The New Terrapin Gazette

Number 275
30 October, 2012

We need the government to be afraid of its citizens. We want our rulers to think carefully about what they try to take from us. We need to remember that they can only take from us what we give them.

Wrong, Wrong, And Wrong Yet Again

For a textbook example of three cardinal sins practiced by collectivist True Believers, you can’t find a better specific example than the misbehavior of the current Secretary of State of the USA. First, she has little if any regard for freedom of speech; second, she is more than willing to lie; and third, she is eager to abuse the jurisprudential system to prop up her censorious deceit.

Those are serious charges. Proof is available.

When a crackpot made a film depicting the fake prophet Mohamed, an offense against Muslim sensibilities was committed. According to Hillary, this violation of sharia was illegal under US law. Now it does not take a genius to see that there is no statute that proscribes criticism of any faith or of religion itself; US law has long recognized that the government is not permitted to license criticism. The existence of slander and libel laws in no way refutes this fact.

If you do not understand that, or if you dispute it, you are not party to the foundational values of the nation.

The public record indicates that Hillary and Obama both lied about the attack on the US extraterritorial facility in Libya. Of course politicians are used to being caught in false statements, and their glib attempts at misdirection and denial are by now reflexive. The response is usually that accusations of deceit are just misunderstandings that can be ignored once the matter has been clarified.

Judge for yourself. Here are sources that shed light on the question.

Obama speaks, and ducks the real question. There is more here.

The US Navy begins trying to cover its stern.

A father grieves, Hillary rejects freedom of speech/press. More, yet more, still more, and finally this. Next you have very recent news and commentary that should not be ignored simply because its source is not ideologically aligned with the mainstream media. Finally, a McGovern Democrat angrily savages Team Obama as liars and rascals.

Now of course because the Obama administration looks utterly incompetent, uncaring, dismissive of constitutionally guaranteed rights and idiotic to boot, the NY Times will lead the pack of lapdog media trying to portray the mess as just a slight slip twixt cup and lip. Examples: e-mails, another look, “it’s all murky“, and the facts get redacted. A similar effort was made by Media Matters, of course. Then there’s the hard-core collectivist organization Think Progress, which has been trying to portray events to the benefit of Team Obama; here’s an early effort that exonerates The One and tosses the GOP into the dumpster. Deciding who’s right is at the very least a matter of interpretation and nuance, eh?

As the truth comes out, a bizarre atmosphere emerges: one, two, three, Hillary’s hilarity, Biden the buffoon blunders again, Hillary dodges and snipes, and commentary heats up.

Look, Pilgrims — the folks killed in Benghazi deserved some help that did not arrive, and the messages from State and the White House were never as principled and clear as would have been ideal. It’s no wonder people are upset; trying to paint The Powers That Be as effective, efficient and principled is not terribly convincing. A lot went wrong and stayed wrong for a long time. Finally, nobody who performed poorly in the crisis deserves a pass because he accuses his critics of playing politics with the disaster. That’s what politics is for: leadership must be held to account. Those who debate the propriety and effectiveness of policy are not immoral to do so.

Now read the next item to see how the honest dispute over a bad outcome has resulted in an alarming threat to Liberty.

Constitutional Freedoms Prostituted By Members Of The Nation’s Ruling Elite

Simple truth is called for: the following quoted assertions (from this newspaper) are bullshit.

Regarding the silly video that has enraged some Muslims, the claim is made that it

…denigrates the religion by depicting the faith’s founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers. …indirectly and inadvertently inflamed people half a world away….

This from a female who claims, “If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!” which is what she says she is. “The ‘free speech’ in Bacile’s film is not about expressing a personal opinion about Islam.” Note the use of quotes, as if the film were not somehow an instance of genuine free speech (whatever in the world genuine free speech might be, and whatever in the world fake free speech might be). She goes on:

While the First Amendment right to free expression is important, it is also important to remember that other countries and cultures do not have to understand or respect our right.

So because of some aliens’ failure to understand and respect our laws, the USA is to be forced to alter the content and enforcement of its legal code. The purpose of that alteration is to bring US practices into harmony with the sorts of laws that were utterly rejected when the Republic was founded.

Do US citizens not know the ethics expressed in the Bill of Rights to be essential to decent government? Do they believe that free expression is just “important” — or do they know it is fundamental and must never be compromised?

After all, why must repression and moral ignorance trump the genius of Western Civilization?

Pause a moment, Pilgrims, and consider those words.

Then consider that no less a dignitary than Hillary is telling us that videographer must be, will be arrested and tried for having upset some people.

Finally, note again that the individual supporting this proposed star chamber process proudly proclaims herself a professor. The implications of that should be sobering. Reality has come calling….

If there is a lesson to be learned from this, it may just be that collectivists, and collectivist politicians/educators in particular, hate and fear Liberty. They instinctively realize the central importance of control to their ideology. They know they must control the flow and content of information, and determine the fundamental assumptions of discourse. Unless they can shape the perceptions of reality to suit their purposes, the polity will remain off the leash.

For collectivists, group action is fundamental; this is usually referred to as solidarity. The freedom to consider whether to obey political leaders threatens solidarity. That makes freedom to consider, discuss, debate, refute, and object to the policies of the ruling class inconvenient…to the ruling class. The authoritarian urge to repress free speech and control communication is the defensive reaction of a worried elite.

That authoritarian impulse is nowhere stronger than on the political left, a fact that Adorno — one of the stalwarts of the Frankfurt School of Marxist thought — would bitterly dispute. Herbert Marcuse, another leading light of the Frankfurt School, denied that opponents of Marxism can be granted freedom of speech and press.

The USA’s constitution makes clear that unfettered speech and press are not privileges to be dispensed or withheld. Anyone in the United States of America who disagrees with that ethical principle should decamp.

Afterword: one might naturally wonder how well Hillary and Petraeus, the head of the CIA, get along. Do they communicate, and if so, is that exchange of information as productive and useful as it should be? Petraeus is, after all, the man to whom Hillary once said that she thought he was making stuff up as he testified to Congress — his words required, as she put it, “a willing suspension of disbelief.” That insult might be hard to forget. Of course the world will never know its full implications, if any. More’s the pity.

Catching Jihadis Before They Kill…In The USA

Did you know that since September 11, 2001, US law enforcement has prevented fifty-three Islamist would-be mass murderers from carrying out their plans? And were you aware of the fact that the New York police include some one thousand officers laboring on what is called “counterterrorism”?

Four things make those figures important. First, they are accurate. Second, the authorities are successful, thank goodness. Third, everyone should realize that Muslims have not stopped trying, and show no signs of backing off. That point needs to be emphasized, but the media do not agree. Fourth, there is opposition to how the cops are proceeding in order to protect the citizenry.

That’s right. There are folks who wish to reduce the effectiveness of efforts to prevent Muslim mass murder. The opponents of rational “anti-terrorism” claim that would-be killers are being entrapped rather than arrested for what they have done.

(Pause for clarification: why are there quotes around anti-terrorism and counterterrorism? Because the terms are misleading, and should be distinguished as fake. The law enforcement effort is not to prevent terror, but to prevent homicide, especially multiple homicides. Don’t soften the fact that a death cult lusts to kill you and your family. Politically correct euphemisms have no place in an honest discussion of Muslim efforts to destroy Western Civilization.)

Now genuine entrapment is a very dirty trick. It means encouraging someone who does not wish to be a criminal to commit a breach of the law. If a cop prompts a teenager to buy drugs for the first time, that’s entrapment; when the cop buys drugs from a known dealer, that’s not entrapment. (Yes, it gets complicated, because lawyers are involved. Details here and resulting from a Google search.)

When a Muslim enters the USA and starts asking around, trying to find someone who can help him blow himself up along with a few hundred infidels, he’s a pristine volunteer. If the FBI spots the suicidal fanatic, engages him, gives him a fake bomb, and makes a video of him trying to set it off, entrapment can’t be an issue.

Who, then, would be critical of catching the Bad Guys before they achieved their preconceived goal of killing lots and lots of people? See what the NY Times has to say, and then compare that to a column in the Wall Street Journal.

Well. Evidently capitalists love the idea of tricking harmless, idealistic Muslims into sending themselves to undeserved punishment, while the Gray Lady damns the cops as bigoted Islamophobic fascists. Or…? You decide.

No Media Bias?

Media Matters (call the outfit MM for short, all right?) does its best to document its insistence that journalism in the USA is not biased toward collectivist authoritarianism. Chris Matthews is quoted as fawning over George W. Bush, and other journalists are cited as helping to prove the point that reporters are seduced by and cater to power, not political orientation. By all means, read the post — it’s repetitious, but that’s to be expected when one is trying to prove a point about media attitudes.

 

Is MM correct? The selected quotes do seem to support the view that political bias in journalism is virtually absent, but the discerning reader will note that the examples chosen all focus on the immediate reaction of the media to one brief event in W’s presidency — a singular moment that later came in for scathing mockery and scorn (remember “Chimpy McFlightsuit”?). In fact, as the weeks went by, W was damned for doing something that at the time had the media babbling with effusive admiration of his skill at creating a photo opportunity.That’s important, so make a mental note of it, and then consider the main point MM is trying to make: that journalists in general are neither Democrats nor Republicans when it comes to reporting; they simply love covering powerful people.

Now W was in power for eight years, but the “power” MM notes in its analysis — W’s ability to mesmerize the media — was ephemeral in the extreme. For most of his presidency, he was bitterly opposed by the media.

What happened? How to understand MM’s analysis?

It’s not complicated, and one can see that MM is both right and wrong. In fact the media gasped at W’s Riefenstahlesque moment when it was played out, and then vivisected the politically incorrect politician for having stage-managed and crafted it.

The media do that with all politicians. The journalists love a good show, and resonate to it — but no longer than necessary. When the curtain falls, the bias reasserts itself, and control of the message is once again the paramount concern.

Ultimately, the journalists judge a public figure by his ideology — which is clarified by the nature of the changes he would like to make in the political sphere.Were it otherwise, Obama would have suffered mightily for that grotesque, pretentious-to-the-point-of-embarrassingly-silly Greco-Roman Styrofoam backdrop for his inauguration.

Links

“…Hurricane Sandy has a structure like no other storm we’ve seen….” Source.

Massive election fraud will prove uncontrollable in the coming presidential election. What appears to be rational reporting on the issue is available. Fact: the average person has no idea how elections can be stolen, so this information is immensely important.

April Fool! — Huh? Oh, sorry. Well, the report can’t be real…can it?

“New York could face the most intense storm in its history.”

Here’s a tip for folks who use a lot of AA batteries.

Britain employs fascist police thuggery to repress and suppress free speech. The beneficiary: colonial Islam. And as for British attitudes toward Israel, well, “…irrationality and bigotry have gone mainstream in Britain” says this estimable lady. This is all very bad news indeed.

Mexico, Mormons, Murder, and Mitt: this is an excellent documentary. Highest recommendation.

Have you heard about this murder? “The Belgian prosecutor’s office said last night that there was a ‘judicial instruction’ from Martine Quintin, the investigating judge, that meant they could give no ‘explanation’ and no detail about the killing. ‘This is usual in such a serious murder investigation,’ a spokesman said.” Doubtless conspiracy theorists will be fascinated, and there may always be the suspicion that the circumstances and consequences of the crime are not as described.

Oh, for crying out loud…. what a disgrace. Does it remind you of anything? The use of children for propaganda purposes is reprehensible, and those who can’t grasp that ethical truth do not merit the trust of the citizenry.

Related: first there was a sappy political advertisement that indicated Team Obama neither understands nor respects the electorate. Then came a number of responses (here’s one). The campaign has become surreal…it can’t end quickly enough.

More parody of goofy obsessions and irrationality: combating AGW involves no pressure, now does it?

If you begin with the ignorant assumption that anthropogenic global warming is a fact and follow up by accepting most of the hints that presents, your sanity is at genuine risk. Radical environmentalism is, in other words, self-limiting: most people are simply too rational to agree to bizarre “green” strictures.

The Truth Is Invariant

You may want to give this antique a pass, which is why it comes at the end of this Number. It’s commentary from March of 2008, and, given recent unhappy events, it might be of interest today.

The Concept Of The Moderate Muslim

The thesis is that Islam is basically a religion of peace, and that “extremists” and “radicals” constitute the core of the violent Islamofascist movement. The solution to the problem is “moderate” Islam. One of the major exponents of this thesis is Daniel Pipes.

There are a few problems with this contention.

Islam is a religion of conflict and conquest; peace is only for relationships between Muslims. The Koran repeatedly emphasizes the divine imperative that requires Muslims to fight infidels, even when the non-believers are in the majority. The goal is the conversion or death of all who are not Muslims, with one exception: Christians and Jews may be reduced to dhimmitude, a taxed and restricted subjugation.

In this permanent war to impose Islam on all humanity, a special category of enemies exists: those who practice the Hindu and Buddhist religions. The Koran states precisely (2:190) that “Idolatry is worse than carnage.” Simply being a Hindu or Buddhist carries an automatic death sentence.

Muslims who do not believe that the Koran is the explicit, inerrant word of the Creator risk the serious charge of apostasy, which is punished with death. Those who pick and choose, ignoring some passages in the holy word, risk everything. We have to ask, therefore, whether “moderate Muslim” is a contradiction in terms.

Indeed. The huge flaw in the idea that “moderate Muslims” will reform Islam is in the slippery definition of the word “moderate.”

In the West, a moderate Christian overlooks the ancient Biblical laws that tolerate slavery and mandate the death penalty for adultery. He can consider homosexuality a condition with no ethical or religious implications, and he probably opposes the teaching of “creation science” as an acceptable alternative to evolution.

But most importantly, when strict “Bible-believing” activists preach hate, the Western moderate believer opposes them bitterly. He rejects not just their criminal behavior, but their literal interpretation of Biblical text. He speaks out; he advocates his moderation.

Islam has no moderate community comparable to that found in Christianity (where, recall, Presbyterians are not killing Methodists, and Baptists do not fear Lutherans). In fact, sects of Islam are still waging a war against each other, when and where they can. When author Salman Rushdie was condemned to death because he had written a work of fiction, Muslims everywhere either remained silent or loudly backed the insanity.

Clearly, to be a “moderate” in the West is to be something very distinct from what the West considers a Muslim “moderate.” Apologists for Islam call any Muslim who is not building bombs or training as a sniper a “moderate.” In Islam, “moderates” do nothing; in the West, moderates promote their agendas. If you don’t notice that distinction, you will almost certainly skip right past the fact that Islam is today roughly where Christianity was in that most wretched of times, the fourteenth century.

The West mistakenly perceives some Muslims as “moderate” (Pakistani immigrants to Great Britain, for example) and therefore harmless, yet the children of these “moderates” often grow up to be dangerous. The reason? Their parents taught them to believe that the Koran is God’s instructions to mankind.

We must face simple truth: the Koran is not at all a moderate document, and anyone who is willing to accept it in toto as inerrant cannot properly be called a moderate. Islam is by explicit, precise self-definition a death cult.

In fact Islam no more deserves consideration as a religion to be tolerated than German National Socialism (Nazism) deserves consideration as a tolerable alternative political philosophy. Each mass movement has thoroughly discredited itself by carrying out a plethora of heinous acts and by preaching hate that confounds the understanding of decent men. The Nazis never reformed themselves, nor have more than an insignificant number of today’s Muslims managed that transformation.

Yet Islam rates a pass, because it claims to be a religion. It is most certainly a faith — that is, a belief system that ignores reason and evidence. That faith is not characterized merely by preposterous claims and commandments; among the most popular belief-systems on the globe, only Islam remains ethically unevolved.

Islam is today roughly where Christianity was six centuries ago. It seems highly unlikely that Islam can somehow grow up in less than several hundred years. The faith has multiple inherent protective prohibitions that encourage stasis. True moderates, in other words, will still be an infinitesimal, endangered minority in Islam long after all of us are dead.

The question, then, is what the West should and can do to encourage the evolution of Islam while discouraging the violence that naturally springs from the faith.

The answers are obvious:

1. Effective military and police action must be taken against violent Muslims. The West must prove repeatedly to the Muslim world that there is no hope of defeating the infidels in battles great and small.

2. Liberty must be upheld within the West. When Muslims protest the “offenses” against their faith, as they do when cartoons of Mohamed the charlatan are published, their objections must meet with trenchant responses. That would, in the cartoon case, require an expanded publication of the offending drawings. The cure for objections to Liberty is a greater exercise of Liberty.

3. The West must be preserved, which means Muslim immigration must be halted. If Muslims are allowed to become politically significant, they will undermine the Liberty of their hosts. The Muslim demographic weapon must not be permitted to emerge.

These measures can be employed, and to some extent will be. The final measure that should be on this list will not be imposed, and therefore must be left off. That is the refusal to permit Islam to function within the West as a true religion.

Islam’s international attempt to extinguish Liberty can be countered militarily. The domestic threat to Western Civilization may prove more difficult to deal with, for it is the deadly combination of Islamic belief coupled with the policy that permitted any Muslims at all to relocate in the West.

That policy emerged in spite of the unambiguous nature of the Koran. The West has knowingly clasped an asp to its bosom. A dissenting view is provided by Michael Totten, a man who knows the Arab and Muslim worlds well. Quotes (but do read all of Totten’s article):

Some of the 93 percent supermajority support militia parties such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the West Bank’s Fatah. So while they may be religious moderates, they certainly aren’t politically moderate. I’m less inclined…to give the remaining Muslims — aside from secular terror-supporters — too hard a time. I work in the Middle East, and I used to live there. I meet moderate Muslims every day who detest al Qaeda and their non-violent Wahhabi counterparts. I know they’re the overwhelming majority, and a significant number are hardly inert in the face of fascists.Every suicide and car bomber in Iraq gets at least a passing mention in newspapers all over the world while far fewer reporters have ever told their readers about the extraordinary anti-jihadist convulsion that swept the entire populations of Fallujah and Ramadi last year.

…the moderate Muslims of countries such as Turkey, Kazakhstan, Mali, and Oman have few resident radicals to stand up against.

There certainly were radicals in Algeria. 150,000 people were killed there during the Salafist insurgency during the 1990s, and the government, military, police, and civilian watch groups have since all but annihilated the jihadists.

The world could use more moderate Muslims who push back hard against the Islamists, but huge numbers already do wherever it is necessary and possible. So far with the exception of Gaza, mainstream Muslims everywhere in the world risk arrest, torture, and death while resisting Islamist governments and insurgencies whenever they arise.

These quotes, and the view they represent, deserve serious consideration — and comment.

Certainly diversity exists in the Muslim world, but there are limits. For example, exactly what Totten means by Muslims who are “secular terror supporters” is unclear, since the concept of a “secular Muslim” is as much an oxymoron as that of a “married bachelor.” That surely exceeds the limit to which diversity can be stretched!

Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, and a significant number want to see violence reduced or at least kept away from them. These folks are more concerned about everyday life and less concerned with Koranic scholarship or activism. No one should be surprised by this. The problem is the textual material that has divine sanction, and remains an immutable influence in every Muslim community, no matter how peaceful. Those holy words are the seeds of mass murder.

It must also be recalled that Muslims have a rich tradition of intra-Islamic violence; they fight each other as viciously as they fight infidels. Why is it surprising, therefore, when a Muslim shopkeeper is enraged by Muslim bombers who destroy his store and murder his children? Of course he will react with outrage and probably violence. That says nothing about how he views infidels, or how his relatives rear their children. The Muslim community’s struggle with thugs should not deceive us into accepting the Koran as somehow a decent document, or the faith of Islam as anything more than a death cult.

Whenever we see the women and children of a Thai Muslim village form a human wall between the police and the people who are torturing to death some female (Thai Buddhist) schoolteachers, we are reminded that Islam is a monster — sometimes a sleeping monster, but always and everywhere a monster.

As the PenPo’s predecessor said over two and a half years ago…

A common understanding of tragic events in the USA, Britain, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other nations tells us that Muslims have risen in vengeful anger. Determined to assert its values, Islam has woken from a centuries-long slumber and reached for its sword. The West, lulled into complacency by Islamic inactivity, has been caught off guard. Islam is resurgent.

A more sophisticated view is that the great majority of peaceful, tolerant Muslims harbor within their millions a tiny number of fanatics. Islam is not so much resurgent as host to dangerous lunatics. Eventually, as Daniel Pipes and Thomas Barnett insist, moderate Islam will calm extremist Islam. The war on terrorism is, therefore, part patience and part military action. There is nothing intrinsically hostile about Islam, so in a presumably short time, peaceful coexistence will be restored.

These views both impose fiction on fact. They are plausible fantasies that ignore the origin and nature of the danger.

In truth, Islam is not resurgent; the faith has not opened its eyes and decided to smite its enemies. While international anti-USA, anticapitalist politics and pan-Islamic unification movements do play roles in the drama, they are not primal causes that underlie all events, and an understanding of them provides few insights. The Islamofascist phenomenon actually actually derives most of its strength from circumstances beyond its purview.

The aetiological but unrecognized fact is that Western Civilization has invited its ancient blood enemy to attack. The West’s invitation is a flamboyant display of incompetence, fading strength, collapse of confidence and absence of resolve. Islam is not so much challenging the West as being drawn into a cultural vacuum.

If you would understand the motivations and aspirations of the Islamofascists, you must begin with the Koran. This enduring testament to tyranny describes precisely what Islam is, what it wants, and why it has the will to triumph.

The West makes several egregious errors in its interpretation of the Koran. As we suggest above, its first error is in the assumption that Islamic understanding of the inspiration found in the Koran has evolved. On the contrary: the Koran says what it says, and it means what it says. All Muslims accept this. None, even the most moderate and Westernized, dare dispute it.

Almost aflame still you don’t feel the heat
Takes all you got just to stay on the beat
You say it’s a living, we all gotta eat
but you’re here alone there’s no one to compete
If mercy’s in business I wish it for you
More than just ashes when your dreams come true

The masthead includes a quote from the works of Penn Jillette.

The staff of The New Terrapin Gazette expresses its sincere gratitude to the many people who have gifted the world with Fedora Linux, Emacs, and Firefox.

Publisher: The Eagle Wing Palace of The Queen Chinee.