Day: December 2, 2017

Benign Violation Theory: An Explanation for 'Pocahontas' Outrage


When I was six years old and my brother was eight, each of us was given a quarter to spend in a candy store before seeing a movie.  I thought my quarter was a fortune, but not so my brother.  The third-grader was unhappy with the quantity of popcorn he could get for his coin and complained to the shopkeeper.  The impatient shopkeeper asked my brother, “What do you want for 25 cents, the Brooklyn Bridge?”  My brother said, “Yeah, ya got any in stock?”

This exchange happened in the late 1950s on Staten Island.  The TV show Impractical Jokers is also a creation of Staten Islanders: four guys who stage embarrassing hidden camera pranks around New York City.  It is no coincidence that this show features New Yorkers pulling weird, sometimes humiliating and disgusting pranks on other New Yorkers.  It’s the only place they could get away with it.  Humor, sarcasm, laughing at yourself and others, acerbic name-calling, and “ranking out” are essential coping mechanisms for life in New York – especially so for the mensches, the real people in the streets, stores, and neighborhoods.

New Yorkers have what psychologists call a large capacity for benign violation.  In other words, they can take it, and they can dish it out, too.  When the New Insensitive Male in the White House calls the identity-hoaxer Senator Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” – punctuated by adding that the only apology he makes is to the real Pocahontas for comparing her to goofy Liz – Trump is being an archetypal guy from Queens. He is deploying humorous mockery, a powerful coping mechanism in conflict situations, which, like my brother, he learned to use as a child.

President Trump is liberating Americans from the mental prison of political correctness and allowing them to laugh again.  But the sourpuss left wing doesn’t get the joke.  On the contrary, left-wing media are all panty-wadded about Trump’s Pocahontas jibe, and of course, they are wailing about racism.  Senator Warren herself wrote that Trump showed “the very worst of gutter politics.”  The senator thinks nothing in politics could be worse than her being called a sarcastic name?  She must consider herself a supremely important person.

Psychologists have advanced many theories to understand the dynamics of humor and what makes people laugh.  Benign violation theory is a recent addition to this literature by Caleb Warren and A. Peter McGraw.  It is particularly robust in explaining why many people find Trump’s Pocahontas moniker amusing while others are greatly offended.  Benign violation theory posits that humor is experienced when a circumstance is simultaneously perceived as a violation but also as being benign.  Most violations do not amuse, but a violation that is perceived as OK, acceptable, or safe produces amusement and laughter.  The theory explains that major forms of humor such as puns, sarcasm, punch lines, practical jokes, slapstick, and horseplay make people laugh because they involve violations of linguistic, physical, or cultural conventions (“Take my wife – no, please, take her.”) yet at the same time are benign and therefore acceptable to the recipient of the humorous attempt.

Because sarcasm involves saying one thing but meaning the opposite, it violates conversational norms of meaning.  When it is perceived as safe, such as the proverbial sale of the Brooklyn bridge, it can be funny.  Trump gives Senator Warren the name of a Powhatan Indian princess who died in 1617 because he believes that the senator is not an American Indian as she has claimed to be.  The senator and others of the far left not only don’t find the sarcasm amusing, but splutter that it is a racist outrage.  BVT theory neatly accounts for this: “Sarcasm isn’t funny to people who don’t detect the speaker’s true intention.  Nor is it funny to people who don’t approve of the speaker’s true intention.”

The left wing strongly disapproves of the president’s intention to call out Senator Warren’s hoax.  This is because classical liberalism is gone, replaced by dogma focused on oppressions of the distant past and sustained by bitter delusions that seek the worst in the human heart – politics founded upon the purported original and eternal sin of American white racism.  The priestcraft of the cult that replaced liberalism is driven by an obsessive search for innovative examples of white racism to confirm itself, enlarging upon loony white privilege theory and sniffing around every sombrero for signs of “cultural appropriation.”  This season’s fashion-forward term on the bigotry runways is “white supremacy.”  Regarding the knee-jerk outrage at the president’s jokes, blind dogmatists are not known for their sense of humor.

Trump’s humor will prevail against the left’s addiction to racism-spotting because his sarcasm is benign to people who love America as she is.  Calling Warren Pocahontas resonates with the wish of Americans for the restoration of a meritocracy and equal opportunity in academia.  In her (unsuccessful) outrage, Senator Warren is hoping that people who really are of American Indian ancestry will continue to burn in the long banked fires of historic victimization.  But she is also stoking a non-benign attitude toward America.  Leftists can’t laugh at themselves or anything else anymore, and everybody needs a good laugh sometimes.

When I was six years old and my brother was eight, each of us was given a quarter to spend in a candy store before seeing a movie.  I thought my quarter was a fortune, but not so my brother.  The third-grader was unhappy with the quantity of popcorn he could get for his coin and complained to the shopkeeper.  The impatient shopkeeper asked my brother, “What do you want for 25 cents, the Brooklyn Bridge?”  My brother said, “Yeah, ya got any in stock?”

This exchange happened in the late 1950s on Staten Island.  The TV show Impractical Jokers is also a creation of Staten Islanders: four guys who stage embarrassing hidden camera pranks around New York City.  It is no coincidence that this show features New Yorkers pulling weird, sometimes humiliating and disgusting pranks on other New Yorkers.  It’s the only place they could get away with it.  Humor, sarcasm, laughing at yourself and others, acerbic name-calling, and “ranking out” are essential coping mechanisms for life in New York – especially so for the mensches, the real people in the streets, stores, and neighborhoods.

New Yorkers have what psychologists call a large capacity for benign violation.  In other words, they can take it, and they can dish it out, too.  When the New Insensitive Male in the White House calls the identity-hoaxer Senator Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” – punctuated by adding that the only apology he makes is to the real Pocahontas for comparing her to goofy Liz – Trump is being an archetypal guy from Queens. He is deploying humorous mockery, a powerful coping mechanism in conflict situations, which, like my brother, he learned to use as a child.

President Trump is liberating Americans from the mental prison of political correctness and allowing them to laugh again.  But the sourpuss left wing doesn’t get the joke.  On the contrary, left-wing media are all panty-wadded about Trump’s Pocahontas jibe, and of course, they are wailing about racism.  Senator Warren herself wrote that Trump showed “the very worst of gutter politics.”  The senator thinks nothing in politics could be worse than her being called a sarcastic name?  She must consider herself a supremely important person.

Psychologists have advanced many theories to understand the dynamics of humor and what makes people laugh.  Benign violation theory is a recent addition to this literature by Caleb Warren and A. Peter McGraw.  It is particularly robust in explaining why many people find Trump’s Pocahontas moniker amusing while others are greatly offended.  Benign violation theory posits that humor is experienced when a circumstance is simultaneously perceived as a violation but also as being benign.  Most violations do not amuse, but a violation that is perceived as OK, acceptable, or safe produces amusement and laughter.  The theory explains that major forms of humor such as puns, sarcasm, punch lines, practical jokes, slapstick, and horseplay make people laugh because they involve violations of linguistic, physical, or cultural conventions (“Take my wife – no, please, take her.”) yet at the same time are benign and therefore acceptable to the recipient of the humorous attempt.

Because sarcasm involves saying one thing but meaning the opposite, it violates conversational norms of meaning.  When it is perceived as safe, such as the proverbial sale of the Brooklyn bridge, it can be funny.  Trump gives Senator Warren the name of a Powhatan Indian princess who died in 1617 because he believes that the senator is not an American Indian as she has claimed to be.  The senator and others of the far left not only don’t find the sarcasm amusing, but splutter that it is a racist outrage.  BVT theory neatly accounts for this: “Sarcasm isn’t funny to people who don’t detect the speaker’s true intention.  Nor is it funny to people who don’t approve of the speaker’s true intention.”

The left wing strongly disapproves of the president’s intention to call out Senator Warren’s hoax.  This is because classical liberalism is gone, replaced by dogma focused on oppressions of the distant past and sustained by bitter delusions that seek the worst in the human heart – politics founded upon the purported original and eternal sin of American white racism.  The priestcraft of the cult that replaced liberalism is driven by an obsessive search for innovative examples of white racism to confirm itself, enlarging upon loony white privilege theory and sniffing around every sombrero for signs of “cultural appropriation.”  This season’s fashion-forward term on the bigotry runways is “white supremacy.”  Regarding the knee-jerk outrage at the president’s jokes, blind dogmatists are not known for their sense of humor.

Trump’s humor will prevail against the left’s addiction to racism-spotting because his sarcasm is benign to people who love America as she is.  Calling Warren Pocahontas resonates with the wish of Americans for the restoration of a meritocracy and equal opportunity in academia.  In her (unsuccessful) outrage, Senator Warren is hoping that people who really are of American Indian ancestry will continue to burn in the long banked fires of historic victimization.  But she is also stoking a non-benign attitude toward America.  Leftists can’t laugh at themselves or anything else anymore, and everybody needs a good laugh sometimes.



Source link

Feminists on the injustice of pregnancy


Korea’s recently-elected progressive government has announced plans to begin “research” on the country’s restrictive abortion laws, which, of course, is another way of saying they are going to get the ball rolling on legalizing abortion.

This initiative is merely an effort to bring the letter of the law into sync with the spirit of national decay, since many thousands of illegal abortions are performed in Korea every year, and public opinion, especially among the younger generations, tilts hard in the direction of complete legalization. (I’ll have a lot to say about this in the near future, as I have recently had the misfortune, through a research project, of coming face to face with the disturbing amorality of young Koreans on this issue — so disturbing, in fact, that I have forestalled writing about publicly out of sheer dismay and nausea at the truth I have been forced to accept about the people with whom I spend much of my time, namely young middle class Koreans.)

For the predictable details of the abortion activism, I refer you to the news article linked here, from The Blaze. Today, I merely wish to draw attention to the particularly telling symbolism chosen by the feminist vanguard for protestors’ signs in this latest front in the progressives’ global war against human life, which accompanies the Blaze piece. (Full image of protestors at link)

As you can see, the photo shows a group of smiling, placard-wielding activists. I wish to draw your attention to the artwork on those placards, which is, in my opinion, the most pithy, almost eloquent distillation of the essence of feminism that you will see anywhere.

In brief, the placards depict a simple variation on the typical portrayal of the myth of Sisyphus, with the king pushing a boulder up a mountain changed to a woman pushing a womb with a developing fetus in it up that same mountain. The Korean words next to the image read, “Stop the crackdown on abortion — abortion is a woman’s choice.” In the top left corner of the placard we see a small female or “Venus” symbol, with a clenched red fist inside, the standard iconography of progressive assertions of revolutionary “power.”

To begin with, the juxtaposition of those two icons — the womb containing a fetus (bad) vs. the Venus symbol containing a fist (good) — says it all. The story here is simple: defiance against pregnancy — against the injustice of motherhood.

And make no mistake about it: from the progressive egalitarian perspective, motherhood really is unjust, simply because it is a burden that women bear, but men do not.

“But it’s a natural fact!” might seem a rational reply to you, but not to a progressive. Progressivism is, and has been since its earliest instantiations in 19th Century German idealism, an anti-nature ideology. Progressives are, in theory and in practice, rebels against the imperatives of nature. (Environmentalism is not a pro-nature position, by the way. It is merely one of the cleverest delusions or self-delusions in the progressive rebellion against human nature.) All the neo-Marxist “systemic oppression” theorizing is, in the end, mere marginalia used to make the basic position seem more rational. The basic position is this: Nature is unfair and regressive; a new, self-generated humanity must liberate itself from nature’s imperatives in order to live in the freedom and justice of the artificially contrived and controlled society.

Hence, the proper progressive woman’s position toward pregnancy and motherhood — toward the womb full of developing natural life — is defiance, the fist of war, angry violence against nature, hatred. In short, feminism.

And to understand what freedom means to progressives, and hence why they seem constitutionally incapable of understanding notions such as the rule of law, limited government, and individual responsibility, consider more carefully the main image, the female Sisyphus pushing an impregnated womb up a mountain.

Sisyphus is pushing that boulder up a mountain as a punishment from the gods — “Nature” in non-religious parlance. The keys to his ordeal are that it is (a) inescapable, and (b) never-ending: that boulder will roll back down the slope at the moment he reaches the summit, and he will have no choice but to start his grueling labor yet again. The combination of inescapability and perpetuity forms the essence of the gods’ punishment of Sisyphus.

The briefest comparison of this situation to the feminists’ laments about the “fate” of pregnancy reveals the inanity of the analogy. The Sisyphean labor is by design futile. The labor of pregnancy results in new human life, a sea of potential meaning and happiness for both the new child and the parent.

Sisyphus can never leave his painful labors behind; he must work all his life toward a goal he knows to be unattainable — and worse than unattainable, a mockery of purposefulness. An expectant mother, by contrast, knows she has a very high likelihood of success in her endeavor, and that her mission is not only purposeful, but history’s chief exemplar and metaphor of purposefulness itself.

And purposeful means more than merely “having a natural goal.” It also means intentional, i.e., voluntarily aiming at a goal. This implication highlights the biggest problem with the feminist advocacy of abortion in the name of “a woman’s freedom of choice.”

King Sisyphus has an endlessly futile effort imposed on him by the gods as punishment for his avarice and deceitfulness. He was not deprived of his freedom of choice. His story is not one of unfreedom. On the contrary, he made his choices, and his burden was the natural result of those choices. Choices have consequences. Poor choices have undesirable consequences. The worst choices have the most undesirable consequences.

For the abortion advocates, the message here, unheard by them but ironically revealed within their own chosen imagery, is straightforward: If you don’t want the burden of pregnancy, don’t choose the one course of action that may be expected to result in pregnancy. The freedom to choose is yours. Choices have consequences. One who makes a choice with natural (but undesirable) consequences has no one to blame but herself when those consequences arise.

Sisyphus learns nothing if he blames his boulder for his own poor choices. If Sisyphus is a woman, and the burden resulting from her choices is motherhood, then blaming the “boulder” is not only folly, but the heights of immorality and unnaturalness. She is conveniently overlooking the real freedom of choice that she had, in favor of asserting the “freedom” to end a human life that she carelessly chose — yes, poor choices are those with natural consequences we didn’t sufficiently consider — but which she now regards as an inconvenient burden.

To add to the perfection of the Korean feminists’ abortion imagery — the eloquence I noted above — consider this: the gods punished King Sisyphus in part for his ultimate violation of the moral rule of hospitality, as he killed guests and other temporary travelers through his kingdom. The feminists, by choosing to adapt Sisyphean imagery for their own ends, and even to juxtapose it with a fist of power, brilliantly expose themselves as what they really are: sinfully inhospitable hostesses, who claim the “right” to invite temporary (and unwelcome) guests into their city only to kill them in a twisted conception of defending their own power.

 Daren Jonescu writes about politics, philosophy, education, and the decline of civilization at http://darenjonescu.com/.

Korea’s recently-elected progressive government has announced plans to begin “research” on the country’s restrictive abortion laws, which, of course, is another way of saying they are going to get the ball rolling on legalizing abortion.

This initiative is merely an effort to bring the letter of the law into sync with the spirit of national decay, since many thousands of illegal abortions are performed in Korea every year, and public opinion, especially among the younger generations, tilts hard in the direction of complete legalization. (I’ll have a lot to say about this in the near future, as I have recently had the misfortune, through a research project, of coming face to face with the disturbing amorality of young Koreans on this issue — so disturbing, in fact, that I have forestalled writing about publicly out of sheer dismay and nausea at the truth I have been forced to accept about the people with whom I spend much of my time, namely young middle class Koreans.)

For the predictable details of the abortion activism, I refer you to the news article linked here, from The Blaze. Today, I merely wish to draw attention to the particularly telling symbolism chosen by the feminist vanguard for protestors’ signs in this latest front in the progressives’ global war against human life, which accompanies the Blaze piece. (Full image of protestors at link)

As you can see, the photo shows a group of smiling, placard-wielding activists. I wish to draw your attention to the artwork on those placards, which is, in my opinion, the most pithy, almost eloquent distillation of the essence of feminism that you will see anywhere.

In brief, the placards depict a simple variation on the typical portrayal of the myth of Sisyphus, with the king pushing a boulder up a mountain changed to a woman pushing a womb with a developing fetus in it up that same mountain. The Korean words next to the image read, “Stop the crackdown on abortion — abortion is a woman’s choice.” In the top left corner of the placard we see a small female or “Venus” symbol, with a clenched red fist inside, the standard iconography of progressive assertions of revolutionary “power.”

To begin with, the juxtaposition of those two icons — the womb containing a fetus (bad) vs. the Venus symbol containing a fist (good) — says it all. The story here is simple: defiance against pregnancy — against the injustice of motherhood.

And make no mistake about it: from the progressive egalitarian perspective, motherhood really is unjust, simply because it is a burden that women bear, but men do not.

“But it’s a natural fact!” might seem a rational reply to you, but not to a progressive. Progressivism is, and has been since its earliest instantiations in 19th Century German idealism, an anti-nature ideology. Progressives are, in theory and in practice, rebels against the imperatives of nature. (Environmentalism is not a pro-nature position, by the way. It is merely one of the cleverest delusions or self-delusions in the progressive rebellion against human nature.) All the neo-Marxist “systemic oppression” theorizing is, in the end, mere marginalia used to make the basic position seem more rational. The basic position is this: Nature is unfair and regressive; a new, self-generated humanity must liberate itself from nature’s imperatives in order to live in the freedom and justice of the artificially contrived and controlled society.

Hence, the proper progressive woman’s position toward pregnancy and motherhood — toward the womb full of developing natural life — is defiance, the fist of war, angry violence against nature, hatred. In short, feminism.

And to understand what freedom means to progressives, and hence why they seem constitutionally incapable of understanding notions such as the rule of law, limited government, and individual responsibility, consider more carefully the main image, the female Sisyphus pushing an impregnated womb up a mountain.

Sisyphus is pushing that boulder up a mountain as a punishment from the gods — “Nature” in non-religious parlance. The keys to his ordeal are that it is (a) inescapable, and (b) never-ending: that boulder will roll back down the slope at the moment he reaches the summit, and he will have no choice but to start his grueling labor yet again. The combination of inescapability and perpetuity forms the essence of the gods’ punishment of Sisyphus.

The briefest comparison of this situation to the feminists’ laments about the “fate” of pregnancy reveals the inanity of the analogy. The Sisyphean labor is by design futile. The labor of pregnancy results in new human life, a sea of potential meaning and happiness for both the new child and the parent.

Sisyphus can never leave his painful labors behind; he must work all his life toward a goal he knows to be unattainable — and worse than unattainable, a mockery of purposefulness. An expectant mother, by contrast, knows she has a very high likelihood of success in her endeavor, and that her mission is not only purposeful, but history’s chief exemplar and metaphor of purposefulness itself.

And purposeful means more than merely “having a natural goal.” It also means intentional, i.e., voluntarily aiming at a goal. This implication highlights the biggest problem with the feminist advocacy of abortion in the name of “a woman’s freedom of choice.”

King Sisyphus has an endlessly futile effort imposed on him by the gods as punishment for his avarice and deceitfulness. He was not deprived of his freedom of choice. His story is not one of unfreedom. On the contrary, he made his choices, and his burden was the natural result of those choices. Choices have consequences. Poor choices have undesirable consequences. The worst choices have the most undesirable consequences.

For the abortion advocates, the message here, unheard by them but ironically revealed within their own chosen imagery, is straightforward: If you don’t want the burden of pregnancy, don’t choose the one course of action that may be expected to result in pregnancy. The freedom to choose is yours. Choices have consequences. One who makes a choice with natural (but undesirable) consequences has no one to blame but herself when those consequences arise.

Sisyphus learns nothing if he blames his boulder for his own poor choices. If Sisyphus is a woman, and the burden resulting from her choices is motherhood, then blaming the “boulder” is not only folly, but the heights of immorality and unnaturalness. She is conveniently overlooking the real freedom of choice that she had, in favor of asserting the “freedom” to end a human life that she carelessly chose — yes, poor choices are those with natural consequences we didn’t sufficiently consider — but which she now regards as an inconvenient burden.

To add to the perfection of the Korean feminists’ abortion imagery — the eloquence I noted above — consider this: the gods punished King Sisyphus in part for his ultimate violation of the moral rule of hospitality, as he killed guests and other temporary travelers through his kingdom. The feminists, by choosing to adapt Sisyphean imagery for their own ends, and even to juxtapose it with a fist of power, brilliantly expose themselves as what they really are: sinfully inhospitable hostesses, who claim the “right” to invite temporary (and unwelcome) guests into their city only to kill them in a twisted conception of defending their own power.

 Daren Jonescu writes about politics, philosophy, education, and the decline of civilization at http://darenjonescu.com/.



Source link

American Exceptionalism and Antifa's Phony War


However, if fascism is really evil, then there really is nothing anyone can do about it, unless the Creator of the Universe is such a bumbler that He needed FDR, Churchill, and Stalin (an atheist, of all people) to correct His mistakes.

No, the answer is that fascism is European and that America’s Constitution of 1787 achieved everything for which Europe would struggle for the next century and a half.

The French Revolution of 1789 failed when Napoleon Bonaparte returned from his Egyptian-Syrian campaign as a French Caesar in 1799 and then plunged into wars until his defeat and first exile in 1814.

Europe rejoiced with the return of peace and the Ancien Régime.  After 23 years of revolution, genocides, and war, “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” were despised.  The Allied powers (Russia, Prussia, England, and Austria) assembled under Prince Metternich in the Congress of Vienna, determined that this would never happen again.  Within a few years, however, ancient problems returned.

The Ancien Régime was a hierarchical class system based upon inequality.  The king, hereditary aristocracy, and high clergy legislated privileges and restrictions for each class according to its function.  It was so intrusive that a peasant could not marry without permission of his craft guild or seigniorial lord.  Bourgeois businessmen enjoyed greater liberty but chafed under trade restrictions.  Aristocrats were prohibited from many occupations even if impoverished.  All functions accrued power to the state, viewed as encompassing the good of all, in a predatory contest with other states doing the same thing.

Additionally, the sale of offices and tax-farming invited corruption, since the buyer expected personal profit from dispensing government services.

Napoleon’s return of “The 100 Days” in 1815 convinced the Congress that liberals or nationalists, as they became known, remained a threat – so much so that Metternich obstructed assistance to the Greek War of Independence against Ottoman rule.  However, working-class revolts in the 1830s and 1848 forced the nobility to ally with bourgeois bankers and businessmen who only proved more efficient exploiters of the workers than aristocrats.

Liberals split into nationalist and socialist camps.  Both found inspiration in nostalgic tales of Napoleon, who became the mythical liberator of both classes and nations from monarchs.  To an extent, he was.

 Napoleon had hit upon a formula of harnessing mass politics for military conquest.  He abolished feudal privileges, installed a professional bureaucracy, and imposed his Civic Code equally upon all.

When his conquests stalled at the English Channel, he turned east into Russia and a defeat in 1812.  His continental empire suffered more from his own embargo on English trade than Britain’s empire overseas.  Bankruptcy added to his burdens of war taxes and conscription.  His secular liberation antagonized deeply Catholic Spain into unremitting guerrilla war.

Baron von Stein turned Napoleon’s formula into a German war of liberation from the French.  The Italian Republic, Napoleon’s consolidation of feudal states, stood with Napoleon.  Under Metternich, however, both returned to Imperial Austrian rule, which regarded their national aspirations as a threat.  In Spain, Ferdinand VII restored a regime so reactionary that a French army had to rescue him in 1823.

This, however, was Metternich’s system.  Austrian Emperor Francis I summed it up: “My people are strange to each other and that is all right[.] … I send the Hungarians into Italy, the Italians into Hungary. Every people watches its neighbor[.] … From their antipathy will be born order and from their mutual hatred, general peace” (1).

Socialists posed the greater threat.  They elevated Robespierre’s idea of virtue and terror into a cult of ideological purity, the possibly 80,000 victims of his Reign of Terror and genocide in the Vendée offered as proof.  Gracchus Babeuf had added the idea of abolishing private property and “equality of results,” ideas for which he was executed in 1797.  Karl Marx consolidated all this into a secular religion after the revolutions of 1848.  His “dictator of the proletariat” would be a second Bonaparte.

The nobility leaned on the nationalist cult of tradition and religion.  They proposed modernizing the hierarchy of class, pedigree, and money into one of merit rather than destroying it all for a Marxist utopia.

Between 1860 and 1871, the kings of Piedmont and Prussia turned Napoleon’s formula into wars of national liberation and united their feudal principalities into the Kingdom of Italy and the German Empire, respectively.  Both were constitutional monarchies and adopted a Charter of 1814, which Metternich accepted as a concession to Napoleon’s reforms, which he could not reverse.  It provided a representative body that ratified budgets and legislation that only the king could propose.  Liberals tried to expand its authority while monarchs ignored it.  Additionally, Germany crushed the Second Empire of Napoleon III and relieved Europe of another Bonaparte scourge.

WWI destroyed the ancient Hapsburg, Romanov, and Hohenzollern dynasties, while Bolsheviks, now in tenuous possession of Russia, incited global class war and revolution.  Civil wars broke out from Spain to Finland and east into Russia.  Not even the Middle East was spared.  But only in Russia did the “Reds” succeed.  Nationalists dominated “White” coalitions while adopting Red methods and branding their corporatist economics as “socialist” for mass appeal.  Derived from 1 Corinthians, corporatism recreated the craft guild system on an industrialized, capitalist basis under government planning.

By 1939, most continental regimes were White and authoritarian.  Mussolini’s National Fascist Party was one of them, the only significant party to use the term at the time.  Red propaganda transformed it into a pejorative to smear most of these regimes, at one time or another, effectively transferring the Reds’ own subversive stigma in order to acquire allies for the next war.

Mussolini served as prime minister under King Emanuel III, who remained until 1946.  Hitler and his aristocrat generals overran the continent and then followed Napoleon’s path from the English Channel into Russia and defeat.  For Franco’s Nationalists, the Spanish Third Republic was another Napoleonic regime with Bolshevik advisers.

On 8 May of 1945, the White Nationalists were done, forever.  The USSR was poised for another war.

Almost two hundred years prior, by 1776, the American colonies had already become a nation without feudal classes.  After the Seven Years War, 1756-1763, there was no foreign power on the American continent to seriously contend with.  Establishing a liberal republic went as stated in the Declaration of Independence and nothing more: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them[.]”

Antifa is fighting something that never did and never can exist in America, or anywhere else in the Western world, at this point in time.  Even worse, they’re fighting for identity politics and American elites who are creating a feudal class system of their own.

(1) Frederick Artz, Reaction and Revolution, 1814-1832, Harper and Rowe, New York, 1934, pg. 238.

Antifa poses a problem no one is comfortable with.

What’s wrong with fighting fascism?  Ever see a movie in which the sallet helmet wasn’t a symbol of evil?  Not even Star Wars could resist.  FDR also used some pretty strong-arm tactics.

However, if fascism is really evil, then there really is nothing anyone can do about it, unless the Creator of the Universe is such a bumbler that He needed FDR, Churchill, and Stalin (an atheist, of all people) to correct His mistakes.

No, the answer is that fascism is European and that America’s Constitution of 1787 achieved everything for which Europe would struggle for the next century and a half.

The French Revolution of 1789 failed when Napoleon Bonaparte returned from his Egyptian-Syrian campaign as a French Caesar in 1799 and then plunged into wars until his defeat and first exile in 1814.

Europe rejoiced with the return of peace and the Ancien Régime.  After 23 years of revolution, genocides, and war, “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” were despised.  The Allied powers (Russia, Prussia, England, and Austria) assembled under Prince Metternich in the Congress of Vienna, determined that this would never happen again.  Within a few years, however, ancient problems returned.

The Ancien Régime was a hierarchical class system based upon inequality.  The king, hereditary aristocracy, and high clergy legislated privileges and restrictions for each class according to its function.  It was so intrusive that a peasant could not marry without permission of his craft guild or seigniorial lord.  Bourgeois businessmen enjoyed greater liberty but chafed under trade restrictions.  Aristocrats were prohibited from many occupations even if impoverished.  All functions accrued power to the state, viewed as encompassing the good of all, in a predatory contest with other states doing the same thing.

Additionally, the sale of offices and tax-farming invited corruption, since the buyer expected personal profit from dispensing government services.

Napoleon’s return of “The 100 Days” in 1815 convinced the Congress that liberals or nationalists, as they became known, remained a threat – so much so that Metternich obstructed assistance to the Greek War of Independence against Ottoman rule.  However, working-class revolts in the 1830s and 1848 forced the nobility to ally with bourgeois bankers and businessmen who only proved more efficient exploiters of the workers than aristocrats.

Liberals split into nationalist and socialist camps.  Both found inspiration in nostalgic tales of Napoleon, who became the mythical liberator of both classes and nations from monarchs.  To an extent, he was.

 Napoleon had hit upon a formula of harnessing mass politics for military conquest.  He abolished feudal privileges, installed a professional bureaucracy, and imposed his Civic Code equally upon all.

When his conquests stalled at the English Channel, he turned east into Russia and a defeat in 1812.  His continental empire suffered more from his own embargo on English trade than Britain’s empire overseas.  Bankruptcy added to his burdens of war taxes and conscription.  His secular liberation antagonized deeply Catholic Spain into unremitting guerrilla war.

Baron von Stein turned Napoleon’s formula into a German war of liberation from the French.  The Italian Republic, Napoleon’s consolidation of feudal states, stood with Napoleon.  Under Metternich, however, both returned to Imperial Austrian rule, which regarded their national aspirations as a threat.  In Spain, Ferdinand VII restored a regime so reactionary that a French army had to rescue him in 1823.

This, however, was Metternich’s system.  Austrian Emperor Francis I summed it up: “My people are strange to each other and that is all right[.] … I send the Hungarians into Italy, the Italians into Hungary. Every people watches its neighbor[.] … From their antipathy will be born order and from their mutual hatred, general peace” (1).

Socialists posed the greater threat.  They elevated Robespierre’s idea of virtue and terror into a cult of ideological purity, the possibly 80,000 victims of his Reign of Terror and genocide in the Vendée offered as proof.  Gracchus Babeuf had added the idea of abolishing private property and “equality of results,” ideas for which he was executed in 1797.  Karl Marx consolidated all this into a secular religion after the revolutions of 1848.  His “dictator of the proletariat” would be a second Bonaparte.

The nobility leaned on the nationalist cult of tradition and religion.  They proposed modernizing the hierarchy of class, pedigree, and money into one of merit rather than destroying it all for a Marxist utopia.

Between 1860 and 1871, the kings of Piedmont and Prussia turned Napoleon’s formula into wars of national liberation and united their feudal principalities into the Kingdom of Italy and the German Empire, respectively.  Both were constitutional monarchies and adopted a Charter of 1814, which Metternich accepted as a concession to Napoleon’s reforms, which he could not reverse.  It provided a representative body that ratified budgets and legislation that only the king could propose.  Liberals tried to expand its authority while monarchs ignored it.  Additionally, Germany crushed the Second Empire of Napoleon III and relieved Europe of another Bonaparte scourge.

WWI destroyed the ancient Hapsburg, Romanov, and Hohenzollern dynasties, while Bolsheviks, now in tenuous possession of Russia, incited global class war and revolution.  Civil wars broke out from Spain to Finland and east into Russia.  Not even the Middle East was spared.  But only in Russia did the “Reds” succeed.  Nationalists dominated “White” coalitions while adopting Red methods and branding their corporatist economics as “socialist” for mass appeal.  Derived from 1 Corinthians, corporatism recreated the craft guild system on an industrialized, capitalist basis under government planning.

By 1939, most continental regimes were White and authoritarian.  Mussolini’s National Fascist Party was one of them, the only significant party to use the term at the time.  Red propaganda transformed it into a pejorative to smear most of these regimes, at one time or another, effectively transferring the Reds’ own subversive stigma in order to acquire allies for the next war.

Mussolini served as prime minister under King Emanuel III, who remained until 1946.  Hitler and his aristocrat generals overran the continent and then followed Napoleon’s path from the English Channel into Russia and defeat.  For Franco’s Nationalists, the Spanish Third Republic was another Napoleonic regime with Bolshevik advisers.

On 8 May of 1945, the White Nationalists were done, forever.  The USSR was poised for another war.

Almost two hundred years prior, by 1776, the American colonies had already become a nation without feudal classes.  After the Seven Years War, 1756-1763, there was no foreign power on the American continent to seriously contend with.  Establishing a liberal republic went as stated in the Declaration of Independence and nothing more: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them[.]”

Antifa is fighting something that never did and never can exist in America, or anywhere else in the Western world, at this point in time.  Even worse, they’re fighting for identity politics and American elites who are creating a feudal class system of their own.

(1) Frederick Artz, Reaction and Revolution, 1814-1832, Harper and Rowe, New York, 1934, pg. 238.



Source link

A Time for War: The Cold Civil War Continues…and Trump Is Winning


Our economic growth is over 3%.  After nearly a decade, our economy is clearly coming out of the doldrums, and the U.S. population is becoming optimistic about its future.

Trump is remaking the judiciary, an extraordinary achievement.

Illegal immigration is down, eventually to be controlled.  A real border for a real country.

The military is strong, confident, and doing its job.  ISIS and radical Islam are genuinely being defeated.

Our alliances overseas are strengthening, and our leadership is successfully realigning friends from the Obama-Clinton years of destruction.  Other countries respect and fear us once again.

America is becoming great again.

Domestically, embittered adversaries on the left are melting down, in multiple ways.  Their elites are being shown as irrational, immoral, hypocritical, rudderless, and foolish in an overwhelming wave of self-induced negativity.  Their illusion of cultural greatness is falling apart, from Hollywood to the media to the educrats to the Democratic Party itself.  They are failing miserably.

The Clinton crime family is going under for the third time, dragging others with it.

Yes, it’s wonderful to watch the left disintegrate, but don’t forget: they still own the education system and have won too many hearts and minds to their own party.  It ain’t over ’til it’s over.  We may be winning, but we haven’t won yet.

So let’s talk about really winning this thing.  In order to really win, there are a few things we need to remember.  And never forget: the things we must remember are those qualities that made us a great nation.  Those unique strengths that define humanity at its best, corporately and individually.  They include the freedoms to excel and improve.

We are between the great holidays of Thanksgiving and Christmas, and as the song says, it’s the most wonderful time of the year.  It’s a time to recall and reflect on what are the best things this life has to offer.

Reagan said this in 1986:

Perhaps no custom reveals our character as a nation so clearly as our celebration of Thanksgiving Day. Rooted deeply in our Judeo-Christian heritage, the practice of offering thanksgiving underscores our unshakable belief in God as the foundation of our nation and our firm reliance upon Him from Whom all blessings flow.

Succinct.  And this quote was taken in the middle of the Cold War, when the winner was in doubt.  Reagan was reminding us of how to be thankful in the midst of a time of great strife and difficulty.  He wanted us to know that “winning” was not enough.  We needed to know that winning was tied up with high character and purpose, for our nation and for each of us as individuals.

Giving thanks for what we have and have been given.  To God.  With our families and friends.  Hoping, by faith, to achieve higher character.

Yes, we are in a cold civil war.  We cannot truly win that war if we devolve.  We cannot win that war if we become like those we have been fighting.  Stooping to their level will not fly.  We cannot become like the Jacobins of the left.  That is a construct we have to follow.  We cannot allow hate or bitterness to succeed in gaining a foothold in us.

We can hate what they’ve done without hating them personally.  We can be confident when we come against hate, but we must not let ourselves take on the character of those we have fought so hard against.

George Washington said the following about division:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.

As much as we need to despise what the left has done and ofttimes has stood for, we cannot let ourselves become despots.  We can’t exact revenge on individuals or groups that have wished us ill or even have done wrong things to us.  Instead, we need to remember the importance of forgiveness.  And please, I am not confusing forgiveness with approval, consent, or seeking justice for criminality.  We need to look forward to convincing as many as possible on the left to move toward a reconciliation and a reunification.  Gloating, dominating, excluding, and belittling those who would move toward betterment should not be done.

Yep, that may be a pipe dream with many we know and see on the left, but it has been done before.  And yes, it will take a long time.

The Civil War was not yet over when Lincoln said it this way:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Once again, the calling onward of a citizenry to high character and not revenge.

Without this we cannot become great again.  Make America Great Again.  What an amazing slogan.  It’s simple and powerful, and it calls us upward to better things.  Those things are not simply material, meaning rising economic fortune; they’re the deep improvement of virtue that brings on and fulfills a strong economic well-being.  This would be virtue in the classic sense, in its finest and fullest sense.

No, perfection isn’t possible, so get that out of mind.  Betterment, however, is.  We cannot confuse virtue with church lady-like pronouncements, nor take a sourpuss attitude of clucking at things we deem unclean.  Humor, building families, building businesses, building friendships and communities.  So much to do, so little time.

“Character is destiny” is a saying attributed to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus.  This is a truth that should be remembered, a truth once upon a time embedded in our culture, a truth we must renew.  With malice toward none, with charity for all.

How do we develop character?  To what do we aspire?  I’ll leave it to the real expert, who was asked what the most important things are.  He replied that virtually everything else hung on us following these two instructions freely:

“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the first and great commandment. 

 And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

The faith to build character for now and for future generations.

The way to truly make America great again.

The cold civil war we are fighting is not just going well.  Contrary to what was once expected, this war right now is in a stage of overwhelming success.  Not that we have won anything permanent, but one has to be amazed at how positively things are going.

Consumer confidence is close to an all-time high.

Our economic growth is over 3%.  After nearly a decade, our economy is clearly coming out of the doldrums, and the U.S. population is becoming optimistic about its future.

Trump is remaking the judiciary, an extraordinary achievement.

Illegal immigration is down, eventually to be controlled.  A real border for a real country.

The military is strong, confident, and doing its job.  ISIS and radical Islam are genuinely being defeated.

Our alliances overseas are strengthening, and our leadership is successfully realigning friends from the Obama-Clinton years of destruction.  Other countries respect and fear us once again.

America is becoming great again.

Domestically, embittered adversaries on the left are melting down, in multiple ways.  Their elites are being shown as irrational, immoral, hypocritical, rudderless, and foolish in an overwhelming wave of self-induced negativity.  Their illusion of cultural greatness is falling apart, from Hollywood to the media to the educrats to the Democratic Party itself.  They are failing miserably.

The Clinton crime family is going under for the third time, dragging others with it.

Yes, it’s wonderful to watch the left disintegrate, but don’t forget: they still own the education system and have won too many hearts and minds to their own party.  It ain’t over ’til it’s over.  We may be winning, but we haven’t won yet.

So let’s talk about really winning this thing.  In order to really win, there are a few things we need to remember.  And never forget: the things we must remember are those qualities that made us a great nation.  Those unique strengths that define humanity at its best, corporately and individually.  They include the freedoms to excel and improve.

We are between the great holidays of Thanksgiving and Christmas, and as the song says, it’s the most wonderful time of the year.  It’s a time to recall and reflect on what are the best things this life has to offer.

Reagan said this in 1986:

Perhaps no custom reveals our character as a nation so clearly as our celebration of Thanksgiving Day. Rooted deeply in our Judeo-Christian heritage, the practice of offering thanksgiving underscores our unshakable belief in God as the foundation of our nation and our firm reliance upon Him from Whom all blessings flow.

Succinct.  And this quote was taken in the middle of the Cold War, when the winner was in doubt.  Reagan was reminding us of how to be thankful in the midst of a time of great strife and difficulty.  He wanted us to know that “winning” was not enough.  We needed to know that winning was tied up with high character and purpose, for our nation and for each of us as individuals.

Giving thanks for what we have and have been given.  To God.  With our families and friends.  Hoping, by faith, to achieve higher character.

Yes, we are in a cold civil war.  We cannot truly win that war if we devolve.  We cannot win that war if we become like those we have been fighting.  Stooping to their level will not fly.  We cannot become like the Jacobins of the left.  That is a construct we have to follow.  We cannot allow hate or bitterness to succeed in gaining a foothold in us.

We can hate what they’ve done without hating them personally.  We can be confident when we come against hate, but we must not let ourselves take on the character of those we have fought so hard against.

George Washington said the following about division:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.

As much as we need to despise what the left has done and ofttimes has stood for, we cannot let ourselves become despots.  We can’t exact revenge on individuals or groups that have wished us ill or even have done wrong things to us.  Instead, we need to remember the importance of forgiveness.  And please, I am not confusing forgiveness with approval, consent, or seeking justice for criminality.  We need to look forward to convincing as many as possible on the left to move toward a reconciliation and a reunification.  Gloating, dominating, excluding, and belittling those who would move toward betterment should not be done.

Yep, that may be a pipe dream with many we know and see on the left, but it has been done before.  And yes, it will take a long time.

The Civil War was not yet over when Lincoln said it this way:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Once again, the calling onward of a citizenry to high character and not revenge.

Without this we cannot become great again.  Make America Great Again.  What an amazing slogan.  It’s simple and powerful, and it calls us upward to better things.  Those things are not simply material, meaning rising economic fortune; they’re the deep improvement of virtue that brings on and fulfills a strong economic well-being.  This would be virtue in the classic sense, in its finest and fullest sense.

No, perfection isn’t possible, so get that out of mind.  Betterment, however, is.  We cannot confuse virtue with church lady-like pronouncements, nor take a sourpuss attitude of clucking at things we deem unclean.  Humor, building families, building businesses, building friendships and communities.  So much to do, so little time.

“Character is destiny” is a saying attributed to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus.  This is a truth that should be remembered, a truth once upon a time embedded in our culture, a truth we must renew.  With malice toward none, with charity for all.

How do we develop character?  To what do we aspire?  I’ll leave it to the real expert, who was asked what the most important things are.  He replied that virtually everything else hung on us following these two instructions freely:

“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the first and great commandment. 

 And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

The faith to build character for now and for future generations.

The way to truly make America great again.



Source link

British Labor Party: We Banned Pamela Geller; Now Let's Ban Trump, Too


The Guardian reported Thursday that “Chris Bryant, a senior Labour backbencher,” has written to British prime minister Theresa May, urging her to “issue an official ban on Donald Trump from entering the UK on the grounds he is condoning fascism and his presence is ‘not conducive to the public good.'”

When Western historians look back at the 21st century, the Geller-Spencer ban in the U.K. will be viewed as one of that once great nation’s darkest moments and a low point for freedom.  It was the victory of Islamic law over Western law, sharia over freedom.

This because Trump retweeted three videos showing Muslims being violent.  Bryant, a former Foreign Office minister, supported this madness by pointing to…me.  He cited the cases of two U.S. far-right bloggers, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who were banned by May in 2013 from entering the U.K.  I was going to be among a group of freedom-fighters – a true rainbow coalition of human rights activists from all over the world (a Hindu princess had been set to join us) – to honor the memory of Lee Rigby, the British soldier who had been murdered on a London street in broad daylight by an Islamic jihadist on May 22, 2013.

We planned to pay our respects to Lee Rigby by placing a wreath at his memorial, in his memory and in memory of his service.  We planned to bring the Stars and Stripes, as well as British and Danish flags, and participate in Armed Forces Day memorial commemorations at the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, where Rigby served.

For this we were banned.

When Prime Minister Theresa May, who was the head of the Home Office when she banned us and was thus directly responsible for the ban, threw us under the bus in order to satiate savages who threatened violence, did she really think she or anyone would be safe?  Safe by surrender?  When did they ever work in the history of humankind?

The über-left pol citing the Geller-Spencer ban in the U.K. to ban Trump was inevitable.  It’s like the Geller ban on ads on buses and subways in every major American city: the Catholic Church just tried to run ads on buses in Washington, D.C., and discovered that it couldn’t because of the ban on all political ads that was enacted in order to prevent my ads from running.  Once you sanction the silencing and persecution of one, inevitably, you’ve sanctioned it for all.  It’s open season on the opposition.  Who decides what’s good and what’s forbidden in a totalitarian society?  The totalitarians.

The worldwide howl at Trump’s retweets of videos tweeted out by a British politician is further proof of the Islamization of the West.  It speaks to how deeply and far and widely sharia has been normed and accepted by Western elites.  The videos in the retweets are authentic and have circulated for years.  They’re neither “far-right” nor “Islamophobic”; they’re just factual.  Once again the media are blaming the messenger instead of dealing with Islamic violence.

Trump didn’t add any rhetoric to his tweets.  He retweeted authentic videos.  (The Dutch media now claim that one of them doesn’t depict Muslim migrants being violent, as was claimed.  Even if this is true, Muslim migrant violence is a grim and increasingly common reality in Europe.)  If Muslims sincerely condemn jihad terror and sharia oppression, they shouldn’t oppose him.

In a letter to May, Bryant wrote: “I am writing to you to ask you and the home secretary to take immediate action to ban the president of the United States, Donald Trump, from entering the United Kingdom, due to his apparent support for far-right groups in this country. In retweeting Jayda Fransen’s posts, it is absolutely clear to me that President Trump is supporting and condoning fascism and far-right activity. This activity has frequently taken the form of violence on our streets. Ms Fransen herself has a long history of racism and Islamophobia, some of it criminal. Many of the people you have rightly banned from entering the UK were guilty of less than this.”

“Fascism.”  By that Bryant means “defending British values.”  While admitting numerous jihad preachers, Britain is keeping out the voices of sanity that would call that nation back to a path that would secure freedom for her children and her children’s children instead of a path to national suicide.  And now a call to ban the president of the nation that saved their nation from extinction not 70 years ago.

The full story of my being banned from the UK for standing against jihad, and much more, is in my new book,  FATWA: Hunted in America.  Get the book.  Buy it for friends.  Educate those around you.

Pamela Geller is the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of the Geller Report, and author of the already bestselling book FATWA: Hunted in America as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.  Follow her on Twitter here.  Like her on Facebook here.

The Guardian reported Thursday that “Chris Bryant, a senior Labour backbencher,” has written to British prime minister Theresa May, urging her to “issue an official ban on Donald Trump from entering the UK on the grounds he is condoning fascism and his presence is ‘not conducive to the public good.'”

When Western historians look back at the 21st century, the Geller-Spencer ban in the U.K. will be viewed as one of that once great nation’s darkest moments and a low point for freedom.  It was the victory of Islamic law over Western law, sharia over freedom.

This because Trump retweeted three videos showing Muslims being violent.  Bryant, a former Foreign Office minister, supported this madness by pointing to…me.  He cited the cases of two U.S. far-right bloggers, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who were banned by May in 2013 from entering the U.K.  I was going to be among a group of freedom-fighters – a true rainbow coalition of human rights activists from all over the world (a Hindu princess had been set to join us) – to honor the memory of Lee Rigby, the British soldier who had been murdered on a London street in broad daylight by an Islamic jihadist on May 22, 2013.

We planned to pay our respects to Lee Rigby by placing a wreath at his memorial, in his memory and in memory of his service.  We planned to bring the Stars and Stripes, as well as British and Danish flags, and participate in Armed Forces Day memorial commemorations at the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, where Rigby served.

For this we were banned.

When Prime Minister Theresa May, who was the head of the Home Office when she banned us and was thus directly responsible for the ban, threw us under the bus in order to satiate savages who threatened violence, did she really think she or anyone would be safe?  Safe by surrender?  When did they ever work in the history of humankind?

The über-left pol citing the Geller-Spencer ban in the U.K. to ban Trump was inevitable.  It’s like the Geller ban on ads on buses and subways in every major American city: the Catholic Church just tried to run ads on buses in Washington, D.C., and discovered that it couldn’t because of the ban on all political ads that was enacted in order to prevent my ads from running.  Once you sanction the silencing and persecution of one, inevitably, you’ve sanctioned it for all.  It’s open season on the opposition.  Who decides what’s good and what’s forbidden in a totalitarian society?  The totalitarians.

The worldwide howl at Trump’s retweets of videos tweeted out by a British politician is further proof of the Islamization of the West.  It speaks to how deeply and far and widely sharia has been normed and accepted by Western elites.  The videos in the retweets are authentic and have circulated for years.  They’re neither “far-right” nor “Islamophobic”; they’re just factual.  Once again the media are blaming the messenger instead of dealing with Islamic violence.

Trump didn’t add any rhetoric to his tweets.  He retweeted authentic videos.  (The Dutch media now claim that one of them doesn’t depict Muslim migrants being violent, as was claimed.  Even if this is true, Muslim migrant violence is a grim and increasingly common reality in Europe.)  If Muslims sincerely condemn jihad terror and sharia oppression, they shouldn’t oppose him.

In a letter to May, Bryant wrote: “I am writing to you to ask you and the home secretary to take immediate action to ban the president of the United States, Donald Trump, from entering the United Kingdom, due to his apparent support for far-right groups in this country. In retweeting Jayda Fransen’s posts, it is absolutely clear to me that President Trump is supporting and condoning fascism and far-right activity. This activity has frequently taken the form of violence on our streets. Ms Fransen herself has a long history of racism and Islamophobia, some of it criminal. Many of the people you have rightly banned from entering the UK were guilty of less than this.”

“Fascism.”  By that Bryant means “defending British values.”  While admitting numerous jihad preachers, Britain is keeping out the voices of sanity that would call that nation back to a path that would secure freedom for her children and her children’s children instead of a path to national suicide.  And now a call to ban the president of the nation that saved their nation from extinction not 70 years ago.

The full story of my being banned from the UK for standing against jihad, and much more, is in my new book,  FATWA: Hunted in America.  Get the book.  Buy it for friends.  Educate those around you.

Pamela Geller is the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of the Geller Report, and author of the already bestselling book FATWA: Hunted in America as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.  Follow her on Twitter here.  Like her on Facebook here.



Source link