rate, the main consequence of the violent acts committed by the Muslims and the war that will materialize because of them will be a complete doom for the Islamic ideology. The Islam will be believed by several degenerated individuals crawling in the desert from which unnecessary and unwanted oil will uselessly flow to neverending swamps, a group of individuals who will remember, using their squawking voices, the ancient lights in the streets of Damascus and the beauties of Mecca which will have been turned into nothing more than a hole to hell. This group of nameless individuals will be reclassified as junk by the rest of the humankind, junk that has deviated from the journey towards God and that can never find it again because they have been conquered by disdain for the entity that God found so lovable, namely the humans. To be sure: all humans and the whole planet.

These days, we are artificially fed with ideas that it might be Europe that should be scared and afraid of its future, culture, philosophy, and world view. No, it is exactly the other way around. By their malevolent acts, the Muslims made the first steps towards their own absolute doom.

I am using this gathering and call on all Muslims and all countries that claim that Islam is their religion: Stop it. You are on a wrong track. You are on a track that leads away from God. You are on the road of the murderers. Your death won’t get you to Barbelo, to the land of the non-creator God, but to the land of nothingness and nameless uselessness. Nothing will be left out of you and the name of your alleged religion will only be pronounced when people spit out saliva that was mixed with the dust from the road of the successful, happy, and beloved by God people.

Because this is what is written in The Apocalypse of John, Chapter 12, named “The Conquered Enemy”:

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the

sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.

The blue coat of the woman waves in every flag of the European Union. The crown from twelve stars is found on every European Union flag, too.

Muslims, ask the question who is the serpent or the dragon who will be trampled down and defeated by the woman. And most importantly, don’t forget to give the right answer to the aforementioned question: Do you want to live? The right answer is – In that case, you will have to learn how to live with us and (in our countries) according to us.

Abu Sayyaf and the “experts”: crime not jihad

Mark SInger

Mark Singer from his Linked In page

Mark Singer, director of business intelligence for the Manila office of Pacific Strategies and Assessments Inc., which closely tracks Abu Sayyaf, thinks that jihad has nothing to do with their kidnappings, extortions and beheadings. I wonder why.

This is the narrative we are all supposed to accept:

“It is a manifestation of their willingness to do this (kidnap, threaten and behead prisoners)  to leverage their criminal activities. They are first and foremost a kidnap group,” the security and risk analyst said

“The black flags and the rhetoric reinforce their claims, but they are not ideologically driven. They are driven totally by criminal intent and kidnap for ransom.”


“Driven totally by criminal intent and kidnap for ransom”.  Rubbish. Bandits with religious or ideological justification are different from mere bandits. What makes Muslim terrorism different from mere banditry is that Islam authorizes by them religion to smite the infidel, to waylay them, to behead them. These are not bandits who rob banks “because that’s where the money is.”

Yes, they are criminals. But the particular form of criminality is a cultural expression of Islam. Where there are Muslims, so there will be jihad. This is a statistical correlation, not a one for one correspondence. I would go further and assert that it is an ineluctable consequence of being inspired by the prophet Mohammed to do as he commanded his disciples to do.

The contact webpage of Mark Singer’s employers is You can use that contact point to communicate with Pacific Strategies and Assesments, who, judged by their backgrounds,look like serious and responsible people.

Mr. Singer is entitled to his opinions but you may wish to express your concerns, as politely as possible, that the quality of their advice is measured by the quality of their spokesmen.

Indomitable: Cherokee Guns

Admiral Yamamoto, he who designed the Pearl harbor attack, had been a Japanese naval attaché in Washington before World War 2. He travelled extensively in the United States and learned English. He warned his army colleagues that America was unconquerable. He said that, from coast to coast every American home was filled with weapons and that  the people were adept at using them. The Japanese Army paid him no attention. See where it got them. See below.


cherokee guns

All Trump, all the time,,,Part 10

From time to time something so apt comes along the only correct response is to block and copy and bow deeply in the direction of its author, in this case, Rebecca Bynum, who writes for and edits New English Review.


Insurrection in the G.O.P., Or, The Wisdom of the Trump Voter

by Rebecca Bynum (April 2016)

“The Republican electorate is not a bunch of completely ignorant fools. We know who Donald Trump is and we’re going to use Donald Trump to either take over the G.O.P. or blow it up.”
— Steve from Temecula, Calif.

“You’re gonna change or I’m a gonna leave.”
— Hank Williams

Many conservative pundits have weighed in on Donald Trump’s candidacy for President. National Review hates him and his supporters with the white hot heat of a thousand supernovas and vow to fight him to the bitter end. Pat Buchanan is more reflective and, having more experience in the political world, more sanguine at the prospect of a President Trump, as is Newt Gingrich.

Meanwhile, voters are anxiously exhorted by G.O.P. stalwarts to “stand for conservative principles,” and to reject Mr. Trump. But the fact is, those “conservative principles” have covered a multitude of sins and the voters know it. For the G.O.P., the term seems to mean “never having to say you’re sorry.” True, the Bush 43 Presidency was a disaster, especially the second term, including the Light-Unto-the-Muslim Nations democracy project in Iraq and Afghanistan costing trillions of dollars we could ill-afford and thousands of young lives with tens of thousands maimed, coupled with exploding government bureaucracies, the hollowing out of our industrial base, millions of refugees and illegal immigrants straining local governments to the breaking point – and never mind that what Bush ran on and what voters voted for was exactly the opposite – smaller government, rule of law on immigration, no nation building, etc., etc. Now, the Republican Party expects us to forget all that and place the same people who got us into this mess back into power. Really? They’ve been rolling out the same platform since Reagan. The world has moved on.

One of the most interesting aspects of the current election is the fact that the main stream media no longer controls what news we see and hear, so they’ve found themselves in the unenviable position of playing catch-up to try to understand the issues motivating Trump voters, especially after having glossed over the immigration crisis for the last 30 years. And they still seem to think that by disallowing the long-overdue national conversation on Islam, the country can continue importing over 200,000 Muslims a year from every third world country on earth and nothing will happen (except perhaps the occasional terror attack, the prospect of which the public takes much more seriously than the press seems to believe is warranted). Don’t you know you have a better chance of being struck by lightning? And besides, Muslims are part of the American fabric. They’re in our military and police forces. In other words, there is nothing we can do about the ever growing number of Muslims in our country. The US must become just like Europe or risk being seen as impolite and be excluded from all the best international meetings.

Then along came Donald Trump. He kicked open the door of political correctness on several fronts and the country is already breathing a collective sigh of relief. This naturally alarms the media, the Democrats and the Republican establishment, causing them all to attack Trump mercilessly day in and day out for being crude. However, even with violent protesters attempting to stop this candidate from speaking (possibly instigated by the Clinton campaign), a door has been opened that no Republican establishment man can shut. This election is not the end of it.

After the Brussels attacks, Ted Cruz desperately tried to find a stronger policy position on domestic Muslim terror (increased policing of Muslim neighborhoods), but he does not get to the heart of the problem. Just how much policing, surveillance and ever multiplying security measures should be implemented so as to be assured of the great privilege of hosting ever larger and more aggressive Muslim populations? Apparently the sky is the limit, no matter what the cost – both for Republicans and Democrats.

Trump is the only candidate proposing the one obvious solution – limit Muslim immigration. Naturally, he was immediately savaged by, the media, the Democrats, the other Republican presidential candidates and G.O.P. leaders who continue to piously inform us that “we believe in freedom of religion” apparently no matter what that “religion” actually is. Nothing can be done except to turn our nation into an ever more oppressive surveillance state. Don’t bother pointing out that the reason why we still have no strategy to deal with 1) Islamic terrorism, 2) the crisis in the Middle East, 3)the immigration crisis in Europe and 4) growing Islamization in many pockets around the country where Muslims are doing what they always do – impose their norms and requirements on the host population rather than assimilating, our political leaders still refuse to deal with subject of Islam. We’re supposed to believe that regardless of what has happened for over a thousand years wherever large numbers of Muslims migrate, that somehow, America will be exempt from the inevitable chaos to follow.

It has been especially embarrassing to watch American journalists lecturing the Belgians following the recent attack there, implying that the blame should be placed on the native people for the crime of having poor integration policies. Rather, we must understand those Muslim immigrants are simply engaging in that most Islamic of all activities, jihad. Where there are Muslims, there will be jihad, which should be defined as the struggle to advance the cause of Islam, by both violent and non-violent means, until Islam dominates. According to recent polls, 69% of Republicans, 55% of Independents and 39% of Democrats back Trump’s common sense proposal to halt Muslim immigration, at least temporarily. The media simply cannot comprehend this. What Clinton and Sanders call bigotry and hate, the American people view as basic common sense because common sense it is.

The fact is, we are enmeshed in a war waged by civilians upon civilians and potential terrorists are streaming in unimpeded through our southern border in addition to being brought in legally through our refugee and visa programs. Even with a perfect screening process, we can never be guaranteed the children of these immigrants and refugees will not turn to jihad in the future.

If George W. Bush had had the intelligence to understand his first and most basic responsibility to the American people, he would have begun restricting Muslim immigration immediately after 9/11, secured the southern border and stepped up FBI surveillance of mosques (far fewer then than now). We couldn’t afford and did not need another bloated and redundant bureaucracy such as the Department of Homeland Security. Bush could have simply expanded the FBI and increased communication between it and the CIA. Period.

Donald Trump also sees civilizational jihad as a huge part of the problem and he is the only candidate to do so. I also believe he would understand the wisdom of allowing the sectarian and ethnic divisions in Muslim lands to fight it out on their own terms. There are some things we did not cause and cannot control, but if we must go in, we must get out quickly. Those of us who supported the Afghanistan and Iraq wars certainly beleived there would be a quick withdrawal. No one signed up for 15 years of nation building – no one. Yet the G.O.P. doesn’t want to allow dissent on this most crucial issue. Lindsay Graham and John McCain would have involved us in endless conflict in the Middle East if they had the power to do so. Hillary Clinton is not far behind in her enthusiasm for “regime change” overseas (including replacing Mubarak with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), heedless of the chaos to follow as Muslim nations inevitably devolve into their constituent tribes along sectarian lines – see Libya, Yemen and Syria.

After spending trillions of dollars on two fruitless conflicts, Trump proposes going in only when necessary, bombing our enemies, smashing their infrastructure, killing their fighters, but then leaving them to their own devises and equally important, not arming them to the hilt on the way out. General Powell’s Pottery Barn metaphor (if you break it, you buy it), requiring us to stay and rebuild these countries’ infrastructure (even using the military to pick up their trash), just doesn’t wash with the American public. Muslim societies don’t belong to us and we don’t owe them a thing. The Bush Administration, that is, the establishment G.O.P. who want their old jobs back, never understood this, but the voters and Donald Trump understand this just fine. Take the oil? Hell yes! This is war!

Trump also understands immigration is a jobs issue – especially for African Americans. Trump has proposed a pause on legal immigration and a complete end to illegal immigration. His supporters believe he will keep his word and “build that wall” along our southern border. In this, voters see the G.O.P. and their ill-fated plan to court Hispanic voters (with Marco Rubio as the future of the party) as completely out of touch with reality.

In addition, as Trump correctly points out, the Clinton-Bush-Obama era trade deals have decimated the industrial heart of the country. Yet, apparently G.O.P. voters are supposed to smile and cheerfully support “free trade” knowing their candidates are in the pocket of a group of big donors who always get what they want and what they want is cheap labor whatever the costs to the country. The fact that Americans now have plentiful cheap electronics, doesn’t actually make up for the fact that we have no jobs left to pay for them. Donald Trump understands this. He knows the value of good paying jobs for the stability of families and the self-respect and confidence of the entire nation, but until his campaign began, this vital subject has been off the table for Republicans.

In this, the businessman from Queens understands the American working people better than Harvard man from Texas or the mailman’s son from Ohio. He speaks in plain English to describe the incompetence, and yes, the stupidity of those currently in power, who could not have harmed our country any more if they had had outright malicious intent. Voters know that if things don’t change soon, we may not have much of a country left to bequeath to our children.

It’s not just trade deals which require re-negotiation, but defense agreements also. What we have today are mainly the extensions of agreements reached after WWII, made when we were at the very height of our power and stature as a nation. Unfortunately, we are not that country anymore. Contrary to the assertions of Mrs. Clinton, NATO is not a sacred cow. The Cold War is over and we need new alliances to deal with the current threat – we cannot do it alone. Clinton wants us to feel comfortable in the same old ruts, but renegotiation of these agreements as Trump has proposed would free up resources and place us in a better position to defend America from the threats we face today.

Mr. Trump has operated on the highest levels in business and society for many years. Those who know him personally assure us of his level-headed, charming manner in that setting. So who do Americans want to enter these critical negotiations on their behalf – the inflexible, moralizing schoolmaster (Cruz), Mr. Rogers (Kasich), or master negotiator, Donald J. Trump? Gee that’s easy.

The American people are astounded by the sheepish behavior of the Europeans in response to the threat of terror. Those candlelight vigils look more like funerals for their nations, as if they realize they are already beaten. The Muslim threat has grown and grown in the heart of their ancient capitals due to the abject failure of their clueless political leaders. Few rise up to demand the radical change necessary; rather, hobbled by political correctness, the majority seems to limp toward doom. By backing Donald Trump, Americans are demonstrating to the world we are not defeated and that Europe can do the same – throw the bums out!

One of the latest G.O.P. tactics to defeat Trump comes in the form of criticism of his rhetoric, as if American women were all Miss Pittypat reaching for the smelling salts whenever a slightly off-color remark leaves his lips. On the contrary, American women voters choose Trump because they want someone who will protect their children by whatever means necessary. And the populace applauds him for sticking by his campaign manager after he was charged with battery (battery!) for pulling a female reporter away from the candidate. The right to abortion is settled law and a actually more or less a non-issue.

Donald Trump may not be perfect, but at least he will clean house and a Trump administration won’t be a repeat of the feckless Bush 43. The country need fresh, realistic thinking and that is what Donald Trump promises.


Rebecca Bynum’s latest book is The Real Nature of Religion, published by New English Review Press.



In the Shadow of the Sword: the Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire, by Tom Holland. In elegant prose, Holland takes rather a long time to convey two hugely important facts. First, that the Eastern Roman Empire was exhausted and devastated by plague, and that the Persian and Roman (Byzantine)  Empires had by 650 AD fought each other to exhaustion. Second, the eastern Roman Empire fell to the new Arab armies for much the same reasons that the Western Roman Empire had fallen to Germans: the barbarians the Romans had hired to protect the frontiers were tired of not being paid in the aftermath of great financial crises. In the case of the Arabs, they were already in Syria when they revolted against Rome. Abd-el Malik, the third caliph, retroactively made Mecca, of little importance to the original scheme of Mohammed, the capital of Islam.

This is a fascinating account of the end of the ancient world. I do not do it justice in this brief review; the author’s style is somewhat too elliptical for my straightforward tastes. Nevertheless Tom Holland’s book earns a strong though qualified recommendation.


About Time: Cosmology and Culture at the twilight of the Big Bang, by Adam Frank. Frank is a professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester in New York. The book may be praised with faint damns as a competent review of how man’s conception of time has been socially constructed out of different forms of engagement with material reality over time. It fails absolutely to persuade me that string theory or multiverses are anything but attempts to get around the supreme issue, which is: why is this universe so ideally and so strangely suited to the emergence of conscious life? As to this larger question, Frank ducks it and Paul Davies confronts it squarely in The Goldilocks Enigma, which is by far to be recommended for intellectual depth and boldness.

The physics community has been evading the issue for some time. The vastly improbable sets of physical constants that allow atoms to bind, for heavier elements to form, for the four fundamental forces (electro-magnetic, gravity, strong force and weak force) to act to produce us, is the huge embarrassing question. Because we do live in a Goldilocks universe, and because the evidence is that, if there is only one universe, it is exquisitely attuned to produce human life and mind, it points to a Creator. The prospect of this is too much for materialists to bear, and so you get books like Adam Frank’s that hover around the question but never really come out and say why the multiplication of universes is called for by materialist interpretations of existence.

Roger Scruton is a British conservative and philosopher. His Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left is highly recommended if you wish to see through the feculent suppurations of new left thinking. Scruton explains why it is drivel, in patient exposition. It is as if someone has brought a giant vacuum to the culture’s intellectual septic tank. There’s old Roger, the township’s cleaner of shit tanks, doing his smelly but necessary job of keeping the place free from cholera, dysentery, and pollution.

Here is an example, writing of Sartre:

“Sartre’s anti-bourgeois rhetoric changed the language and the agenda of post war French philosophy, and fired the revolutionary ambitions of students who had come to paris from the former colonies. One of those students was later to return to his native Cambodia  and put into practice the “totalizing” doctrine that has as its targets the ‘seriality’ and ‘otherness’ of the bourgeois class. And in the purifying rage of Pol Pot it is not unreasonable to see the contempt and for the ordinary and the actual that is expressed in almost every line of Sartre’s demonic prose.”

We owe to Scruton an immense debt of gratitude for having patiently gone through the nihilistic nonsense of French academic marxizing to capture its essential nullity, vacuity, and gone over to Satan-ness. Someone has done the work, now I do not have to.

I give the highest recommendation to Stephen Rothman, philosopher and biologist, for his wonderful expositions of what is missing and wrong about modern scientific dogmas, especially as they pertain to biology. Nowhere is the prior and unscientific commitment to materialism so great as in biology, and though Rothman does not dispute it directly he is able to see the difference between an axiom (this is how we proceed) from a truth (a demonstrated and ineluctable conclusion). Rothman is, as far as I know, one of three people who seem to have read Darwin’s second great book, the Descent of Man, or Selection in Relation to Sex, published 13 years after The Origin of Species, and realized that Darwin came up with two different ideas as to how evolution worked. The other two are Geoffrey Miller and me.

Rothman’s The Paradox of Evolution: The strange Relationship between Natural Selection and Reproduction (2015) is a good place to start. He explains, in strictly Darwinian terms, why natural and sexual selection are not the same thing, and are at variance with one another. That is fascinating enough. But he also goes further. He also confronts the notion that, as Karl Popper pointed out was necessary for a theory to be truly scientific, that if natural selection admits of so huge an exception as sexual selection, then natural selection is not a complete theory. And if not a complete theory, it is not scientific in the sense in which Popper used the term. Here is what I mean by complete. Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation do not admit of exceptions. They are universal. There is not an exception for these laws in any part of the universe.

Rothman is philosophically literate, which makes all the difference. So many biologists are simply cheerleaders for Darwin and for materialist doctrines. Rothman therefore entertains as he leads the reader through the difficulties which Darwin’s two theories of evolution pose for true believers. So impressed was I by The Paradox of Evolution that I bought a book of his written 15 years ago, “Lessons from the Living Cell: The Limits of Reductionism”.

I recommend both, if you are interested in what an accomplished thinker can bring to topics of which he is the master. I emphasize the word “thinker”. Rothman is clear, deep, and represents a refreshing change from the fanatic and narrow-minded materialism that dominates so much darwinian cheerleading that passes for thought in the biological sciences. Rothman remains a materialist, I think, but one in whose company one could profitably spend some time.

Sub-human rights trump women’s rights?

What is the world coming to when even the feminist agree with this sentiment?

racists4rapistsRote Antifa posted a picture of young feminist on Thursday, holding a sign that stated she preferred rapists from Syria and North Africa over nationalists in Germany who have demanded Chancellor Angela Merkel stop taking in more refugees.

The picture itself is photoshopped where the word “REFUGEES” has been replaced with “RAPISTS” but it is instructive that Rote Antifa, an anti-fascist  organisation, chose to post this on their website because they are in concordance with the message. When did we start subjugating women again and start giving a small minority of sub-humans a precedence in rights over half of the human population?

Now we also learn that the sexual attacks in European cities on New Year’s Eve weren’t news at all. Consider this.

Authorities in Sweden are investigating claims that police there covered up sexual assaults committed mostly by immigrant youths at a music festival in Stockholm — attacks apparently similar in style to those carried out on New Year’s Eve in the German city of Cologne.

Police documented 38 claims of sexual assault — including two alleged rapes — in connection with the “We Are Sthlm” festival in 2014 and 2015, according to Reuters. They believe the attacks were carried out by about 50 people, most of them young Afghans, Reuters reported, citing Dagens Nyheter, the Swedish paper that broke the news.

Leftist will resort to psychobabble when it comes to this, but in this case it is best to apply the Occam’s Razor and ask the following question about the Western Civilisation –  has there ever been a civiilsation with a wider disparity between intellectual accomplishments and common sense?

Immune deficiency disease

A friend sent me an article asking if Europe was bent on self-destruction, and as you may be sure, answered to the effect that it is. You do not have to look far to find it: decline of faith, decline of mission, Muslim invasion, hatred of Israel,covering up Islamic atrocities,  blaming white people for everything are among the symptoms. David Goldman, who blogs as Spengler, is a firm exponent that Germany in particular is spiritually sick and demographically ruined.

Since my time in college, back in the late sixties, an eruption of anti-intellectual, anti-white, anti-male and anti-Christian thought has marched through the learning institutions, such that kids graduating from school are firmly in the grip of Marxian opinions without the bother of actually knowing anything, as it seems. While the economic claptrap of Marx has been abandoned, the mindset inculcated in universities is largely hostile to those institutions, beliefs and  customs that make life as rich and free as it is in the West. Spineless self-hatred seems to be the order of the day.

This deduction could be the effect of reading too many conservative blogs, or it could be an actual phenomenon out there in the real world. The Islamic refugee invasion permitted by Chancellor Merkel testifies to the fact that what I am talking about is out there in the real world.

To cite Herbert Marcuse’s seminal article, Repressive Tolerance, from 1965:

   Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.

And so forth. The malign effects of the Frankfurt School seems to have gained an impressive victory over everything standing in its path. Its influence is the lasting inheritance of largely German, and almost exclusively Jewish, Marxists or Marxians. (Jürgen Habermas is an exception).

It is not unusual for there to exist powerful alternatives to the dominant ideology in a liberal society. What is unusual these days is that the dominant ideology seeks the destruction of the society that tolerates it in our universities and guardian institutions. Many tenured intellectuals seem to be generating the rot on which they feed, as termites take down the house in which they dwell.

Western self-hatred and self-disgust is not, I would argue, a natural phenomenon, or the waking up to the sins of the past,  but is the calculated result of the poison we have allowed to drip into our veins from the writings of Marxists and their successors. But why have we allowed it? And why has it been so successful?

The difference in post World War 2 western societies is that the cultural anti-bodies have been so weakened that we have no longer have sufficient defences against these poisons. In my view, however mistaken it may be, multiculturalism is not in substance tolerance – which is a worthy state of being in certain circumstances – but is used and promoted as an antidote to remedy the whiteness of our civilization, which is a defect that needs fixing. Anyone familiar with a truly multi-cultural society, such as Lebanon, India, or the Balkans, knows that truly different cultures are not a source of strength, but act as much as fissures for sectarian and cultural strife. Look at French and English Canada, Walloon and Flemish Belgium. These are mild compared to serious religious differences. When two cultures in the bosom of one state cannot agree that God is powerless to make 2+2=5, then the differences go to the root of one’s apprehension of reality.

And how did we arrive here?

I blame Adolf Hitler. His poisonous ideology of racial supremacy and his wars of annihilation had to be defeated and stopped, as they duly were. But the reaction against Hitlerism and its associated white supremacism has been endless. In every department of inquiry,  the inherent differences between and among people, sexes, races, nations and cultures have been ignored, and discussion of them made too expensive, too risky. Thus for instance, despite all the strong and unequivocal evidence for the predominant influence of genes on intelligence, such findings are systematically discounted. The mention of male-female differences  by a Harvard President cost him his job and the possibility of being US Federal Bank Chairman, yet, for example,  the most important woman mathematician ranks 140th in the list of the world’s most important mathematicians.

human accomplishment


As Charles Murray demonstrates in his Human Accomplishment, the overwhelming preponderance of important scientists, musicians, authors, and artists who have ever lived were white, and came from very specific regions of Europe, which have changed over time, from around Florence to the Low countries and England. Don’t believe me? Read the book. The detail, the maps, the facts will persuade you. As Murray observed, the entire scientific output of Islamic civilization is ranked less by scientific encyclopedias than that of Michael Faraday.

So why then, have our cultural anti-bodies become so weak? Every being in nature is constantly beset and invaded by germs, and would-be parasites. Likewise every society is constantly exposed to ideas hostile to its beliefs,customs, and institutions. What is decadent and abnormal is that we accept the views of ourselves promulgated by our enemies, internal and external. And of the two kinds, the internal are the more serious long term threat.

I know that my liberal friends may think this is nuts; they believe that we are strong because we are so open. I say we are open because we are strong, but that the source of our strength lies not merely in openness, but a belief that we are right. And that belief has been systematically sapped for generations by leftist spiritual termites.

Where is the can of Raid?