RUTHFULLY YOURS

The moment to be wariest of political enthusiasms is precisely when elite opinion is all lined up on one side. So it is with the weekend agreement out of Paris on climate policy, which President Obama declared with his familiar modesty “can be a turning point for the world” and is “the best chance we have to save the one planet that we’ve got.”

Forgive us for looking through the legacy smoke, but if climate change really does imperil the Earth, and we doubt it does, nothing coming out of a gaggle of governments and the United Nations will save it. What will help is human invention and the entrepreneurial spirit. To the extent the Paris accord increases political control over human and natural resources, it will make the world poorer and technological progress less likely.
***

The climate confab’s self-described political success is rooted in a conceit and a bribe. The conceit is that the terms of the agreement will have some tangible impact on global temperatures. The big breakthrough is supposed to be that for the first time developing and developed countries have committed to reducing carbon emissions. But the commitments by these nations are voluntary with no enforcement mechanism.

We are witness to the most successful propaganda campaign ever waged. Each barbarity inflicted in the name of Islam provokes the political leaders of those killed and maimed to proclaim Islam as the Religion of Peace
“Dear Marje, I have had a very bad experience. Please tell me how I can guard against being beguiled and let down by foreign moustachioed gentlemen. Yours sincerely, Neville”

Dear Neville, There are two rules you must follow. First rule: don’t be taken in by sweet talkers, foreign or not, moustachioed or not. They are sometimes ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing, if you will pardon me quoting scripture. Second rule: remember the first rule.” [Purportedly, this comes from the UK Daily Mirror files of Marjorie Proops, that doyen of agony aunt columnists]

Even Putin the Powerful recently called Islam “a great world religion.” Now, at the time, he was getting stuck into Erdogan for Islamizing Turkey and aiding terrorists so he isn’t totally off beam. Nonetheless, he is eligible to apply for honorary listing alongside most political leaders in the West who have said that Islam is both a great and a peaceful religion. With so much political clout vouchsafing its exalted status in the spiritual life of mankind, Islam must surely be the very model of a modern major theology. If not, then indeed extremely persuasive agitprop is at work in the theatre of politics and the media. And indeed it is.

Separating violent and peaceful Islam: Spengler
A diabolical logic prompted Donald Trump to propose a travel ban on Muslims: if the US government can’t distinguish between peaceful and violent Muslims, then shut the door to all of them. Trump’s instinct for politicals-as-reality-television buoyed his standing in Republican polls, as Americans put terrorism at the top of their concerns. According to Rasmussen, US voters support Trump’s idea by a 46-40% margin. Among Republicans, the margin is 66%-24%.

http://atimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/crow2.jpgAmericans by and large aren’t bigots, but the outbreak of Instant Jihad Syndrome last week convinced them that something was broken, and that the whole mechanism of Muslim immigration should be mothballed until the problem was fixed. They know perfectly well that some Muslims want to live in peace with non-Muslims and other Muslims want to burn down the world, but they don’t know how to tell the difference. As information about the couple’s longstanding terror connections trickles into the press, the public doesn’ t trust its guardians to tell the difference, either. That was the lesson they learned from the jihadi Bonnie and Clyde of San Bernardino.

This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Nonie Darwish Moment. An ex-Muslim who is the author of The Devil We Don’t Know, Nonie focuses on Hiding Tashfeen Malik’s Face, unveiling the sad reasons the photo of the San Bernardino female terrorist was held from the public for a few days.

Don’t miss it!

Demographic scaremongering has played a key role in the sustained campaign to infect Jews with faintheartedness and fatalism, dissuading Jews from settling the Land of Israel, and luring Israel to concede the historically and militarily critical high ground of Judea and Samaria. This campaign preceded Secretary John Kerry’s speech on December 5, 2015, when he stated: “How does Israel possibly maintain its character as a Jewish and democratic state when from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea there would not even be a Jewish majority?”

Historically, policy makers and public opinion molders have issued and employed (and sometime managed) official statistics, in order to advance their agenda, influence public opinion and intensify pressure on their rivals. They have relied on the tendency, by most people and by all governments, to accept official statistics as truism without proper examination.

In March 1898, Theodor Herzl, the founding father of modern political Zionism, was challenged by Simon Dubnow, the leading Jewish historian and demographer, who proposed the establishment of a cultural/social Jewish autonomy in Europe instead of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. Dubnow did not consider Jewish immigration (Aliyah) to the Land of Israel a viable proposition and issued demographic projections to support his stance ( Public Letters on Ancient and Modern Judaism, 1897-1907 ): “The reconstruction of the Jewish State in the Land of Israel – with a sizeable Jewish population – is impossible politically, socially and economically…. National Judaism should not be advanced by messianic means in Zion, but by a credible struggle for realistic Jewish interests in the Diaspora…. In one hundred years [1998], the total number of Jews in Palestine will be about 500,000, slightly higher than the population of Kiev…. Will that solve the problem of ten million Jews, who are scattered in the Diaspora?!…. Political Zionism is utopian….”

It is not common knowledge, but Ayn Rand, the novelist/philosopher, described the means and ends of Sharia law, doubtless before she had ever heard of it. She died in 1982, but in one key chapter of The Fountainhead, her archvillain, Ellsworth Toohey, newspaper columnist and power-lusting gadabout, describes to Peter Keating, his protégé in destruction, what he wants to see happen to Howard Roark.

Roark is the architect-hero of the novel. He is scheduled to be tried for blowing up a public housing project. Toohey confronts Keating to obtain a key incriminating piece of evidence that Roark designed the project, not Keating. Roark’s plans were altered by a team of second-handers, which included Keating. Roark subsequently dynamited the half-finished project. Toohey bares his soul to Keating for the first time. Keating is frightened, understanding only now the charming, flattering, but dark motive behind Toohey’s friendship with him.

Keating: “Why do you want to kill Howard?”

Toohey: “I don’t want to kill him. I want him in jail. You understand? In jail. In a cell. Behind bars. Locked, stopped, strapped – and alive. He’ll get up when they tell him to. He’ll eat what they give him. He’ll move when he’s told to move and stop when he’s told. He’ll walk to the jute mill, when he’s told, and he’ll work as he’s told. They’ll push him, if he doesn’t move fast enough, and they’ll slap his face when they feel like it, and they’ll beat him with a rubber hose if he doesn’t obey. And he’ll obey. He’ll take orders. He’ll take orders!”*