Enter your keyword

Saturday, August 31, 2013

George Zimmerman Cures Cancer

By On August 31, 2013
George Zimmerman, the Florida man at the center of the controversial Trayvon Martin case, claims to have cured cancer.

The announcement was first made on Twitter by his brother Robert and was then followed by a demonstration of the new Zimmerman cure by the man formerly on trial for the shooting of a Florida teenager during which he demonstrated the cancer cure and introduced reporters to several former cancer patients cured by his method.

Zimmerman, who claims to have come up with the cure during an intensive bout of research while waiting to be tried, is releasing it free of charge into the public domain.

Reaction to the move was swift and unanimous.

"Cancer is a white man's disease," said MSNBC political commentator Al Sharpton. "No black man ever got cancer unless he got it from white people. The only people a racist like Zimmerman cares about is white people."

Time Magazine warned that the loss of cancer would actually pose a danger to public health. In "Cancer: Misunderstood?" it pointed out that for many years cancer had been a signature disease. Now that it was cured, funding for public health research would begin drying up.

"For now, Zimmerman is basking in shortsighted praise for curing a disease, but millions more will die because of the inattention to other public health crises, including AIDS, spread like a disease by his cure."

"George musta thought cancer was black," tweeted comedian Chris Rock. Ted Rall drew a cancer cell wearing a hoodie.

Some responses were unexpectedly sympathetic toward cancer. In "George Zimmerman Cures Cancer But at What Price?" National Geographic warned that the cure would unleash other diseases that cancer may have kept in the background. The Daily Beast ran a response from African-American cancer patients wearing hoodies and vowing not to make use of the cure. "We Would Rather Have Trayvon Martin Alive Again Than a Cure for Cancer. Slate responded with a contrarian piece, "What Was So Bad About Cancer Anyway?"

"Cancer mostly killed the old and the sick. Unlike George Zimmerman who murdered a young boy. Now his cancer cure will help old white people live longer perpetuating white privilege."

New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow expressed concern that Zimmerman's flashy cure had prevented black researchers from curing cancer and providing a role model for black youth.

"The shot that George Zimmerman fired with his so-called cancer cure at the black community is even deadlier than the first shot he fired by murdering Trayvon Martin," Blow wrote. "I spoke with researchers at Harvard University's Uni Research labs where a properly multicultural team from every race, gender and sexual orientation had been assembled to cure cancer and provide role models for children of every conceivable combination of races, sexual orientations and gender identities."

"Sure cancer was cured," Blow finished, "but at what price? Is cancer really deadlier than the lack of role models in our community?"

Responding to that lack of role models, the NAACP petitioned that the name of the Zimmerman cure by redistributed and renamed after George Elmer Dagwood Jr, a pioneering African-American researcher in the 1930s who claimed to have cured cancer. While the cure turned out to be sugar water, there were many who swore that the water had cured them.

Speaking at an NAACP event, Attorney General Eric Holder promised to take the proposal under advisement.

President Barack Obama appeared to have little to say about the cure. At a press conference he however offered some off the cuff remarks, saying, "George Zimmerman may find it easier to cure cancer than to cure the loss that Trayvon Martin's parents suffered. Cancer may have been the cancer of the white community, but gun violence is the cancer of the black community. The real threat doesn't come from microscopic diseases, but from the choices that we make. Our challenge isn't to cure diseases, anyone can do that, but to change the bad choices that we make by outlawing guns."

MSNBC's Chris Matthews expressed concern that the large number of people who would no longer die of cancer would live longer to become a drain on the healthcare system.

"George Zimmerman not only killed a black man, but he may have also killed the signature legislative achievement of America's first black president," Matthews said.

"A cancer cure means an overloaded Obamacare system that is unsustainable. And you'll pardon my suspicious mind, but I think that's exactly what George Zimmerman had in mind. He wanted revenge against Obama and he got it."

"Black people have often been referred to as a cancer," said Toure, an accredited expert in racism. "There is this process of othering at work here. First George Zimmerman murders a black boy to get white approval and then he murders a disease that white people hate the way they hate black people."

"The real cancer isn't cancer," he added. "It's racism. And there's no cure for that except hating George Zimmerman. And all white people."

(This is satire. George Zimmerman did not cure cancer. Yet.)

Friday, August 30, 2013

Friday Afternoon Roundup - For It and Against It

By On August 30, 2013


Ten years ago, James Clapper, now the Director of National Intelligence, said he was “unquestionably sure” that Saddam’s WMDs had been moved out of Iraq. Top Iraqi generals stated that the WMDs had gone to Syria. But all that fell on deaf ears.

John Kerry’s senate career began with a bang when he traveled to Nicaragua to obstruct President Reagan’s policy of arming the anti-Communist Contra rebels. Now Secretary of State John Kerry is taking part in arming the Free Syrian Army rebel allies of Al Qaeda and pawns of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In his Sandinista days, Senator Kerry had said that America should not subvert its values “by funding terrorism to overthrow governments of other countries”. Since then John Kerry has changed his mind. It turns out that he was only against funding terrorists to overthrow the governments of other countries before he was for it.

WMD Liberal Hypocrisy in Iraq and Syria

Spokesman for Catholic Church in Egypt: “Shame on Obama If He Is a Christian”


Obama’s insistence on framing black racism as black anger, as a response to white bigotry rather than bigotry itself, is why the national conversation on race that he insists on having every time he takes a tumble in the polls never goes anywhere.

Racism, like any form of xenophobia, is unfortunately indigenous to the human character. To privilege one form of racism over another is to justify it and to dehumanize its victims as deserving of abuse.

If black racism is described as anger and white racism as bigotry, then white people are held responsible both for their own bigotry and for the bigotry directed at them. To liberals, this is simple social justice, but to anyone who has made a study of bigotry this is characteristic of the way that bigots fault their victims for the hate and violence that they direct at them.

The Racist Liberal System

Sword-Wielding Muslim Charges California Deputies Screaming “Allah Akbar”


Safwat Hegazy, top Muslim Brotherhood Imam, who last year said, “Yes, we will be masters of the world, one of these days” has been forced to postpone his dreams of ruling the world through a Caliphate, when he was arrested by Egyptian authorities while hiding in women’s clothes.

"Our capital shall not be Cairo, Mecca, or Medina. It shall be Jerusalem, Allah willing. Our cry shall be: “Millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem.” Millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem."

He was going to be a king of the world, but he had to settle for being a queen of the desert.

Top Muslim Brotherhood Imam Who Vowed to be Master of the World, Arrested Hiding in Women’s Clothes


Now the French didn’t say what Kerry quoted, because the French are a people, not a politician. Kerry, who prides himself on his knowledge of French, ought to know the difference.

Kerry Quotes “Our Oldest Ally, the French” in Support of Syrian Attack

French the Only People Who Still Support a Syrian War


The United States was founded by English colonists who were dissatisfied with vesting this much power in a chief executive.

Yet it’s the UK, whose leaders were far more bent on war, that will recall its parliament and put the question to them. Meanwhile in the US, the media jeer at the idea of recalling Congress to provide authorization.
 After the shocking defeat, Mr. Cameron was clear. “I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons,” he said. “While the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly.”

I can’t even begin to imagine Obama uttering those words. I’m not a fan of Cameron, but after years of this nightmare, it’s strangely surreal to encounter a leader who when faced with disagreement does not simply go ahead and do what he wants anyway while the media shouts RACIST at anyone who criticizes his unilateral imperial rule.

UK to Take Syria Attack Approval to Parliament, Obama Refuses to Take it to Congress

The End of Journalism Summed Up In One Picture


Iraq in the 40s had 350,000 Jews. Today it has somewhere between four and none.

Despite that the Obama administration plans to send the Jewish Archive consisting of religious artifacts, bibles, marriage contracts, community records and private notebooks seized by the Iraqi Secret Police from the Jewish community back to Iraq.

The material is not the property of the Iraqi government, either Saddam’s regime which stole it, or its Shiite successor which has responded with Anti-Semitic tantrums over the archive.

"Among the most important items in the collection are the oldest copies of the Talmud and the Old Testament... Experts add that Israel is keen on obtaining the manuscripts in order to prove their claim that the Jews had built the Tower of Babel as part of its attempt to distort the history of the Middle East for its own interests."

Iraq Jewish refugees, like so many other Jewish refugees from Muslim countries, lost everything they had. They should not be forced to bear the looting of their bibles and religious items a second time. This time at the hands of the United States government.

Why the Jewish Archive Shouldn’t Go Back to Iraq


Sure you could say that Syria harbored Al Qaeda. The evidence for that is as good as the evidence that Saddam harbored Al Qaeda.

But George W. Bush, that wacky gunslinging cowboy, asked Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq, instead of claiming that the AUMF let him go after Saddam.

Fortunately we have a law professor of some sort who knows better.

Unfortunately this time, Obama isn’t bombing Al Qaeda, he’s bombing the people Al Qaeda are fighting. It’s as if FDR used the declaration of war after Pearl Harbor to begin fighting Russia alongside Japan on the grounds that Japanese troops had once been in Japan.

NBC News Claims Syria was Behind 9/11


The Obama administration issued a policy late last week telling immigration agents to try not to arrest and deport illegal immigrant parents of minor children — a move that adds to the categories of people the administration is trying not to deport.

Obama Unilaterally Passes Amnesty for 40% of Illegal Alien Households

Obama Inc, Which is Arming Syrian Rebels Fighting to Overthrow Assad, Claims It Isn’t Seeking Regime Change


Right now if Assad begins hitting Israeli targets, Israel is free to hit Syrian targets. That will change drastically once NATO is operating on the ground.

Israel was not allowed to go after Saddam, even while it was being attacked because that would have undermined the position of the Gulf War coalition in the Muslim world.

The same thing is very likely to happen with Israel and Syria. NATO will not want to avoid associating the conflict with Israel because of Muslim sensibilities. Assad will want to make this conflict about Israel and he will know that Israel will have trouble retaliating once Syrian airspace is controlled by NATO and Israeli aircraft will be barred from entering.

Will Obama Allow Israel to Defend Itself?


This is more than mere War Powers opposition. It’s a thing that encloses Obama’s entire concept of absolute power. He likes having it. He rejects any limitations on it.

Whether it’s the power to unilaterally make war, make amnesty, make huge financial decisions… he wants to be the only one with the power.

Why Obama Won’t Ask Congress for War Authorization


How Long Will a Filner Comeback Take?

A Little Reminder of What a Left-Wing Extremist Bob Filner Was


Like a lot of the left’s insane internecine struggles, this one is ridiculously ugly and ridiculously pointless to anyone on the outside. The so-called women of color claim that white feminism is racist based on… pretty much a variation of the old white privilege argument that all white people are racist and instinctively dominate everything without even knowing it.

(This has a certain ironic resemblance to Kevin McDonald’s similar argument about Jews. It almost makes you wonder whether McDonald just ripped off white privilege and applied it to Jews or whether some leftists decided that McDonald’s argument about Jews is worth applying to white people in general.)

Like most of the left’s ideological wars, this is really about activists using identity politics to angle for power within the movement.

What That Miley Cyrus is Racist Thing is About


The Saudis are taking America’s place on the world stage. It was bad enough when the House of Saud controlled American foreign policy. But now they’re not even bothering to use American diplomats as intermediaries. They’re acting like a world power.

Saudis Offer Russia OPEC Membership, Terror Immunity for Olympics


Summer is typically network television downtime with a shortage of original programming and not a lot of people staying indoors. So Univision may be celebrating its ratings victory a little too hard.

Yes the win in the 18-34 demo is a national demographics harbinger. But not as big of a one as the media would like you to think.

Most networks have virtually given up on summer. And many of their viewers now watch programming online, weighing ratings more toward the lower income side of the scale.

For the second consecutive week, Univision’s 9 p.m. novela “La Tempestad” (The Storm) helped Univision rank as the #1 broadcast network for the hour (M-F) among Adults 18-34 and #2 among Adults 18-49.  The novela averaged 3.4 Million Total Viewers 2+, 1.7 Million Adults 18-49, and 882,000 Adults 18-34.

La Tempestad is beating original NBC programming like  “American Ninja Warrior” and “Get Out Alive with Bear Grylls”. Mostly it’s beating CBS reruns and ABC reruns of shows that will clean Univision’s clock when they come out of reruns.

Univision Celebrating its Ratings Victory a Little Too Hard


Tomorrow Barack Obama, the Nobel Peace Laureate (and twice-elected Historic First African American President of the United States) will give a Great Speech (can there be any doubt?) right where the iconic MLK speech was given. The president will commemorate that day and reflect on the state of race relations over the past half-century. In this way, we the serfs of the Country Class might learn in what direction The Won intends to redistribute the arc of history... for the winners, and for the rest of us.

from Boker Tov Boulder

Best wishes to Jim Hoft for a full recovery


It's unclear who or what the assembled drones and droolers at today's autofornication festival represented, but it certainly wasn't Americans, African or otherwise. Under no circumstances can what was blathered today be thought of as a credit to the once noble and now nefarious "civil rights movement." Like so many other idealistic visions of its era it has now devolved and degenerated into a gelatinous slab of smarm and slime. I suppose that the best that can be said is that nothing said today will matter in another 50 years. Probably in another 50 months.

 from American Digest

It's simply because the left. The NAACP, the AFL-CIO, NOW and a dozen other specific issue groups have blended into one indistinguishable mass.

The mass exists to push a single agenda in unison. It is totalitarian and tone deaf. Its only vision is the collective one of the overall program.

It no longer has any individuality of thought. Only individual corruption.


No, we don’t disagree with the notion that we don’t have to ask anybody for permission to do as we damn well please, because we don’t, it’s just funny how that self-evident truth is suddenly acceptable and not in the slightest bit questioned by the DNCMedia, now that the horrible GWB is no longer in office. You know, the GWB of economic growth, sub-5% unemployment, $1.50/gallon gas and other assorted horrors, HORRORS, we tell you.

And by “funny” we mean to say “utterly predictable.”

from the one and only Emperor Misha


Recently a reader asked, “so, what do we do now?” in reference to the question, “how do we take the country back?”

It’s a pretty daunting task when you hear about such innovative strategies being implemented by the opposition.

"Fifteen universities worldwide — including Yale University, Brown University, and Pennsylvania State University — will offer college credit to students who “write feminist thinking” into Wikipedia.

The program, “Storming Wikipedia,” will be part of the Dialogues on Feminism and Technology online course developed by FemTechNet, an organization of feminist educators and scholars."

from BigFurHat at IOwntheWorld.com


Which is why Colorado, outside of its urban centers, is fighting back,  the liberals having wanted to make it an example of a people in a southwest outpost known for its sportsman activities and independent spirit accepting “reasonable” gun restrictions, only to find that the vast majority of those people were having none of it.

This is one of the reasons GOP support for “comprehensive immigration reform” is so absolutely appalling and cynical.  Because it has been through these types of things — along with now legal attempts to block states from protecting the franchise, ensuring that illegal votes from non-citizens are tallied — that the Democrats have sought to take over red states.

That the GOP seems intent on helping them just suggests that the Party establishment is closer ideologically to the progressive statists than it is to the TEA Party base it so clearly wishes to see defeated and buried.

from Jeff at Protein Wisdom

Thursday, August 29, 2013

How Obama Hugged the Brotherhood to Death

By On August 29, 2013
When the dust settles in Cairo, at least long enough to make out anything through the smoke and flames, it may turn out that the Muslim Brotherhood has suffered its worst blow at the hands of none other than Barack Hussein Obama. .

The blow will not have been intentional. Like the killing of Bin Laden, a useful intervention carried out by Navy SEALS who were perhaps less than enthusiastic about Obama's plan to use the civilian trial of the terrorist leader as a prop for dismantling the military tribunal system, it wasn't something that he meant to do.

It just happened.

Obama could never have intentionally defeated the Muslim Brotherhood. But he may have just hugged it to death.

To understand the Middle East is to understand that such petty things as the deaths of hundreds of protesters or massive street fighting don't really matter all that much. Not in a region where Saddam Hussein or the butchers of Sudan could pile up enough corpses to start an entire country and still enjoy the support of the Muslim world.

The trick is killing the right people. Saddam Hussein killed Shiites and Kurds with religious and ethnic differences from the region's Arab Sunni baseline. Sudan killed Christians and Animists who are infidels and rebellious dhimmis making them even more foreign and more 'killable".

It is that foreignness which is all-important. Muslims are not supposed to kill Muslims unless they're somehow 'foreign' either by being members of a heretical sect or a different ethnic group. And if all else fails, they can be pawns of foreigners. That is why both sides in Egypt keep accusing each other of being Jews.

Osama bin Laden aimed at America to hit the House of Saud because it allowed him to charge the Guardians of Mecca and Medina with being American puppets. It made internal terrorism justifiable.

That is the charge that has been laid against the Muslim Brotherhood. It is what makes killing them of no more note than a minor change in the weather. The only charge against the Muslim Brotherhood that matters is the charge of "foreignness".

Obama's embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood made them into fair game in the Muslim world.

Despite its Egyptian roots, the Muslim Brotherhood is a transnational organizational, and like any transnational organization, that makes it both foreign and suspect. Its ties to Hamas, a foreign group viewed with suspicion in Egypt, despite the supposed global Muslim affinity for the Palestinian cause, add another element of foreignness that will come into play during the trial of Brotherhood leaders.

And there is Qatar, a foreign country, widely despised, with too much money and power, whose ties to the Brotherhood are blatant and whose dubious financial deals with the Morsi government should provide more than enough material for a conviction. But Qatar is still an Arab and Muslim country.

Obama is the real lever for bringing down the Muslim Brotherhood. Linking the Brotherhood to him along a chain that includes Qatar upstream and Hamas downstream, that plugs in the hated CIA and Israel, can destroy the Brotherhood not just organizationally, but politically as a credible alternative.

Reducing the Muslim Brotherhood to a CIA puppet in the eyes of the Muslim world will destroy it so thoroughly that it will become forever irrelevant.

The military and the opposition understood immediately that the only way the overthrow of Morsi could be made palatable to most Egyptians was by portraying it as a fight not merely against the Brotherhood, but against a conspiracy between Washington and the Brotherhood. The Egyptian people might be divided on Morsi, but they could be united against Obama.

Their plan was to hang Obama around the Muslim Brotherhood’s neck.

The Muslim Brotherhood belatedly scrambled to portray the coup as an American-Zionist conspiracy, but it was late to the party. Tahrir Square had already been choked with banners demonizing Kerry, Obama and Anne Patterson for their support of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood had trouble making the case that its downfall was a plot by Obama, when Obama kept insisting that the Brotherhood's leaders needed to be released and returned to power.

Obama played beautifully into the opposition's hands by following the standard diplomatic playbook, denouncing Morsi's overthrow and urging the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders. It was a plan that made sense in Washington, which reflexively thinks in terms of issuing orders all the time, but in Cairo it looked like the puppet master demanding the return of his puppets.

The Egyptian military had stepped in as a response to a national emergency dealing with foreign intervention in Egypt's political system. The more Obama denounced the military's actions, the more he was demonstrating that the Egyptian military had been correct to step in.

Despite his years in the Muslim world and his family connections, Obama had not really understood how Egypt worked. And his associates understood it even less. If they had, they would have pulled out Anne Patterson once she became a target and openly criticized Morsi for not listening to the demands of the protesters, while privately conveying a message of support.

Instead Obama hugged Morsi to death. And he's still hugging Morsi to death.

The American emissaries who met with Muslim Brotherhood leader Khairat al-Shater in prison did it with about as much fanfare as they could muster. The Muslim Brotherhood spokesman frantically tried to deny that the meeting happened or that Khairat al-Shater had been willing to even talk to Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, but that just made the Brotherhood seem like a bigger bunch of liars. And why else would they lie about a meeting with American diplomats unless they were trying to hide that they were really puppets of Uncle Sam?

It couldn't have gone any better if Obama had planned it. Sadly Obama would never have planned it and that made the scene all the more absurdly delicious. The Muslim Brotherhood wanted Obama to shut up and stop loudly intervening on their behalf. But Obama couldn't stop following the liberal playbook and sticking up for his beloved Brotherhood. The nuanced administration was completely lacking in nuance and didn't even know it.

Obama's entire plan to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power had laid the seeds of its destruction. The insistence on having Muslim Brotherhood members at the Cairo speech, the demand that Mubarak step down, the urging of rushed elections that benefited the Muslim Brotherhood; the entire process by which Obama helped the Muslim Brotherhood come to power became its indictment.

The Muslim Brotherhood's violent past was ugly, but terrorism is not the ultimate offense in the Muslim world. Muslims support terrorism when fighting foreigners or foreign influences. Treason, the willingness to become a foreign influence, is the ultimate crime.

If the Egyptian legal system, that the Muslim Brotherhood tried and failed to destroy, succeeds in convicting the Muslim Brotherhood of serving foreign interests in the court of public opinion, it will have dealt it a serious blow that the Brotherhood will spend a long time recovering from.

In Washington, Obama still continues misreading events as a military coup. The protesters parading around Cairo with Islamic photoshops of his face picked up from American conservative sites are a minor irritant to be dismissed with another of his condescending speeches as if they were Tea Party members. The problem is tackled with arbitrary denials of foreign aid, pressure phone calls and a touch of diplomatic isolation.

And the generals and liberals are laughing to themselves, the way that the Muslim Brotherhood leaders used to at their cleverness in tricking Obama. But the Brothers aren't laughing anymore since Obama became the weight around their ankles pulling them down. And they can't even let go of him because they have no other leverage except international pressure.

There's only so much Qatar can do against the united front of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and most of the rest of the GCC ensemble. Turkey can spit and stomp its legs, but it doesn't have any other leverage. That leaves Obama, who has the Muslim Brotherhood's back, but lacks the paranoid subtlety that passes for local politics, and the European Union, which is more subtle, but also more greedy.

Egypt's new government knows that it won't win over Obama or Ashton any time soon. But it isn't trying to. Instead its goal is to smash the Muslim Brotherhood leaving it the only game in town. And then Obama and the EU can take it or leave it.

Osama tried to bring down Saudi Arabia by attacking America. The new Egyptian government is attacking America, domestically, to bring down the Muslim Brotherhood. It's the typically indirect politics of a xenophobic region where not only don't you see the knife coming, you also never find out why you were stabbed.

While Obama played checkers with the region, its power players had gotten out their chessboards and deftly checkmated yet another Western regime change project. With the typical slowness of the obtuse, Obama still doesn't understand that he lost or what the game even was.

Obama and Kerry believe that they are men of nuance, but they are crude, loud and obvious compared to the men that they are up against who have outplayed them in Egypt and are ready to begin burying the rotting corpse of the Arab Spring beneath the Sinai sands.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Obama Gets His War On

By On August 28, 2013
Yesterday the media was too busy drowning the country in the spectacle of the antics of a former Disney starlet at the Video Music Awards for a cable channel that no longer does music videos to report on the antics of a former community organizer who was busy sketching out plans for an illegal war that he had been on record as opposing.

Shamelessness is the quality that Barack Obama's antics in Washington and Miley Cyrus' antics in
Brooklyn have in common. Not merely a shamelessness that emerges out of a humiliating episode, but shamelessness as their fundamental attribute. A shamelessness that aspires to be cool because it appears to achieve the ultimate goal of coolness of not being bound by anything at all.

Miley Cyrus was once a Disney starlet. Obama was once anti-war. In 2007, he told voters that the president does not have the authority under the Constitution to unilaterally go to war unless there is an urgent threat to the United States. Now he's planning a second war in which the only urgent threat is to the military prospects of his Islamist allies for taking over another country.

Obama's shamelessness isn't incidental to his actions; it's their whole point. Like Cyrus, he is celebrating his liberation from any standard or value, triumphing over them through attitude alone. And in a world without morals or values, the only thing that counts is power and the will to use it.

It may be sex in Brooklyn and power in Washington, but both of the tawdry spectacles expose the elemental thing that is left behind when all virtues and values fade away. Without these things, the human animal becomes just that, a repugnant and irredeemable spectacle that attracts the like-minded and repels everyone else.

Without these virtues, why shouldn't Obama break his word and get his war on? Like every moral dilemma that most people face, it's only a dilemma if  you have morals. If you don't, then it's no longer a matter of what the right thing to do is, but whether you can do it.

Or as Aleister Crowley put it, in between one of his bouts of Satanism and binging on cocaine, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law".

That is the cheerful maxim of our Aeon of Horus, our entertainment industry, whose products can be seen on display at the MTV Video Music Awards. MTV long ago dispensed with much of the music, to make way for the drama of reality television. Its real entertainment product is people doing what they wilt and becoming famous for it.

From 8 to 11 AM, it's MTV's 16 and Pregnant, carefully branded in case anyone confuses it with A&E's  16 and Pregnant or PBS's 16 and Pregnant. Then it's Teen Mom. In the evening there's more Teen Mom. And if you make it to 4 AM, tune in to AMTV RISE & GRIND. And at some point, Barack Obama or Michelle Obama will show up to tell everyone to exercise and eat healthy.

Miley Cyrus' performance embodied everything that MTV stands for; tacky, desperate for attention and in the real world, pregnant at 16. But the appeal of this enclosed media world is its cheerful amorality, maintained by invisibly huge amounts of money, that tells viewers that their own amorality will also not have consequences.

Bill Clinton was our first MTV president. Barack Obama is our second. The decline in MTV neatly matches the descent from Clinton to Obama, but what unites them is that cheerful amorality that can triumph over any crime. These are men whose creed is "Do what thou wilt" and like so much of our political and entertainment elites, they have been doing it. They have been getting their wilt on.

Obama has decided to get his war on. Again. Though really, France and then the UK decided that America should get its war on. And to be strictly accurate, Saudi Arabia and Qatar decided again that their financial puppets in the UK and France, licking their lips at a taste of their oil-fed sovereign wealth funds, should get their war on even while cutting their militaries to be the bone.

Formerly anti-war France is on its third war in three years. This will be the second war for its newly elected Socialist government in just this year. That's impressive for a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys who were supposed to be our role models in navigating the subtlety of international diplomacy. But France has always been renowned for its cheerfully amoral politics.

Role models don't hold up too well under fire. Just ask any of the parents who encouraged their daughters to watch Hannah Montana or any of the anti-war activists who thought that Obama would be different.

The man whose only calling card was the peace sign, is about to launch his second war. And if bombing Syria goes well, there's always Egypt. And if the Tunisian protesters follow their lead and dare to boot their Islamist masters, they might get a few cruise missiles headed their way in Operation Caliphate.

Obama's premature gift of a Nobel Peace Prize has become one of the more absurd footnotes in his career. Like Cyrus gyrating on stage, he seems to be doing his best to leave behind his old anti-war reputation. Now he can hardly wait for the UN inspectors to finish their job in Syria before squatting at a table and nodding cluelessly while being told where the bombs will fall first.

If hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, as La Rochefoucauld said, our elites have decided to dispense with the tribute. Not only will there be no more virtue, but the dealers in vice will not even bother with the hypocrisy. If the balance of our society has been tilted forcibly from virtue to vice, as most recent developments suggest, then the former child stars and hope and changers no longer feel that they need to bother even maintaining the appearance of virtue.

Last time around, Obama had already begun the Libyan War before he told the American people. This time, the Syrian War could begin at any time, but will possibly be preceded by the release of a report. Or maybe the report will come out later, as the man who should be president is acting like an emperor, and the emperor is naked enough to be performing at the VMAs.

Alinsky's fourth rule is making the enemy live up to his own codes. But what if the enemy has no rules, only will. What if the enemy has no values and exists only to be seen. That is the unreal space occupied by a former community organizer from Chicago and teenage girl from the Disney Channel. Where there are no values, there can be no hypocrisy. All that is left is the triumph of the will.

The VMAs are a calculated spectacle in the same way that Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will was and in the same way that the latest Obama speech pledging to act unilaterally on his latest plan if Congress does nothing. Their theme is the triumph of the will over morals, the power of the individual to dominate crowds through no special virtue except determination. It is a fascism of the spirit that glorifies the dissolution of the individual in a secular religion of power and privilege.

Miley Cyrus did what she did because she could. The goal was the most priceless commodity of modern culture; attention. In a crowded digital world, the only thing that matters is being seen. Obama's triumph is being noticed. It is the secret of his success. In a crowded digital world, the triumph of the will is not physical or intellectual, let alone spiritual, but that quality of compelling others to become aware of your existence and to incorporate your existence into their reality.

Like Miley, Obama will go to war because he can. It isn't even his idea and it isn't a good idea, but that doesn't matter. If you're a Disney starlet, eventually you have to show everyone that you've grown up by taking your clothes off. It's what the audience expects. If you're an anti-war liberal who makes it into the White House, you have to show everyone that you've grown up by getting out there and getting your war on.

It's what the audience expects. 

For months now, the Washington Post and the New York Times have been urging Obama to go to war. France and the UK have been beating the war drums even longer. Qatar and Turkey have been crying for war before the last one wrapped up. Eventually the naked emperor had to go out there and give his international fans what they wanted.

Obama was tentative when it came to his first war, but he's an old pro at it now. He knows that no one who matters will judge him for anything that happens. It's all in fun and it distracts the unemployed people eating soup out of a can from wondering if they're going to be evicted tomorrow or today.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner has grown up. He knows that the public doesn't matter. He knows that Congress doesn't matter. He knows that there is nothing between his will and the might and fortunes of a nation. And he's doing what he will with them.

He might bomb Syria for a few days, as he's claiming and as he falsely claimed of Libya, or a few weeks or a few months. The military has been cut to the bone and retasked to celebrating gay weddings and green energy, but there are enough bombs left over to make for some spectacular fireworks as the Al Nusra Front and their Free Syrian Army allies make it to Damascus to slaughter the last Christians there.

Every show needs a good closing number and the burning of the last churches in Syria while the
bombs burst overhead will be the performance of a lifetime. Maybe Obama will even get Miley to sing.

There will be criticism, but as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of Benghazi, "What difference does it make anyway?" What difference does anything make in the absence of morals. Without them, there is only power and the will to use it, whether it is the power to bomb a nation or take your clothes off.

The only way to prove will is through action. The ability to do a thing implies a need to do it. If a thing can be done, it must be done. And so will disproves itself as the ability to do a thing forces you to actually go ahead and do it to prove your will, without regard to whether you want to do it or not.

Our society sleepwalks towards these inevitabilities of power without ever asking who it was that decided on their inevitability. Transformed from a society of virtue into vice, we wonder why we are slipping into tyranny and corruption of every sort. Restraint is a virtue. With only the vice of power, the addiction of will, there is nothing between us and those who would destroy us but the nakedness of their power. And the moment that they can deprive us of our rights and destroys us, they will.

Tomorrow, Obama may fight Syria. But the rest of the time, he's fighting us.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Egypt is Where History Goes to Die

By On August 26, 2013
One of the biggest differences between conservatives and liberals is that while conservatives believe that history is an expression of human nature, liberals don't believe in history, they believe in historical processes.

The shortage of conservatives explains why so many politicians and pundits glowingly endorsed the Arab Spring as the "end of history" because the historical processes had been achieved, the check boxes were ticked and Egypt, Tunisia and the rest of the Arab Spring countries would shortly reach the same historical terminus that Sweden, France and the United Kingdom had achieved.

It also explains why so many politicians are frantically trying to "fix" Egypt by putting it on the right historical track.

The liberal understanding of history is so hopelessly dominant that it never occurs to most of them that countries can't be fixed. They aren't leaky sinks, but systems emerging from a national culture. Egypt can't be fixed by calling the plumbers of democracy to tighten a few valves and bully the natives into holding another election.

The last election didn't fix Egypt. There's no reason to believe that another one will. Elections did not fix a single Arab Spring country. They didn't fix Russia. They won't fix China.

The men and women studiously examining their map of historical processes and urging Egypt to go left and then right and then left again don't understand Egypt or history.

They don't understand much of anything else either.

To the liberal misreading of history, a failed state is like an overweight fellow. Map out a diet and exercise regimen for him based on historical processes, things that he must do and mustn't do and he'll get better. If he isn't following orders, make him run through the right historical processes. If the whole thing backfires, refuse to admit it, because progressive policies never fail.

Push that logic forward and there is no reason to think that the past is relevant to a nation at all. Not when historical processes break away the present from the past and the future from the present.

There is no real need to understand Egypt or the Muslim Brotherhood in any great depth. Not when they are about to be transformed by the magic of democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood may have been a terrorist organization in the past, its branches may still engage in terrorism, but that stops mattering once the Brotherhood bows to the historical process of democracy. Egypt's history also vanishes once it is transmuted through the magic of elections.

Democracy didn't actually change Egypt. Egypt is still the same country it was before Obama's Cairo speech. It's poorer, more unstable and more dangerous. But it hasn't really changed.

Historical processes are progressive. They are a sort of school for nations. You pass one class and then another. Sometimes you might flunk a class, but then you retake it and move forward. Follow the historical processes and you continue moving forward.

The assumption that historical processes align with a forward motion, that the liberalization of a society moves it forward, are so innate that it goes unquestioned. It is why democracy is held to be a good, entirely apart from its outcome. Even if democratic elections lead to a takeover by a junta of fanatical cannibals, the very act of holding an election moves a society forward through one hoop in the great circus of historical processes. The immediate result may be cannibalism, but in the long run, as Arab Spring advocates remind us from the editorial pages, the society moves forward.

The liberal understanding of history made it impossible to see the Muslim Brotherhood for what it was because its victory did not fit the march of progress. The victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in a democratic election meant that it was progressive. Because that is how the forward motion of history is meant to work. And its overthrow had to be considered reactionary, regardless of the issues.

This blinkered view discarded the issues and nature of the participants. It traded the contents of the system, for the addiction of process. It made the same mistakes as in Iraq and Afghanistan, drifting on a democracy high without paying attention to who was actually winning the elections and what their plans for the future were. The conviction that Afghanistan or Iraq or Egypt were moving forward was not borne out by anything except the spectacle of process and the conviction that everything was bound to keep moving forward, especially if we gave it a push or two.

The conservative understanding of Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt was that these places were backward because the culture of the people, their occupations, the way that they chose to live, kept it that way. But in the liberal understanding of history, they were backward because they had been denied access to modern processes for upgrading their societies. Give them democracy and they'll be Europe in no time at all.

It did not occur to them that the reason Egypt wasn't England had nothing to do with elections and everything to do with the culture of a broken country that hasn't gotten all that far past feudalism, and whose "modern" face was slapped together by European colonialism and local dictators borrowing European ideas and applying thin layers of them across the surface of a much older culture.

Processes don't move a society forward. The striving to learn and grow, to push beyond the next horizon and find out what is over the next hill. That innate organic expansionism, that creative dissatisfaction, cannot be transplanted or imposed externally. It either grows out of the soul of a culture or it does not. The historical processes that matter are a byproduct of such strivings.

The liberal puts structures before people while the conservative puts people before structures. Men are not numbers and there is no innate historical destiny to their processes that can exist apart from their whims, needs, urges, frustrations, rages, loves and unsettled ambitions. When we look into the structures of history we find that they, like the Trojan Horse, are filled with people.

We are not bound to move forward. It is quite possible that we are moving back. And even that sense of direction is a matter of opinion. To the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood, backward is forward, as they push on toward the 7th century.

The sense of historical direction in Cairo or New York is not an abstract, but a function of culture, a product of the things we value and strive toward. It is possible to distinguish the healthy and unhealthy cultures through the outcome of these products, but it is not possible to make a culture want not only the things we want, but to want them in the same way and through the same means.

Egypt is where history goes to die. Beneath its sands, there are ages and ages of lost time, lost civilizations and lost pasts that might have been. They lie there untouched by the mantra of historical processes. They simple were and are no more.

The Arab Spring is nothing but another one of those many sedimentary layers of history that fall into the sands and crunch under the sandals of the cultures that take each other's place. There was a time when Egypt moved forward, but those were ancient times and ancient days.

The modern Egypt is a jumble of crushed histories and broken pasts, its people combine the conquerors and the conquered, their histories lost and the futures unsought. Islam has cloaked them in its characteristic darkness that teaches its followers to strive for nothing except the subjugation of others to its will.

Egypt has not been an empire for a very long time. It is a colony of colonies, settled by foreigners, ruled by foreigners, surrounded by ancient history and detached from it. It is full of history and yet it has no history. It has no true past or future. Only the tedium of a present that never changes because the spirit that once moved the men of these sands forward has dried up. There is anger, fear and hate that follow the old familiar paths through the sand to the same destinations.

There is no future here. There is no history here. Egypt is where history goes to die, buried in its tombs with its ancient kings, lying in wait for another time when the sands will shift, the stones will fall and time will begin moving again.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Insane This Way

By On August 24, 2013
After a great deal of fuss about national security and terrorism, sentence was passed and Bradley Manning, the man at the center of the storm who used a Lady Gaga CD to smuggle out classified information, announced that what he really wanted was to live as a woman.

Posting a photo wearing the least convincing wig outside of clown college, Manning announced that
from now on, his name will be Chelsea.

Life might have been simpler for everyone if Manning had just gone straight to the bad wig. In the age of Obama, his right to pretend to be a woman would have been protected with more vigor than the lives of American soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

But that's not what Manning really wanted.

In 1974, Jerry Dean Michael, a mentally ill ex-con and con-artist, put on a wig and pretended to be Liz Carmichael, the widow of a NASA engineer with a car that could 70 miles to the gallon.

"I'll knock the hell out of Detroit," Michael declared, in his persona as Liz Carmichael. "I'll rule the auto industry like a queen." That last line was a joke that it took a while for anyone to get.

Liz Carmichael and his plans to rule Detroit, now a place filled with feral dogs and politicians which probably would have been better off ruled by a lunatic queen with a fiberglass car for a throne, received nearly as much attention then as Bradley Manning did now. Unfortunately Liz's car, that was going to revolutionize the automotive industry could no more run, than Michael or Bradley could become women.

Michael fled, was arrested, released on bail, fled again and was arrested living, once again, under a female name.

Outside an organic grocery store, a Free Bradley Manning rally leaflet sits next to a poster for "Let Me Die as a Woman". The movie, a 70s pseudo-documentary from the appropriately named Doris Wishman trying to branch out from her usual line of work filming nudist colonies for the discerning film buffs of Times Square, followed men who wanted to be women.

Back then that sort of thing fell into the shadow world at the edge of cities where gay bars, prostitutes and the other people falling into the hole inside social norms wound up. It held the fascination of the transgressive for those who were looking to push the boundaries of society to the edge and over it, but even they understood that it was interesting in the way that reading Oliver Sacks' The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat was because that what they were seeing were the results of serious psychological and social trauma.

A few weeks ago, Don Ennis, an ABC News producer who had originally announced that he now wanted to be called Dawn, let everyone know that he picked up a touch of amnesia and was no longer in touch with his female identity. With a plot line like that, Ennis should have been working on ABC's soaps, instead of its news division.

But the amnesia line worked. And everyone at work probably breathed a sigh of relief at not having to listen to Don speak in a high falsetto anymore.

A few missing brain cells and Don no longer wanted to die as Dawn, because Don was never Dawn.

What was once shocking and exploitative has become tediously prosaic. One day a balding middle aged man decides that he really is a woman, begins wearing a wig to work and all his liberal colleagues rush to learn about his new and exciting identity. But the man inside the wig hasn't left behind his old problems. So he develops amnesia and takes the wig off.

When the formerly taboo becomes the habit of boring middlebrow liberal men looking to escape their boring lives cranking out daily stories about racism for the media establishment, it says a great deal about how the formerly transgressive loses its taboo and about the resulting state of social disintegration and its accompanying absurdities.

The old idea, last current in the 70s, that gender is a construct is back in full swing. Every media outlet is now doing cheerful stories about some little boy being raised as an "Adorable Transgender Little Girl" by his Munchausen-by-proxy parents and the intolerant schools who won't let him use the wrong bathroom.

Gender as a construct is one of those mechanistic progressive fantasies straight out of a Brave New World society where every aspect of human identity can be customized. Like most of the futuristic dystopias, it ends badly.

John Money, the psychologist who coined the term "Gender Role" insisting that gender transcended sex, inflicted his theories on a little boy named David Reimer, who was raised as Brenda under a regime that could be best be described as horrifying child abuse. Reimer eventually reclaimed his masculinity and told his story in a book, "As Nature Made Him"; a title that the LGBT community would today consider a hate crime.

Every news story about a boy being raised as an "adorable little girl" is the story of another David Reimer being abused by the indefatigable identity politics of the insane.

In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie made his state the second place after California to outlaw therapy that tells boys that homosexuality is not innate and that they can choose to live a normal life. Christie's cynicism was already legendary and his pandering to gay donors is unsurprising.

The testimony that convinced the New Jersey Senate to allow the gay lobby to launch another assault on the family by targeting the private relationship between parents, children and therapists included a deeply moving tale by James Goldani, a drag queen with a history of drug abuse, now calling himself Brielle, of being electroshocked at an ex-gay camp, whose horror was only slightly undermined by being derived from a Ru Paul Movie, "But I’m a Cheerleader."

That was a minor detail that no one particularly cared about. In a parade of congenital liars with mental problems claiming victimhood, what was one more absurd lie?

The idea codified by the new law is that sexual preferences are so innate that they cannot and should not be changed, but that gender is entirely mutable and should be changed by anyone who wants to.

That's not a scientific conclusion, but a political one. The goal of politicizing victimhood is to maximize minorities making it easy to become a minority, but very difficult to stop being one. What the gay rights lobby has done is "lock down" its supply of recruits from New Jersey and California. And there are a whole bunch of more states to go.

The bigger your minority group is, the more influence you have. And in the new post-everything America, you have the right to be transgender, but not ex-gay. But the gay rights lobby is not the only victim group that would like similar feudal privileges over potential members. Any group can have its identity politicized in the same way.

There are radical deaf rights activists who would like to ban Cochlear implants that allow deaf children to hear because they are an attack on "Deaf Culture". If they ever organize themselves as effectively as gay groups have, it's not too hard to envision Governor Christie signing a law that outlaws parents from curing their children's deafness because it will cut them off from Deaf Culture.

Deaf culture, like gay culture, is both recent and a construct. It's an innovation in response to a disability. A missing element. The difference is that with deaf culture the nature of the disability is obvious and the cure really works.

Identity politics is pride in victimization. It gains its entire identity from embracing dysfunction and refusing to change. But despite all the pride parades, the assertions of identity, the "Born this way" torch songs, the underlying dysfunction remains.

Bradley Manning betrayed his country for the same reason that he put on a blond wig; because he is mentally ill. It's the same reason that Jerry Dean Michael tried to pass off a toy car as the future of the automobile industry and why countless transgender con artists engage in self-destructive behavior.

Crazy people mix destructive and self-destructive behavior together into a toxic cocktail. That is about the neatest summary of the gay rights movement that there can ever be.The brave new world of identity politics is confusing mental breakdowns with identity and missing elements with culture.

With the construct of race nearing exhaustion, the miners of grievance chose to fragment gender and the family into a thousand pieces. Their triumphant progeny is Bradley Manning, a man filled with confused hatreds and no sense of direction. One of Gaga's Little Monsters, lashing out at his country from behind a blonde wig.

Our society has become a puzzle of broken pieces that don't fit, a strange mesh of identity politics, identities that can agree on the agenda of the left and little else. Under all the rainbow umbrellas are broken people struggling for relief, acting out, breaking things and breaking themselves. All the cheerful assertions that the next wave of insanity is really the next civil rights movement sound as hollow as they do in ghettos where the broken family is not an aberration, but the norm.

These are not all disparate elements. They are parts of the same problem. The family is at the center of a healthy society. When the family collapses, so does the society.

The left has turned dysfunction into its banner, it has made it seem trendy and progressive, but what it has really done is shattered the American family as badly as it shattered the Russian economy with its speculative theorizing and radical projects.

There is no path to restoring America, except through the restoration of the American family.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Friday Afternoon Roundup - Eutopia

By On August 23, 2013


The ridiculous parade of awards and shows is a rerun of how Obama, an uninteresting Illinois politician, was transformed into the most interesting figure in American politics through obsessive attention and hysterical praise. But Hillary Clinton, who will be pushing seventy by the time her big moment in the sun arrives, has fewer excuses for needing to slap this much greasepaint on an undistinguished resume.

The positions that will be used as props in her quest for higher office came to her only by way of being married to the former President of the United States. And it’s impossible to find anything revolutionary that she did with those positions, except use them as launching pads for an office she was even less qualified for.

The miniseries, the series, the movies, the books and the adoring pundits will zoom in on her gender, but even that isn’t a breakthrough.

Hillary Clinton was one in a long line of female senators. She was the third female Secretary of State. Albright and Rice, for all their flaws, were hard workers with interesting biographies. Hillary Clinton, like John Kerry, was a mediocrity who got their job as a consolation prize for not winning a presidential election.

Lights, Camera, Hillary


Forgotten in all the Arab Spring cheerleading is the simple fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist group. And not only is it a terrorist group but it is the single most influential Sunni Islamic terrorist group in the world, spawning entire networks of terrorist organizations; including Al Qaeda.

The road to America’s modern confrontation with Islamic terrorism began in Egypt. The World Trade Center bombing was spawned by a leader of the Egyptian Islamic Group, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Mohamed Atta, the key figure in the September 11 attacks, was an Egyptian member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Today the Engineers Syndicate, the Brotherhood front group that Atta was a member of, is holding rallies in support of Morsi.

Why It Matters Who Wins in Egypt


The tolerance guide for Air Force students on recognizing extremism lists Neo-Confederate that “celebrate Southern culture” and “generally share the goals of preserving Confederate monuments, honoring the Confederate battle flag, and lauding what is judged to be Southern culture.”

There is no mention of Islam.

In the intro to “Extremist Ideologies”, it states, “In U.S. history,there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”

Military Training Materials Call America’s “Founding Fathers” Extremists; Like 9/11 Terrorists


Obama interrupted a hard day of lazing around Martha’s Vineyard to denounce the “arbitrary arrests” of Muslim Brotherhood supporters and the “broad crackdown on Mr. Morsi’s associations and supporters” and then insisted “We don’t take sides with any particular party or political figure.”

It was quite a turn to take in a single speech, but he did have a full day of golfing to get in.

“We’ve been blamed by supporters of Morsi; we’ve been blamed by the other side as if we are supporters of Morsi,” Obama said. “That kind of approach will do nothing to help Egyptians achieve the future that they deserve.”

He did not bother to explain how his efforts to free the leaders of an organization that was burning churches across Egypt would help Egyptians achieve the future they deserved. Unless perhaps he thought that the ethnic cleansing of Christians in Egypt, as in Syria, was the future that they deserved.

Whose Side Is Obama On?


Obama Hints at Syria Attack to CNN

France Signals it’s Ready for a Syrian War, Will Drag Us In

Obama’s Real Syria Red Line Isn’t WMDs


Judge Bosson said the case provokes reflection on what the nation is about.

“At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others,” he wrote.

Why must we “compromise our values” to accommodate clashing values. Why can’t the people acting out their imaginary wedding compromise their values instead by leaving photographers who don’t want their business alone?

Why is the need of two lesbians to have a wedding photographers more compelling than Freedom of Religion?

“But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life,” the justice wrote. “The Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.”

But it’s not the Huguenins who squeezed out the lesbian couple. It’s the lesbians who squeezed out the Huguenins.

Under the existing scheme, the lesbian couple had the right to hire anyone who would take their business and the Huguenins had the right to accept anyone’s business.

Under the new scheme, the lesbian couple get to compel a wedding photographer to perform for them while the Christians lose their religious freedom.

They’re the ones who have no more space left.

Court Rules Christian Photographers Must “Compromise their Religious Values” for Gay Wedding

How Saudi Islamic Law Uses Magic to Cheat Foreign Workers Out of their Wages

Detroit has More Stray Dogs than People with College Degrees


Burka Makes it Impossible to Tell Princess from Prostitute


Police are baffled as to the motive of the attackers, who are of Middle Eastern appearance and are thought to be Muslim.

Gay Club Shooter Prayed in “Arabic” Before Opening Fire


Back in Canada, Lindhout’s family feared she was being sexually assaulted, but Canadian officials assured them Muslims were unlikely to do such a thing.

She says one captor, however, routinely snuck into her room and forced himself on her.

The kidnappers blamed Lindhout for the escape, even though it had been Brennan’s idea. The next day, in a prayer room, they put a sheet over her head, stripped down her clothes and took turns violating her body.

“Lindhout’s Family Feared she was Being Sexually Assaulted, but Canadian Officials said Muslims were Unlikely to do Such a Thing.”


John Greyson really hates Israel. The man, often described as a Canadian filmmaker, is known for only two things. Documentaries about gays. And hating Israel.

Canadian filmmaker John Greyson, the director of four episodes of Queer as Folk, the 1989 movie Urinal (original title Pissoir) a mystery involving gay sex in a bathroom, and a bunch of pseudo-documentaries about how gay men are oppressed in Russia, Serbia and South Africa, doesn’t seem to realize that they’re not exactly all that popular in Hamas-run Gaza.

Member of Queers Against Israel Arrested by Egypt Before Trying to Cross into Hamas Gaza


An Australian baseball player was shot by three ghetto thugs who were bored. So Piers Morgan has already begun shrieking about gun control.

Actually, as I wrote in the past, America doesn’t have a gun problem. It has a gang problem. So does Australia. That’s why the Sydney Morning Herald is declaring it the Year of the Gun in Sydney.

Australia Suffering from Drive By Shootings, Piers Morgan Claims Gun Control Works


Advertisers have no motivation to climb on board the Al Jazeera train considering that its viewing audience consists of people who think MSNBC is too right wing or that you can’t get the truth from American news networks because they’re controlled by the Illuminati.

Advertising is about brand identity. Advertising on CNN associates your product with its brand. Advertising on Al Jazeera associates your brand with the news network best known for airing Bin Laden’s Greatest Hits.

Al Jazeera Can’t Find Advertisers for its US Propaganda Channel


This article by Annika Hernroth-Rothstein about Jewish life in Sweden is getting a lot of attention. But it's not really limited to Sweden, but it's true in much of Europe, and has been for decades.

The only new development is Muslim immigration. 

In Sweden kosher butchering was outlawed in 1937 and has been illegal ever since. The threat is not a threat but a reality—for me as, on a much graver scale, it had been for my grandparents, forced into hiding in a Sweden silently collaborating with the Nazis throughout the world war. The next threat on the horizon is a ban on even importing kosher products, compelling me and many of my friends to smuggle kosher meat from Israel on our return trips from that land.

By contrast, hallal slaughter is not banned in Sweden. My government, when asked about the disparity, replies that the methods of slaughter in Judaism are uniquely barbaric.

That's a lie, of course. Halal is loosely similar to Kosher because Islam raided Judaism and Christianity for practices and beliefs and stories to pad out its warlord religion.

But no one is going to ban Halal.

In your essay you mention that Jewish religious and cultural activities in Western Europe are everywhere on the rise. This, too, is not my reality. What I see is that the Holocaust wing at the Jewish Museum is crowded with visitors, while the synagogues are empty. I see cute Woody Allen-ish activities being promoted, and actual Jewish life being banned. The dead, suffering Jew is glorified; the healthy, active Jew is vilified.


We in Sweden are still here, but we are feeling lonely and forgotten. We want a strong Jewish community in the Diaspora. We want to live. We are fighting every day against the pressure to turn us into plaques on the wall of former synagogues or into exhibits in guilt-wallowing museums. We need the help of our kinsmen.

Unfortunately some of this applies to Jewish life under the left in the United States as well.

The same rot is festering in liberal Judaism. Even in Modern Orthodoxy, into which the left has been successfully creeping. Orthodox Judaism as a whole is thriving, but the left has slowly begun turning its malignant attention to it.


Also there’s a car that travels 62 miles on half a gallon of gas. And everyone gets a house. Also French Islam and Police 3.0. How can you say Pas?  Five year plan? Nah. Try five hundred year plan. Just raise taxes on the rich, make a wish and it will all come true.

What a pleasant step it is to live in the heart of Islam under Police State 3.0 in Green public housing. It’s a Eutopia. Please ignore the beheadings.

French Socialist Gov Envisions Full Employment, French Islam, Police 3.0 and No Red Tape by 2025


To recap the Arab Spring Secret Jew Front, everyone from Assad to Mubarak to Gaddafi to Ahmadinejad were accused of really being Jews. Because that is how politics in the Muslim world works.

Now it’s General Al-Sisi’s turn to be accused of being a secret Jew.

Following are excerpts from a statement made by Gamal Nassar, former media secretary to the General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, which aired on the Al-Jazeera network on August 17, 2013.

Gamal Nassar: I was trying to figure out Al-Sisi’s origins. I wanted to know more about him. I was surprised to learn, from the Algerian Al-Watan newspaper, that Al-Sisi is of Jewish origin. His mother is called Mulaika Titani, and her brother was a member of the Jewish Haganah organization. Thus, we see that this man, by any standard, is implementing a Zionist plan to divide Egypt.

But that’s okay. Because it turns out that Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was also a Secret Jew (TM).

Al-Hashem told Al-Watan-Kuwait that the Brotherhood has a plan to deploy this poison in the Gulf, and he claims that Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, was really a Moroccan immigrant of Jewish descent! According to al-Hashem, al-Banna really meant the “Jewish brotherhood” when he founded the organization.

Muslim Brotherhood Takes the High Road, Accuses General Al-Sisi of Being a Secret Jew

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Who Needs a Democratic Egypt?

By On August 21, 2013
In the big marble halls of Washington, in the slow ambling pace of summer cocktail parties where veterans of the political establishment still shake their heads at the fall of the Graham dynasty and the sale of the Post to a parvenu dot comer, the second favorite topic of conversation is how to make Egypt fall into line.

All the cocktail party guests, the senators, their aides, the editors and editorial writers, the heads of foreign affairs think-tanks and generals angling for a lobbying gig with a firm that just might want to move some big ugly steel down Egypt way once all the shouting dies down, haven’t had much luck.

Or as the New York Times, the paper that has displaced the Washington Post as the foreign affairs leak hole of the administration, put it, “all of the efforts of the United States government, all the cajoling, the veiled threats, the high-level envoys from Washington and the 17 personal phone calls by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, failed.”

And all the community organizer’s horses and his men couldn’t put the Muslim Brotherhood back together again.

Not even 17 personal phone calls from a man who couldn’t get through his confirmation sessions without becoming a national laughingstock accomplished anything.

Washington isn’t giving up, but its foreign aid card has just been neutralized by the Saudis who have offered to make up any aid that it cuts. And unlike Israel, Egypt isn’t vulnerable to threat of being isolated. Not with a sizable number of the Gulf oil countries at its back and the Russians and Chinese eager to jump in with defense contracts.

Instead of asking how to make the Egyptians do what Washington wants, it might be time for the cocktail party goers to ask what they really want from Egypt and what they really need from Egypt.

The two aren’t actually the same.

We may want Egypt to be democratic, because it fits our notions of how countries should work, but that isn’t something that we actually need.

The editorial writers and foreign policy experts who never got beyond the expat bars of Cairo will try to blame Egypt’s lack of democracy for our terrorism problem, and Obama and McCain may even echo their idiocy, but just like the attempts to blame Israel for Islamic terrorism, it’s not a policy, it’s a hollow apologetic for terrorism.

If anything, Egypt’s original unwillingness to bow to the Brotherhood nearly redirected Al Qaeda away from its war against America as the Egyptian faction sought to fight an internal war of the kind that Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria are now fighting.

Bin Laden chose to go to war against America, but Al Qaeda very nearly missed being something more like an international version of The Islamic Group focused on bombing Egyptian targets; in which case September 11 would have never happened. It may still become that, if its current focus on civil wars is any indication.

The overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood will no doubt inspire some future Rage Boys to join the ranks of some terrorist group somewhere. But so would just about anything. Terrorists will seize on anything for propaganda and when they don’t have actual events to work with, they make them up. And then they blame America for them.

The Islamist consensus is that America overthrew Morsi even though Washington’s worst and dumbest are tearing out their toupees trying to figure out how to get the Muslim Brotherhood back into power. That consensus isn’t there because of anything that Obama, Kerry, Clinton or Hagel did with his 17 personal phone calls. It’s there because Islamists need us to be the enemy. The endless conspiracies that they claim we carry out against them give their pathetic existence and murderous campaigns meaning.

Given a choice between a militaristic Egypt that helps us fight terrorism and a democratic Egypt that is run by Islamists who collaborate with terrorists, putting our political capital into the Islamists in the hopes that they’ll convince the terrorists that the ballot box is mightier than the truck bomb is suicidal insanity.

We need a democratic Egypt about as much as we need sensitivity training from Mayor Filner. A democratic Egypt is unstable, vulnerable and unfriendly. And those are just its good sides.

Our first hint that democracy wouldn’t turn Egyptians into Americans should have been the polls showing that the majority of Egyptians favored the death penalty for adultery and blasphemy. There was no way that such an electorate was going to produce some Egyptian counterpart of America. At least not until we invite in a few hundred million Somalis, Pakistanis and Egyptians to enrich our diversity.

Of the four major players in Egypt, three are fundamentally undemocratic, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian military and the Egyptian elites of officialdom, often mischaracterized as Mubarak loyalists though they have as much loyalty to him as Obama does, and one lightly sprinkled with democracy, the liberals and the left. And that sprinkling is very light indeed.

With an electorate whose idea of democracy is indistinguishable from Islamic law and a political elite that is undemocratic even when it participates in democratic elections, what reason was there for believing that overlaying democracy on them would lead to democratic values, rather than just democratic functions?

Now two undemocratic players and one lightly democratic player ganged up on a ruling undemocratic player. We can call the whole thing a coup or a candy store; it doesn’t matter much.

The process that removed Morsi was similar to the one that removed Mubarak. The same senators abandoning their cocktail parties to demand an end to foreign aid for Egypt because of the C word, were celebrating the same C word that took down Mubarak.

The difference, they will argue, is that Morsi was democratically elected. But so was Mubarak in 2005. But, they will say, Mubarak’s election was not truly democratic, it was marred by all sorts of electoral irregularities and other shady beasts of the ballot box. And they will say that Mubarak acted like a tyrant. But the same was true of Morsi’s election. And Morsi did act like a tyrant.

The coup position is reduced to arguing that the overthrow of one elected leader by popular protests and the military was a very good thing while the overthrow of another by the same means was a bad thing because one election was somewhat cleaner than the other on a scale from Chicago to Detroit.

Never mind that the first leader was an ally of the United States and that the other was its enemy.

Is the gram’s worth of difference in democracy that we’re fighting for really worth undermining our national security?

I’ve met lawyers who have told me that they would have defended Hitler pro bono because of the principle of the thing. I’ve never entirely understood why the principle of this thing trumps genocide. The application of the pro bono Hitler lawyer clause to the Muslim Brotherhood’s democracy seems even more dubious. And I have a healthy suspicion of people who too eagerly volunteer to be Hitler's lawyer or the Muslim Brotherhood's press agent for the principle of the thing.

Are we really obligated to vigorously defend the Muslim Brotherhood’s right to take over a country because the election that allowed it to come to power and begin attempting to seize absolute power wasn’t as dirty as the last election? Does the principle that democracy should be implemented here, there and everywhere, even if it leads to a terrorist group taking over the most powerful country in the region, really trump our national security?

And if so, why? Why have we volunteered to be the Muslim Brotherhood’s pro bono democracy lawyer?

The Arab Spring has thoroughly discredited the idea that spreading democracy enhances regional stability and protects our national security. We would have more luck promoting vital national interests by spreading viral goat yelling video memes than by bludgeoning other countries into having elections.

We don’t need a democratic Egypt. Even Egypt doesn’t need a democratic Egypt. What we need is an Egypt that is stable and not too excessively sympathetic to our enemies. And the best way to get that is to leave it alone.

Egypt isn’t a problem. It doesn’t need the cocktail crowd of Washington to fix it. It has plenty of problems, but the same crowd that is incapable of fixing its own economy or a broken toilet, is not in any shape to deal with those problems either.

The United States needs allies. It doesn’t need to treat other countries like children who have to be taught the right way. That same arrogant attitude has destroyed the cultures of our own cities. Treating other countries the way we treat our own people will only do for them what it did for Detroit.

Our ideal allies are countries that manage their own affairs, agree with us on some issues that matter to our economic interests and national security and aren’t actively trying to kill us.

That’s a high bar to set in the Middle East and it got a lot higher after the Arab Spring trashed the few countries that qualified. Egypt may now be tipping back into the camp of the countries that don’t want to kill us, assuming they get over wanting to kill us for trying to get the Muslim Brotherhood back into power by hook or by crook.

We’ll never be very good friends. A deep and meaningful friendship with a population that believes in chopping the hands off thieves and stoning everyone else was never in the cards. But most alliances aren’t built on enduring love or even mutual affection.

They’re built on something better. Cynical pragmatism.

We had a wonderfully pragmatic and lovingly cynical relationship with Egypt. If Chuck Hagel stops making 17 personal phone calls every hour telling the Egyptian government how not to shoot Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, maybe one day we’ll have a cynically pragmatic relationship with Egypt again.


Blog Archive