RUTHFULLY YOURS

There was a time, in the years immediately after 9/11, when I was reasonably (though not entirely) confident that we Americans would be too savvy to let ourselves be led down the primrose path of Islamization. I assumed that the alarming example of Europe – where the destructive nature of Islam’s impact was there for all to see – would be effective enough to persuade us to pull up the welcome mat and double-lock the door. What I didn’t count on was that so many of our politicians and media would do such a splendid job of covering up the facts about the European situation and whitewashing the Religion of Peace. Nor could I have imagined that the post-9/11 generation of Americans would grow up to be so thoroughly drenched in political correctness that many of them would, in fact, come to see Islam not as an violent existential threat but as the most vulnerable of victim groups.

Yes, Americans elected Trump. Red-state Americans, anyway. But coastal elites went ballistic over his executive order that sought to put a temporary halt to immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. Hollywood, the bubble-headed brain trust of blue-state America, set the tone of the backlash: Judd Apatow denounced Trump’s “ignorance and cruelty”; Patricia Arquette suggested returning the Statue of Liberty to France; John Leguizamo reminded his Twitter followers that “The pilgrims came here on the #mayflower as refugees!” Several celebrity tweets implied that Europeans would never support such a monstrous act. Yet a new poll tells otherwise. Most EU citizens, it shows, would be happy to see a total and permanent end to immigration from the Islamic world. To be specific: 71% of Poles, 65% of Austrians, 53% of Germans, 51% of Italians, 64% of Belgians, 58% of Greeks, 61% of Frenchmen, and 64% of Hungarians want Muslim immigration to stop. For good. Only in two of the ten European countries surveyed did a Muslim immigration ban not win the support of a clear majority, and even in those cases a plurality approved of a ban: in Britain, the numbers were 47% for, 23% against; in Spain, 41% to 32%.

Chatham House, the London-based think tank that conducted the survey, plainly found these results distasteful. Calling them “sobering” and attributing them (at least in part) to the influence of the so-called “radical right,” the pollsters sought to discount opposition to Muslim immigration by emphasizing that it was stronger among pensioners, the undereducated, rural types, and those “who are dissatisfied with their life” – in other words, not the right sort of people. Of course, what self-respecting think tank would be willing to admit that Europeans – having had enough of doling out welfare to immigrants who, in return, rape women and children, torment Jews and gays, commit violent crimes on an unprecedented scale, and express contempt for democracy and their infidel neighbors while tacitly supporting terrorism and sharia – are finally waking up?

How depressing that while more and more Europeans are snapping out of their self-delusions, all too many North Americans remain first-class dupes. According to the results of a Rasmussen poll that were released just the other day, 56% of Democrats actually believe that Muslims undergo serious persecution in the U.S, while only 46% think that Christians are persecuted in the Islamic world. What could be more delusional? Meanwhile, a CBS survey showed that only one in seven Democrats consider Islam to be more dangerous than any other religion and that nearly seven out of ten Democrats think Islam encourages violence to approximately the same extent as other faiths. Insane. Not to leave Canadians out, on February 16 the Parliament in Ottawa will actually consider a motion, known as M-103, that would criminalize Islamophobia. It’s a move that should elicit mass protests in the streets; but most Canadians appear to be far more worked up about Trump than about the prospect of their own government severely curtailing their free-speech rights.

Cognoscenti – is used by pretentious people, moi included, to describe those who are particularly well informed about a subject- usually in the arts- but also in sports, cuisine, wines etc.

The “know it alls” by contrast are a group of people who ostracize, libel, boycott, protest and demonstrate against all those who do not agree with the political left and every cult du jour such as global warming, reproductive rights (???) unlimited and unvetted immigration, Islamophobia, and now transgender phobia, and of course the Israeli “occupation. “They are unfettered by any knowledge of history. They know as little about the Korean War and its aftermath as they do about the Peloponnesian Wars. While their rhetoric is about their custodial rights to their “body” they know nothing about biology or anatomy. Their knowledge of the “Cold War” is equal to their knowledge of the Ice Age. And they bandy words like “fascist” and “dictator” without a clue about their definitions. Their ignorance would fill volumes and their human made hot air would really warm the planet.

They are the collective antithesis to the cognoscenti…. they are the” ignoranti “- a word I just coined to describe the smug and opinionated fools who preen and pose as “activists.”

I have to admit that the numbers….in the many hundreds of thousands of women’s protests throughout the nation are impressive but also depressive. Are so many women so shallow? They came, they howled, they carried signs and wore stupid “pussyhats” and they accomplished nothing, nada, zilch other than street theater.

I posted this in October 2012 Updated….and revised

Do women think that foreign policy, support for Israel, a looming debt crisis, a deficit, immigration policies that are out of control, crumbling infrastructure, energy independence, an economy choked with specious regulations, the threat of terrorism, and nukes in the hands of Islamic lunatics and a North Korean thug, are all men’s issues.”

“So…..just call me mister.”

I remember several years ago reading the words of the late and much missed Dr. Conor Cruise O’Brien. The good doctor was referring to the erroneous belief that there is such a thing as moderate Islam set against radical Islam.

This eminent statesman known as “the Cruiser” was one of the most remarkable scholars, historians, authors, intellectuals and politicians that modern Ireland ever produced.

O’Brien who was born in Dublin in 1917 and who died in 2008, declared that for the past two centuries Islam has been dominated by the “House of War” (dar al-Islam) which calls for unremitting warfare against all non-Muslims.

He pointed out that it is intolerable to Muslims that Islam is not ascendant enough and that the remedy is jihad, not the struggle for inner peace that Muslim apologists falsely claim, but rather the violent struggle against non-believers which is a religious obligation imposed by Mohammad upon all Muslims.
“Islam is an ideology wrapped in a religion”

O’Brien’s view publicized in Britain’s liberal newspaper, the Independent, some twenty one years ago was not well received then, just as liberals and the ossified but vicious Left today still refuse to accept its reality. His words would certainly be derided by the apologist for Islam in chief; the man who infested the Oval Office of the White House during his last eight baleful years.

Dr. O’Brien was adamant that it was dangerous to talk about radical Islam for it falsely implied that there is some other kind of Islam; one which is well disposed and tolerant to non-Muslims. He baldly stated that there is no other kind and that Islam is “universalist, triumphant and highly political.”

Winston Churchill himself much earlier had written that, “Islam is an ideology wrapped in a religion.”

Want more proof? This from the words of the increasingly Islamist and dictatorial leader of Turkey, Tayip Recip Erdogan? Here is what he said as far back as 2009 when interviewed on Kanal TV’s Arena program about suggesting that there is both radical and/or moderate Islam.

“˜These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Islam does not mean peace; it means submission – not to the will of the people as in a democracy – but to the will of Allah.

In his magnificent speech “I Have a Dream” delivered on August 28, 1963 Dr. King stated:

“But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.”

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ignited a movement in America that culminated in the landmark Civil Rights Act , that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Alas, he did not live to see its implementation and the effects of ameliorative policies. He was assassinated on April 4, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee by a racist criminal James Earl Ray.

Since his death, many hucksters have tarnished his legacy… among “preachers” such as Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, to name only a few, and among thugs such as the old and new Black Panthers and the current racists of the #Black Lives Matter movement.

Dr. King would be appalled that under the administration of America’s first Black president, race relations in America are worse and introspection on both sides has diminished and been replaced with hardened prejudice.

His words matter more than ever……rsk

Is it my imagination or are today’s college students establishing a kind of secular Sharia, sans a mystical deity, without possessing an inkling of knowledge of Islamic law?

This column can be deemed Trigger Warning-worthy because it t mocks trigger warning addicts and others dependent on post-adolescence pacifiers.

Short of declaring reality off-limits, the number of things being declared persona non grata by college students seems to be multiplying.

However, is it my imagination or are today’s college students establishing a kind of secular Sharia, sans a mystical deity, without possessing an inkling of knowledge of Islamic law? It could go under another name most college students would be horrified by but unable to refute: Fascism. Historically, Fascism as a collectivist movement, relied on physical force to propagate and impose its various statist agendas, from Hitler’s racist supremacism, to the Perons’ class warfare against the upper and middle classes.

Sharia is a code of Islamic “law” that defines acceptable behavior and “codifies” do’s and don’ts for the average, gullible, brain-stunted Muslim. By its nature, and because of its purpose, it is totalitarian; it prescribes and governs virtually every action, decision, and choice of an individual.

Like Nazi ideology (and it is no coincidence that Islam is compatible with Nazism [National Socialism], and vice versa), Islam erases the individual, requiring him to live, breathe, and eat for Allah in across-the-board submission. It even prescribes his bodily functions and behavior in the bathroom.

In the totalitarian regimes, as the Germans found out after only a few months of Hitler’s rule, every detail of life is prescribed, or proscribed. There is no longer any distinction between private matters and public matters. “There are to be no more private Germans,” said Friedrich Sieburg, a Nazi writer; “each is to attain significance only by his service to the state, and to find complete self-fulfillment in his service.” “The only person who is still a private individual in Germany,” boasted Robert Ley, a member of the Nazi hierarchy, after several years of Nazi rule, “is somebody who is asleep.”

Your life purpose and goal as a Muslim is to join the Ummah, or the whole collective of Islam, around the globe, and you can join it by advancing the spread of Islam. (I’ve always nicknamed it “The Borg.”)

The ultimate earner of a Trigger Warning is having to read a column that mocks trigger warning addicts and others dependent on post-adolescence pacifiers.
Doxing and dwelling on the progressive gangrene of Western society, the topic here is “trigger warnings.”

There have been so many reports lately of the implementation of “trigger warnings,” especially in universities, that one might well ask oneself: Why bother putting police scene-of-crime tape around a particular animus? Why not declare everything off limits, reality in fact. Everywhere a snowflake turns anymore he seems to encounter something troubling, unsafe, and perilous to his piece of mind – or did I mean “peace” of mind? No sooner is the issue raised, then some industrious guidance counselor or an academic can be heard hammering and sawing as he or she builds a “safe space” for the uninitiated college snowflake.

Cashing in on their prenatal Progressive upbringing, and on their potty-training, modern educators patronize and encourage the bewildering universe of the modern college student, who learn that nothing is real and that therefore reality is anything you want it to be and if you think it’s dangerous or offensive, you deserve a “safe place” from it, and more, that you should be warned of its proximity and that steps should be taken to expel it from reality.

But is there a “safe space” from reality, from facts? From “A is A”? but that statement is racist. “A” standing for a dead white male, Aristotle. Snowflakes must be protected from it.

No. You may as well try to find fresh air on Titan or Mars.

The cultural hypochondriacs have nowhere to hide, nowhere to cower and lick their wounds, hug their puppies, and open their Cry-on Crayons.

Don’t say trigger in front of snowflakes! Guns have triggers, and guns make them nervous, they make them feel unsafe! Trigger was also the name of Roy Rogers’s horse, and they’re against animal exploitation, too; it makes them feel queasy and nauseous!

Lyrica, Xeljanz, Latuda, Brilinta, Entyvio, Vedolizumab, Toujeo, Prevagen, Xarelto – these are but a sampling of the words I learned while watching television news between 6 and 7:30 a.m. Some, like Lyrica or Brilinta might be new baby names for girls; some might belong to bellicose monsters – Vedolizumab and Xarelto; others have a tentative connotation – prevagen. All carry warnings of severe side effects, some including possible death, for which final effect seems a more fitting adjective. I wondered who names these drugs and whether that is a discrete profession or the product of a staff party with too much alcohol. Are these names with their strange letter combinations the substitute for the unreadable handwriting all doctors previously used to exclude us from their special knowledge? In our digital-happy world where prescriptions must be wired instead of written by the doctor, we may soon no longer need the pharmacists who were trained to decipher those heiroglyphics. One can only wonder at how frequently the wrong medication was previously procured and whether or not that made any difference.

After all, medical protocol tends to reverse itself every decade or so. We now “know” that peanuts should be offered to babies as early in their infancy as six months. Of course you must be certain that your baby won’t go into anaphylactic shock by feeding them – I use that ungrammatical pronoun so as not to offend any infant who might have a gender preference different from their visible nether-parts – an egg and seeing what happens. Babies who die from eggs wil not do well with peanut butter either.

Back to the inscrutable and often unpronounceable names for drugs – my second theory is that their expense necessitates a name that is rare and exotic and never encountered before. None of has ever seen an actual entyvio so we can imagine that its obscurity implies difficulty to harvest or even create in a test tube, making its astronomical price tag more justified. If, for example, you have to send couriers to the steppes of Kalookistan on Mongolian horses to search for entyvio leaves, of course it will cost a lot more than a drug that has only five letters in its mediocre name – advil, for one. While it’s true that the lengthy phenobarbitol is still not overpriced, that illustrates the difference between polysyllabic words and completely unrecognizable ones. We can make out pheno, a common prefix, and there’s that friendly barbi at the end. Try parsing vedolizumab for anything familiar and you’ll get my point.

I am grateful that I don’t need to ask for any of these drugs out loud and in full disclosure, I have to add one more word that did appear in the morning time slot and was not related to big pharma – trivago. Though I would have guessed it was a misspelled acronymic cure for vertigo, it’s actually a website for checking comparative hotel prices. Well, at least you don’t need a prescription for it so it’s safe to just forget it until they come up with a more ingenious name that you might actually remember – like hotelprice.com.

Would you go to a doctor who prescribed leeches, told you that in all past medical trials the leeches produced no cure but also had severe side effects and on occasion death? Silly question? Well, among the properly outraged supporters of Israel are the boo-hoo crowd who are shocked, shocked that the infamous UN resolution will impede the two state dissolution…..A “remedy” that has produced more violent side effects and death. Here is a letter published in today’s Wall Street Journal by someone who really gets it:

The U.N. is telling Israel that it must commit suicide.

In reaction to William A. Galston’s Dec. 28 Politics & Ideas “Trump Could Be Even More Wrong on Israel”:

Here’s a two-state solution: How about we carve out a chunk of territory here in the U.S. for ISIS? Oh, that makes us uncomfortable? So why does the West try to jam that same idea down Israel’s throat? Create a country out of your country for your sworn enemies.

What’s even more illogical to me, the only reason there’s a debate about settlements is because Arab coalitions from all sides twice—1967 and 1973—tried to wipe Israel out and failed so badly that they lost territory to the victor. Under exactly what Geneva protocol is the winner required to give the loser a country? To cap the absurdity, the Palestinian state—which does not exist—is a voting member of the U.N. Security Council. If the Palestinians want a state so badly, how about the losers of the wars get together and provide some territory? If that’s not acceptable, the West should shut keep quiet and stop trying to govern Israel from abroad.

Tim Quast

Denver

http://www.wsj.com/articles/steadfast-refusal-to-negotiate-in-good-faith-1483397728