Category: Selwyn Duke

Leftist Toilet Mouths Condemn Trump as They Corrupt Nation


President Trump denies having used a vulgar term last Thursday to describe dysfunctional Third World countries. Yet there’s no denying that the leftist media, believing he did, responded by repeatedly disgorging the term in a childish orgy of decadence. Of course, the media no doubt think they’re damaging Trump — but they’re actually damaging society.

Let’s be clear: Leftists certainly object to the substance of Trump’s comments, that we shouldn’t continually absorb poor, unskilled, often functionally illiterate and unassimilable people from Third World nations. But they also object to his alleged style, labeling as obscene the use of s-hole (toilet) to describe such places. So to show us how bad such language is, the Crude News Network (CNN), for example, used it at least 36 times on Thursday. It’s sort of like inveighing against animal abuse and then bludgeoning dozens of dogs to death on air to prove your point.

Let’s be clear about a few other matters:

  1. You probably wouldn’t lose money betting that all the leftists now complaining about the toilet term use vulgarity themselves off air.
  2. In reality, most media leftists actually have mouths metaphorically resembling sewers.
  3. It’s the Left that, mainly via entertainment, has coarsened society, defining deviancy downwards and normalizing vulgarity. This is why the younger generations now use profanity, publicly, as a matter of course.
  4. This is very, very destructive to society.

Why it’s destructive I’ll explain momentarily. Note, however, that this article isn’t about immigration, on which I take a hard line and believe should be completely ended. Something else that should be ended, however, is our increasing tolerance for public crudity.

Let’s begin with what the Father of Our Nation and first president, George Washington, wrote about vulgarity in a 1776 order:

The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish, and wicked practice, of profane cursing and swearing (a Vice heretofore little known in an American Army) is growing into fashion; he hopes the officers will, by example, as well as influence, endeavour to check it, and that both they, and the men will reflect, that we can have little hopes of the blessing of Heaven on our Arms, if we insult it by our impiety, and folly; added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it.

In point of fact, few of us had great-grandparents who wouldn’t have been at least somewhat appalled at today’s tawdry tongues. And whatever a few of them might have occasionally uttered in private, they certainly wouldn’t use bad language in polite company (does this even still exist?) or around children. Now note that every time we use profanity publicly — on the Internet, for example — we are using it in front of children.

This raises the matter of the blessed asterisk and its cloaking cousins. Many will ask what the point is, since kids have already heard every vulgar word we’re obscuring. Yet this is a bit like saying: If children know about serial killers, what’s the big deal about inundating them with snuff films?

We (should) use asterisks or dashes in print, bleep out words in broadcast and generally obscure the obscene because doing so sends an important message:

The obscured things are wrong.

Opening up the closet of the coarse, crude and carnal sends the message that such things are okay. Sure, kids have heard bad language. But the point is to not normalize and legitimize it through continual and cavalier adult use. The point is to instill in the young virtue, good moral habits, not the bad ones called vice. And habits are created via repetition — a fact that should make us think twice about on-air repetition of vulgarity.

Instinctively, many of us still sense vulgarity’s ugliness, that it is in fact verbal violence. This ugliness is best illustrated by putting it in the prettiest of mouths: Would you find a group of nine-year-olds cursing like a drunken sailor an uplifting scene? Would you think they were on a good moral path?

Well, as poet William Wordsworth put it, “The Child is father of the Man”; a youth’s well-learned lessons become adult transgressions. Yet some will still wonder why this matters, maintaining that vulgarities are “just words” (actually, they’re unjust words). For an in-depth exposition on this, I strongly urge you to read “Cussing & Cultural Decay,” a magazine piece I penned last year that I believe is the definitive short work on the subject (it’s hard to find online but is available here).

Put simply, though, an immoral society cannot yield a moral government. Echoing many great thinkers, British philosopher Edmund Burke warned, “It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” (The Founding Fathers often expressed the same principle in different words.) Now, do people who habitually disgorge vulgarity — not to mention indulge decadence in general — strike you as men of temperate minds? Or do you think such habits reflect fetters-forging passions?

Too many suppose we can compartmentalize our virtue and vice. Like believing we can continually pollute one side of a lake yet swim in pure waters on the other, we act as if impurity intensely indulged in certain areas won’t bleed over into areas we’d like to keep pristine. But just as G.H.W. Bush once said that you can’t be one kind of man and another kind of president, we can’t be one kind of people and have another kind of polity. Do you really think we can embrace profound vice in language, entertainment and sexuality but then enjoy that for which profound virtue is necessary: fiscal restraint, respect for rights, honesty in government affairs, dutiful law-enforcement agencies, a Constitution-limited judiciary, sound schooling and truth-oriented media? As our second president, John Adams, put it, “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private [virtue], and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.”

Thus is it distressing that even some conservative media outlets now lower standards, using terms such as a**, c**p, s-storm and WTF (with everyone knowing the acronym’s meaning). Perhaps they’re not mindful that it was yesterday’s leftists who normalized such vulgarity. Perhaps they don’t care. But it’s why I’ve long said that conservatives are the caboose to liberals’ engine of cultural decay. It’s why, ultimately, they lose political wars. For politics is downstream of culture, and conservatives never saw a culture-war battle they couldn’t lose.

As for Trump, his alleged potty-mouth moment was reported by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), a scoundrel with a history of lying about White House meetings, according to Daily Wire. But whatever the president said, he said in private. This is far different from Durbin, who introduced the story. It’s far different from ex-California Democratic Party chairman John Burton, who led a “F*** Donald Trump!” chant at California’s Democratic Party convention in Sacramento early last year. And it’s far different from CNN and the rest of the effluent-stream media, which, like an exhibitionist, just revel in the chance to flaunt publicly what excites them privately.

They are despicable. May they be the first to drown in the wave of tyranny they invite.  

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

President Trump denies having used a vulgar term last Thursday to describe dysfunctional Third World countries. Yet there’s no denying that the leftist media, believing he did, responded by repeatedly disgorging the term in a childish orgy of decadence. Of course, the media no doubt think they’re damaging Trump — but they’re actually damaging society.

Let’s be clear: Leftists certainly object to the substance of Trump’s comments, that we shouldn’t continually absorb poor, unskilled, often functionally illiterate and unassimilable people from Third World nations. But they also object to his alleged style, labeling as obscene the use of s-hole (toilet) to describe such places. So to show us how bad such language is, the Crude News Network (CNN), for example, used it at least 36 times on Thursday. It’s sort of like inveighing against animal abuse and then bludgeoning dozens of dogs to death on air to prove your point.

Let’s be clear about a few other matters:

  1. You probably wouldn’t lose money betting that all the leftists now complaining about the toilet term use vulgarity themselves off air.
  2. In reality, most media leftists actually have mouths metaphorically resembling sewers.
  3. It’s the Left that, mainly via entertainment, has coarsened society, defining deviancy downwards and normalizing vulgarity. This is why the younger generations now use profanity, publicly, as a matter of course.
  4. This is very, very destructive to society.

Why it’s destructive I’ll explain momentarily. Note, however, that this article isn’t about immigration, on which I take a hard line and believe should be completely ended. Something else that should be ended, however, is our increasing tolerance for public crudity.

Let’s begin with what the Father of Our Nation and first president, George Washington, wrote about vulgarity in a 1776 order:

The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish, and wicked practice, of profane cursing and swearing (a Vice heretofore little known in an American Army) is growing into fashion; he hopes the officers will, by example, as well as influence, endeavour to check it, and that both they, and the men will reflect, that we can have little hopes of the blessing of Heaven on our Arms, if we insult it by our impiety, and folly; added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it.

In point of fact, few of us had great-grandparents who wouldn’t have been at least somewhat appalled at today’s tawdry tongues. And whatever a few of them might have occasionally uttered in private, they certainly wouldn’t use bad language in polite company (does this even still exist?) or around children. Now note that every time we use profanity publicly — on the Internet, for example — we are using it in front of children.

This raises the matter of the blessed asterisk and its cloaking cousins. Many will ask what the point is, since kids have already heard every vulgar word we’re obscuring. Yet this is a bit like saying: If children know about serial killers, what’s the big deal about inundating them with snuff films?

We (should) use asterisks or dashes in print, bleep out words in broadcast and generally obscure the obscene because doing so sends an important message:

The obscured things are wrong.

Opening up the closet of the coarse, crude and carnal sends the message that such things are okay. Sure, kids have heard bad language. But the point is to not normalize and legitimize it through continual and cavalier adult use. The point is to instill in the young virtue, good moral habits, not the bad ones called vice. And habits are created via repetition — a fact that should make us think twice about on-air repetition of vulgarity.

Instinctively, many of us still sense vulgarity’s ugliness, that it is in fact verbal violence. This ugliness is best illustrated by putting it in the prettiest of mouths: Would you find a group of nine-year-olds cursing like a drunken sailor an uplifting scene? Would you think they were on a good moral path?

Well, as poet William Wordsworth put it, “The Child is father of the Man”; a youth’s well-learned lessons become adult transgressions. Yet some will still wonder why this matters, maintaining that vulgarities are “just words” (actually, they’re unjust words). For an in-depth exposition on this, I strongly urge you to read “Cussing & Cultural Decay,” a magazine piece I penned last year that I believe is the definitive short work on the subject (it’s hard to find online but is available here).

Put simply, though, an immoral society cannot yield a moral government. Echoing many great thinkers, British philosopher Edmund Burke warned, “It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” (The Founding Fathers often expressed the same principle in different words.) Now, do people who habitually disgorge vulgarity — not to mention indulge decadence in general — strike you as men of temperate minds? Or do you think such habits reflect fetters-forging passions?

Too many suppose we can compartmentalize our virtue and vice. Like believing we can continually pollute one side of a lake yet swim in pure waters on the other, we act as if impurity intensely indulged in certain areas won’t bleed over into areas we’d like to keep pristine. But just as G.H.W. Bush once said that you can’t be one kind of man and another kind of president, we can’t be one kind of people and have another kind of polity. Do you really think we can embrace profound vice in language, entertainment and sexuality but then enjoy that for which profound virtue is necessary: fiscal restraint, respect for rights, honesty in government affairs, dutiful law-enforcement agencies, a Constitution-limited judiciary, sound schooling and truth-oriented media? As our second president, John Adams, put it, “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private [virtue], and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.”

Thus is it distressing that even some conservative media outlets now lower standards, using terms such as a**, c**p, s-storm and WTF (with everyone knowing the acronym’s meaning). Perhaps they’re not mindful that it was yesterday’s leftists who normalized such vulgarity. Perhaps they don’t care. But it’s why I’ve long said that conservatives are the caboose to liberals’ engine of cultural decay. It’s why, ultimately, they lose political wars. For politics is downstream of culture, and conservatives never saw a culture-war battle they couldn’t lose.

As for Trump, his alleged potty-mouth moment was reported by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), a scoundrel with a history of lying about White House meetings, according to Daily Wire. But whatever the president said, he said in private. This is far different from Durbin, who introduced the story. It’s far different from ex-California Democratic Party chairman John Burton, who led a “F*** Donald Trump!” chant at California’s Democratic Party convention in Sacramento early last year. And it’s far different from CNN and the rest of the effluent-stream media, which, like an exhibitionist, just revel in the chance to flaunt publicly what excites them privately.

They are despicable. May they be the first to drown in the wave of tyranny they invite.  

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link

Killing Trump Is Deep State's 'Plan C,' Warns Adviser Roger Stone


It’s a shocking claim made by a political insider: the Deep State is so opposed to draining the swamp that it will, if necessary, kill President Trump to prevent it.

Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and confidant, certainly knows his way around Washington, having worked as a senior campaign aide to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Senator Bob Dole as well as held many other political positions.  This proximity to the Deep State is what makes his claim, expressed in a recent wide-ranging interview with The New American magazine’s Alex Newman, that much more eyebrow-raising.  Stone outlined three plans the Deep State has for eliminating the president, as Newman relates:

The Deep State’s “Plan A,” Stone said, is the imploding “investigation” into alleged “Russian collusion” by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  If and when that fails, which Stone suggested was likely, the establishment would move to “Plan B.”  In essence, that plot would involve trying to get a majority of Trump’s [C]abinet to declare him unfit for office.  This would allow Trump to be removed under the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment – another scheme Stone said would probably flop.  Last but not least, though, if all else fails, Stone warned of “Plan C”: [k]illing the president.   

Interesting here is that Newman’s piece was published January 1, just before talk of President Trump’s alleged mental instability became the month’s big news story.  In fact, released just four days later was journalist Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury, which makes the case that Trump is psychologically unfit to hold office.  Note, too, that Wolff has boasted that his book will bring down the president.

This bold claim will more likely just bring up book sales.  It’s not only that Wolff has said he can’t be sure everything in his book is true; that it contains factual errors; and that he is, as ex-Trump strategist Sebastian Gorka put it, “a partisan self-promoter with credibility issues[.]”  It’s that removing a president for inability to discharge his duties isn’t easy.

Per the 25th Amendment’s Section IV, Vice President Mike Pence would have to declare Trump unfit, 13 of the 24 Cabinet members would have to agree, and then two thirds of both houses of Congress would ultimately have to vote to uphold the decision. Unless Trump starts fainting right and left and throwing behind-the-scenes temper fits like Hillary Clinton, Stone is correct in saying this is unlikely.

This leaves the alleged “Plan C.” But is such a Deep State course of action really in the cards? Calling Trump “a shock to the system,” Stone explained his thinking to The New American: “It’s easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties.”  And with the economy flourishing and public confidence up, “it’s easy to misread the deep enmity and hatred that the globalists and the [i]nsiders have for this president, and to underestimate their resolve to remove him.”

“If all else fails,” writes Newman, “Stone believes [that] the Deep State would, in fact, attempt to murder the president.”

Stone emphasized that if “Mueller should fail in his illegitimate coup d’état to take down the president,” he thinks “you will see an uptick in the ‘Trump-is-crazy’ talk,” reported Newman.  Again, we’ve already witnessed this.

Newman further relates:

Stone warned that even some of Trump’s most senior officials would throw him under the bus if given the opportunity.  “I can tell you, there are members of Trump’s [C]abinet that would stick a dagger in his heart,[“] he warned, echoing other warnings that he has offered publicly in recent weeks.  [“]There are globalist insiders who, for one reason or another[,] got into this [C]abinet, who do not share the president’s vision of reform, and are not loyal to him as I am and so many Americans are.”

Explaining the presence of these dangerous establishment figures within the administration, Stone said, “Unfortunately, I think that the president misunderstood early in the process that personnel is policy.”  Stone also believes that Trump’s lawyers are doing him a disservice, saying they’re currently “walking him into the blades.”

Stone, a colorful political operative known among other things as a “dirty trickster,” further explained the Deep State’s enmity for Trump.  As Newman reports, “‘Trump is a real American, a patriot, he’s a real believer in Americana, and also in American superiority – American exceptionalism, if you will – and a believer in American sovereignty,’ Stone said.  ‘He’s always been deeply suspicious of the international types that he was happy to sell condominiums to at inflated prices, but he never shared their politics.'”  Stone also emphasized that, unbeknownst to most, Trump comes from “a long line of anti-communists.”

Moreover, because of Trump’s wealth, Stone says he’s “unbought and unbossed[.] … Anybody who has tried to boss Donald Trump around knows that that won’t work.  He’s very much his own man.”

So a patriot and a believer in Americana, sovereignty, and American exceptionalism who can’t be bought or bullied – that certainly is the Deep State’s worst nightmare.  The question is: Would it resort to murder to end it?  Is Stone’s warning risible or realistic?

All I can say is that it’s a striking claim, and it certainly warrants more media exposure than a questionable book written by an attention-seeking journalist

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

It’s a shocking claim made by a political insider: the Deep State is so opposed to draining the swamp that it will, if necessary, kill President Trump to prevent it.

Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and confidant, certainly knows his way around Washington, having worked as a senior campaign aide to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Senator Bob Dole as well as held many other political positions.  This proximity to the Deep State is what makes his claim, expressed in a recent wide-ranging interview with The New American magazine’s Alex Newman, that much more eyebrow-raising.  Stone outlined three plans the Deep State has for eliminating the president, as Newman relates:

The Deep State’s “Plan A,” Stone said, is the imploding “investigation” into alleged “Russian collusion” by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  If and when that fails, which Stone suggested was likely, the establishment would move to “Plan B.”  In essence, that plot would involve trying to get a majority of Trump’s [C]abinet to declare him unfit for office.  This would allow Trump to be removed under the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment – another scheme Stone said would probably flop.  Last but not least, though, if all else fails, Stone warned of “Plan C”: [k]illing the president.   

Interesting here is that Newman’s piece was published January 1, just before talk of President Trump’s alleged mental instability became the month’s big news story.  In fact, released just four days later was journalist Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury, which makes the case that Trump is psychologically unfit to hold office.  Note, too, that Wolff has boasted that his book will bring down the president.

This bold claim will more likely just bring up book sales.  It’s not only that Wolff has said he can’t be sure everything in his book is true; that it contains factual errors; and that he is, as ex-Trump strategist Sebastian Gorka put it, “a partisan self-promoter with credibility issues[.]”  It’s that removing a president for inability to discharge his duties isn’t easy.

Per the 25th Amendment’s Section IV, Vice President Mike Pence would have to declare Trump unfit, 13 of the 24 Cabinet members would have to agree, and then two thirds of both houses of Congress would ultimately have to vote to uphold the decision. Unless Trump starts fainting right and left and throwing behind-the-scenes temper fits like Hillary Clinton, Stone is correct in saying this is unlikely.

This leaves the alleged “Plan C.” But is such a Deep State course of action really in the cards? Calling Trump “a shock to the system,” Stone explained his thinking to The New American: “It’s easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties.”  And with the economy flourishing and public confidence up, “it’s easy to misread the deep enmity and hatred that the globalists and the [i]nsiders have for this president, and to underestimate their resolve to remove him.”

“If all else fails,” writes Newman, “Stone believes [that] the Deep State would, in fact, attempt to murder the president.”

Stone emphasized that if “Mueller should fail in his illegitimate coup d’état to take down the president,” he thinks “you will see an uptick in the ‘Trump-is-crazy’ talk,” reported Newman.  Again, we’ve already witnessed this.

Newman further relates:

Stone warned that even some of Trump’s most senior officials would throw him under the bus if given the opportunity.  “I can tell you, there are members of Trump’s [C]abinet that would stick a dagger in his heart,[“] he warned, echoing other warnings that he has offered publicly in recent weeks.  [“]There are globalist insiders who, for one reason or another[,] got into this [C]abinet, who do not share the president’s vision of reform, and are not loyal to him as I am and so many Americans are.”

Explaining the presence of these dangerous establishment figures within the administration, Stone said, “Unfortunately, I think that the president misunderstood early in the process that personnel is policy.”  Stone also believes that Trump’s lawyers are doing him a disservice, saying they’re currently “walking him into the blades.”

Stone, a colorful political operative known among other things as a “dirty trickster,” further explained the Deep State’s enmity for Trump.  As Newman reports, “‘Trump is a real American, a patriot, he’s a real believer in Americana, and also in American superiority – American exceptionalism, if you will – and a believer in American sovereignty,’ Stone said.  ‘He’s always been deeply suspicious of the international types that he was happy to sell condominiums to at inflated prices, but he never shared their politics.'”  Stone also emphasized that, unbeknownst to most, Trump comes from “a long line of anti-communists.”

Moreover, because of Trump’s wealth, Stone says he’s “unbought and unbossed[.] … Anybody who has tried to boss Donald Trump around knows that that won’t work.  He’s very much his own man.”

So a patriot and a believer in Americana, sovereignty, and American exceptionalism who can’t be bought or bullied – that certainly is the Deep State’s worst nightmare.  The question is: Would it resort to murder to end it?  Is Stone’s warning risible or realistic?

All I can say is that it’s a striking claim, and it certainly warrants more media exposure than a questionable book written by an attention-seeking journalist

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.



Source link

The Lib-Con Utah School Porn War Rages On


Recently, I reported on the firing of Mateo Rueda, now an ex-art teacher after showing ten- and eleven-year-olds nude “artwork” at Lincoln Elementary School in Hyrum, Utah on Dec. 4, 2017.  Normally I would have let this story go by now, but Rueda continues playing the victim, aided and abetted by complicit reporters; libertines the world over; and, unfortunately, some good people who don’t realize that the media have mischaracterized his trespass.

Rueda, a native of Colombia, demands an apology, even as he condemns his fellow Cache Valley residents as “cultural dead-ends” and members of a “narrow-minded community.”  He also said, “I was overqualified[.]  I took the [teaching] position with an open heart to make a difference in a predominantly[] Mormon community where there isn’t much culture.”  My – charitable as well as charming!  Yet his defenders – who’ve called people such as me puritans, prudes, and even Nazi-like book-burners – should know that Rueda himself confessed that the nudes were out of bounds.

Claiming that the images were among a set of art postcards with which Rueda was unacquainted, the Herald Journal reported Dec. 28, “Asked if he thought the nudes were appropriate for the sixth-graders in his class, Rueda said he did not.  ‘This is not material at all that I would use. I had no idea,’ he said.”  So, honest mistake, right?

Well, that was before I conducted interviews with local parents and reported that after Rueda showed the nudes to the sixth-graders and got complaints, he must have found them appropriate for fifth-graders – because that’s exactly whom he later showed them to.  What’s more, the parents told me Rueda belittled the children who objected, said they might find some images inappropriate but he didn’t (which is all that apparently mattered), forced them to continue viewing the images over their protestations, and said he didn’t care if they reported him.  He also told them to “grow up.”

After I tipped off the Herald Journal that a second class had seen the images and that Rueda was “lying,” as one of the parents put it, the paper ran a Jan.2 piece mentioning the fifth-graders but also printing this: “Rueda said he told the class that they should not feel [that] the images are inappropriate or wrong.”

So do we believe the late December “not material at all that I would use.  I had no idea” Rueda or the early January “don’t ‘feel the images are inappropriate or wrong'” Rueda?  Hey, it is a different year – I guess his story evolved.

Speaking of which, smut can evolve, too – into art.  One of the paintings Late December Rueda said was inappropriate and Early January Rueda fancied culture is the full-frontal nude “Iris Tree,” a portrait of a sexually libertine, drug-using, bohemian woman by that name.  It’s a work the media consistently label “classical” (“Ooh, the rubes object to classical art!”), apparently unaware that the term references Greek and Roman antiquity.  In contrast, “Iris Tree” is an early 20th-century creation by Italian Amedeo Modigliani, a violent, woman-abusing, philandering, drug-addicted alcoholic known for dancing naked in Paris streets and who could be called a pornographer of his day.  (Other than that, he was a peach.)

For those who say I’m confusing art with artist, I have already examined the difference between legitimate art portraying the naked human form (e.g., the Sistine Chapel) and porn masquerading as art.  Suffice it to say here, something designed to symbolically relate theological concepts – e.g., the Garden of Eden – “Iris Tree” is not.  It’s more the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It’s one of those Modigliani paintings that, as the Daily Mail put it, exudes “raw sensuality” and is “an homage to the sex he so loved.”

So why are such things deemed fine art and shown to kids?  Because sometimes, the older they get, the better they were.  People have this curious notion that if smut is put to canvas with paint and some skill and allowed to age a century, the X-rated becomes the extraordinary.  It doesn’t help that a Chinese collector with more yuan than brains shelled out $153 million for a Modigliani nude in 2015 or that Modigliani’s works now enjoy art world approval.  

(Think this is meaningful?  Read the story of Estelle Lovatt, who in 2007 fooled the art world into thinking her two-year-old’s tomato-ketchup daubs were great works by a renowned, mature artist.)

Speaking of the fooled and foolish, the mainstream media continue writing inaccurate articles sympathetic toward Rueda.  A good example is this People piece, which portrays the teacher as a martyr, quoting him positively as saying the “works” are “icons of art history and human patrimony.”  Interestingly, however, People shows an image of “Iris Tree” with her nipples and nether region obscured.  So the painting is appropriate for ten-year-olds but not for an article meant for adults?

Apparently, People agrees that its picture refutes its thousand words.  You see, shortly before readying this article for publication, I learned that People had removed the “Iris Tree” image from its piece completely, no doubt as a response to my (and others’) having called them out on hypocrisy via Twitter.  Ah, but you know the internet – archiving and the computer “print screen” function saved the day.  Here’s how the People article looked before the people at People became apprised of their sheer stupidity.

Maybe it’s predictable that a media outlet would blur an image when it has already blurred the line between good and bad journalism.  But I’d still like to know why People is unwilling to show, in its entirety, a painting that it states “[m]illions of people worldwide have marveled at.”  What are you afraid of, dear editors?  That kids may see it?

Oh, wait…

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

Recently, I reported on the firing of Mateo Rueda, now an ex-art teacher after showing ten- and eleven-year-olds nude “artwork” at Lincoln Elementary School in Hyrum, Utah on Dec. 4, 2017.  Normally I would have let this story go by now, but Rueda continues playing the victim, aided and abetted by complicit reporters; libertines the world over; and, unfortunately, some good people who don’t realize that the media have mischaracterized his trespass.

Rueda, a native of Colombia, demands an apology, even as he condemns his fellow Cache Valley residents as “cultural dead-ends” and members of a “narrow-minded community.”  He also said, “I was overqualified[.]  I took the [teaching] position with an open heart to make a difference in a predominantly[] Mormon community where there isn’t much culture.”  My – charitable as well as charming!  Yet his defenders – who’ve called people such as me puritans, prudes, and even Nazi-like book-burners – should know that Rueda himself confessed that the nudes were out of bounds.

Claiming that the images were among a set of art postcards with which Rueda was unacquainted, the Herald Journal reported Dec. 28, “Asked if he thought the nudes were appropriate for the sixth-graders in his class, Rueda said he did not.  ‘This is not material at all that I would use. I had no idea,’ he said.”  So, honest mistake, right?

Well, that was before I conducted interviews with local parents and reported that after Rueda showed the nudes to the sixth-graders and got complaints, he must have found them appropriate for fifth-graders – because that’s exactly whom he later showed them to.  What’s more, the parents told me Rueda belittled the children who objected, said they might find some images inappropriate but he didn’t (which is all that apparently mattered), forced them to continue viewing the images over their protestations, and said he didn’t care if they reported him.  He also told them to “grow up.”

After I tipped off the Herald Journal that a second class had seen the images and that Rueda was “lying,” as one of the parents put it, the paper ran a Jan.2 piece mentioning the fifth-graders but also printing this: “Rueda said he told the class that they should not feel [that] the images are inappropriate or wrong.”

So do we believe the late December “not material at all that I would use.  I had no idea” Rueda or the early January “don’t ‘feel the images are inappropriate or wrong'” Rueda?  Hey, it is a different year – I guess his story evolved.

Speaking of which, smut can evolve, too – into art.  One of the paintings Late December Rueda said was inappropriate and Early January Rueda fancied culture is the full-frontal nude “Iris Tree,” a portrait of a sexually libertine, drug-using, bohemian woman by that name.  It’s a work the media consistently label “classical” (“Ooh, the rubes object to classical art!”), apparently unaware that the term references Greek and Roman antiquity.  In contrast, “Iris Tree” is an early 20th-century creation by Italian Amedeo Modigliani, a violent, woman-abusing, philandering, drug-addicted alcoholic known for dancing naked in Paris streets and who could be called a pornographer of his day.  (Other than that, he was a peach.)

For those who say I’m confusing art with artist, I have already examined the difference between legitimate art portraying the naked human form (e.g., the Sistine Chapel) and porn masquerading as art.  Suffice it to say here, something designed to symbolically relate theological concepts – e.g., the Garden of Eden – “Iris Tree” is not.  It’s more the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It’s one of those Modigliani paintings that, as the Daily Mail put it, exudes “raw sensuality” and is “an homage to the sex he so loved.”

So why are such things deemed fine art and shown to kids?  Because sometimes, the older they get, the better they were.  People have this curious notion that if smut is put to canvas with paint and some skill and allowed to age a century, the X-rated becomes the extraordinary.  It doesn’t help that a Chinese collector with more yuan than brains shelled out $153 million for a Modigliani nude in 2015 or that Modigliani’s works now enjoy art world approval.  

(Think this is meaningful?  Read the story of Estelle Lovatt, who in 2007 fooled the art world into thinking her two-year-old’s tomato-ketchup daubs were great works by a renowned, mature artist.)

Speaking of the fooled and foolish, the mainstream media continue writing inaccurate articles sympathetic toward Rueda.  A good example is this People piece, which portrays the teacher as a martyr, quoting him positively as saying the “works” are “icons of art history and human patrimony.”  Interestingly, however, People shows an image of “Iris Tree” with her nipples and nether region obscured.  So the painting is appropriate for ten-year-olds but not for an article meant for adults?

Apparently, People agrees that its picture refutes its thousand words.  You see, shortly before readying this article for publication, I learned that People had removed the “Iris Tree” image from its piece completely, no doubt as a response to my (and others’) having called them out on hypocrisy via Twitter.  Ah, but you know the internet – archiving and the computer “print screen” function saved the day.  Here’s how the People article looked before the people at People became apprised of their sheer stupidity.

Maybe it’s predictable that a media outlet would blur an image when it has already blurred the line between good and bad journalism.  But I’d still like to know why People is unwilling to show, in its entirety, a painting that it states “[m]illions of people worldwide have marveled at.”  What are you afraid of, dear editors?  That kids may see it?

Oh, wait…

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.



Source link

The Decline and Fall of American Nationhood


It’s a sad fact of man’s nature that we tend to operate based on emotion more than reason. This comes to mind when considering how illegal migration, a.k.a. invasion, has now again surged back to almost Obama-era levels. Some are theorizing why this is so, looking at the micro, but an important factor is minimized: not enough people care.

Oh, they care about some things: sports, entertainment, money, sex, bread and circuses. But the familial passion that should characterize a nation is largely absent.

Passion is the actuator. You don’t become a concert pianist because of a cold intellectual calculation that you may have some talent and, well, you could make some good money being on stage. It’s passion that motivates you to sink your teeth into practicing hours a day. Just consider the difference between a child forced to engage in an activity and one with self-motivating passion, or the difference between soldiers fighting simply because they must and those truly believing in their cause.

When hearing about invaders streaming across our border, often with a sense of entitlement, we should be filled with righteous anger motivating us to robustly defend the homeland. We’re not. Or not enough of us are. In fact, a good percentage of the country works against the common good, passionate about the wrong things and acting as traitors would. Too many of the rest are comfortably numb.

This is why invasion has been tolerated (and often encouraged), why we talk about amnesty for people who should be unceremoniously shipped south, and why there isn’t yet funding for a border wall despite a record Republican House majority.

The reason for this, sadly, is that we’re not a nation — properly understood. A nation is an extension of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family; it’s defined by blood, faith, language and culture. For example, the Sioux Nation wasn’t a “country” or “state”; it was a very large family sharing the aforementioned elements.

This truth was once recognized and emphasized. It was mentioned among the Founding Fathers that we enjoyed the benefit of “consanguinity,” meaning, a relationship based on having the same remote ancestors. This became less of a reality after the waves of 19th-century immigration, yet emphasis was still placed on maintaining nationhood. For example, President Teddy Roosevelt said in 1907 that treating people with “equality” was not a given, but was “predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.”

He went on to say, “Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.” Now consider how many people will describe themselves as a/an _________-American or, worse still, will say “I’m _________” (fill in, Polish, Irish, Greek, Italian, etc.). They may not be bad people; they may mean well. But they’re unwittingly strengthening the all-too-prevalent internationalist mentality and are acting contrary to the cause of nationhood.

Nationhood was defended legislatively in 1921 with the Emergency Quota Act and in 1924 with the enactment of the National Origins Act, which used immigration quotas to maintain our country’s demographic balance. This is called “racist” today, even though some Europeans had greater quotas than other Europeans (and they’re the same race), but demographic upheaval is precisely how you destroy a nation. Ask the Tibetans, American Indians or the Ainu in Japan (if you can find any) about that.

This brings us to the most significant and disruptive piece of legislation in American history: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Introduced by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY), co-sponsored by Sen. Philip Hart (D-MI) and promoted by lady-killer Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), it should have earned them the designation (D-Demographic Destruction).

The act increased immigration levels from a historical annual norm of approximately 250,000 to more than one million; it also for the first time limited immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Since it took effect in ’68, 85 percent of immigrants have hailed from the Third World (70 to 90 percent of them vote Democrat upon being naturalized; this is the real reason leftists love immigration). America would never be the same again.

Not only did the rate of immigration exceed the rate of assimilation, but many newcomers are not easily assimilable. Moreover, assimilation is never a one-way street when at issue are large numbers of immigrants; for while they may change, they will also change the wider society. In addition, even a very basic level of assimilation isn’t a given, as the Amish, Hasidim and some other groups prove.

Couple this with the rise of multiculturalism and what underlies it, moral relativism/nihilism, where people are essentially told “Hey, it’s all perspective; whatever works for you (unless that happens to be authentic Americanism)” and it’s no surprise what we’ve become: a multitude of disparate peoples trying (not always too hard) to co-exist within the same porous borders. We’re not divided. We’re fractured — religiously, philosophically, politically, socially, ideologically and culturally. In fact, what unites us most today is sin.

Our unofficial motto, once E pluribus unum, has beome E pluribus plura — out of many, many more. This is why we fight over everything, from life’s origin to politics to football to baking cakes to marriage to, even, what boys and girls are. It’s why everything ends up in court.

As for the end game, people with badly conflicting values trying to co-exist under the same roof will eventually go their separate ways — unless, as with bickering children, an iron hand keeps them in line. The large groups of people known as countries are no different. Unless something radically alters our cultural trajectory, as a nuclear blast might alter an asteroid’s, our fate is either dissolution or despotism.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

It’s a sad fact of man’s nature that we tend to operate based on emotion more than reason. This comes to mind when considering how illegal migration, a.k.a. invasion, has now again surged back to almost Obama-era levels. Some are theorizing why this is so, looking at the micro, but an important factor is minimized: not enough people care.

Oh, they care about some things: sports, entertainment, money, sex, bread and circuses. But the familial passion that should characterize a nation is largely absent.

Passion is the actuator. You don’t become a concert pianist because of a cold intellectual calculation that you may have some talent and, well, you could make some good money being on stage. It’s passion that motivates you to sink your teeth into practicing hours a day. Just consider the difference between a child forced to engage in an activity and one with self-motivating passion, or the difference between soldiers fighting simply because they must and those truly believing in their cause.

When hearing about invaders streaming across our border, often with a sense of entitlement, we should be filled with righteous anger motivating us to robustly defend the homeland. We’re not. Or not enough of us are. In fact, a good percentage of the country works against the common good, passionate about the wrong things and acting as traitors would. Too many of the rest are comfortably numb.

This is why invasion has been tolerated (and often encouraged), why we talk about amnesty for people who should be unceremoniously shipped south, and why there isn’t yet funding for a border wall despite a record Republican House majority.

The reason for this, sadly, is that we’re not a nation — properly understood. A nation is an extension of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family; it’s defined by blood, faith, language and culture. For example, the Sioux Nation wasn’t a “country” or “state”; it was a very large family sharing the aforementioned elements.

This truth was once recognized and emphasized. It was mentioned among the Founding Fathers that we enjoyed the benefit of “consanguinity,” meaning, a relationship based on having the same remote ancestors. This became less of a reality after the waves of 19th-century immigration, yet emphasis was still placed on maintaining nationhood. For example, President Teddy Roosevelt said in 1907 that treating people with “equality” was not a given, but was “predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.”

He went on to say, “Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.” Now consider how many people will describe themselves as a/an _________-American or, worse still, will say “I’m _________” (fill in, Polish, Irish, Greek, Italian, etc.). They may not be bad people; they may mean well. But they’re unwittingly strengthening the all-too-prevalent internationalist mentality and are acting contrary to the cause of nationhood.

Nationhood was defended legislatively in 1921 with the Emergency Quota Act and in 1924 with the enactment of the National Origins Act, which used immigration quotas to maintain our country’s demographic balance. This is called “racist” today, even though some Europeans had greater quotas than other Europeans (and they’re the same race), but demographic upheaval is precisely how you destroy a nation. Ask the Tibetans, American Indians or the Ainu in Japan (if you can find any) about that.

This brings us to the most significant and disruptive piece of legislation in American history: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Introduced by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY), co-sponsored by Sen. Philip Hart (D-MI) and promoted by lady-killer Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), it should have earned them the designation (D-Demographic Destruction).

The act increased immigration levels from a historical annual norm of approximately 250,000 to more than one million; it also for the first time limited immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Since it took effect in ’68, 85 percent of immigrants have hailed from the Third World (70 to 90 percent of them vote Democrat upon being naturalized; this is the real reason leftists love immigration). America would never be the same again.

Not only did the rate of immigration exceed the rate of assimilation, but many newcomers are not easily assimilable. Moreover, assimilation is never a one-way street when at issue are large numbers of immigrants; for while they may change, they will also change the wider society. In addition, even a very basic level of assimilation isn’t a given, as the Amish, Hasidim and some other groups prove.

Couple this with the rise of multiculturalism and what underlies it, moral relativism/nihilism, where people are essentially told “Hey, it’s all perspective; whatever works for you (unless that happens to be authentic Americanism)” and it’s no surprise what we’ve become: a multitude of disparate peoples trying (not always too hard) to co-exist within the same porous borders. We’re not divided. We’re fractured — religiously, philosophically, politically, socially, ideologically and culturally. In fact, what unites us most today is sin.

Our unofficial motto, once E pluribus unum, has beome E pluribus plura — out of many, many more. This is why we fight over everything, from life’s origin to politics to football to baking cakes to marriage to, even, what boys and girls are. It’s why everything ends up in court.

As for the end game, people with badly conflicting values trying to co-exist under the same roof will eventually go their separate ways — unless, as with bickering children, an iron hand keeps them in line. The large groups of people known as countries are no different. Unless something radically alters our cultural trajectory, as a nuclear blast might alter an asteroid’s, our fate is either dissolution or despotism.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link

Misandry Rises: In Defense of Men



"Don’t vote for men!" is the message of a recent campaign ad.  Issued by Dana Nessel, Democratic attorney general contender in Michigan, what she literally says is, "Who [sic] can you trust most not to show you their [sic] penis in a professional setting?"



Source link

The Real Scandal in the Alabama Senate Race


Scandals take many forms. If you could be transported back to antebellum times, for example, would you not find scandalous the desire to perpetuate the legal institution of slavery? This brings us to the Alabama special election to fill Jeff Sessions’ vacant Senate seat, a contest now front-and-center with the recent sex allegations made against GOP hopeful Judge Roy Moore. Moore denies the charges, but there are certain things that can’t be denied.

Democrat Doug Jones, Moore’s opponent, has some noteworthy positions. He’s pro-prenatal infanticide. It’s not a stance he took 40 years ago but has since abandoned, and it doesn’t mean he’s accused of once having kissed an underage girl.

It means he believes in the murder of underage girls — and boys. That’s beyond scandalous.

Jones supports de-facto amnesty, meaning, he wouldn’t even require illegal aliens to return to their home countries before being granted citizenship. This undermines the rule of law and exemplifies the treasonous attitude that subordinates the good of one’s countrymen to the good of invading foreigners — and all because they’ll vote Democrat after being naturalized. Selling out your culture for political power is scandal on steroids.

Jones supports the regulation of carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food, because he pushes the dubious global-warmingclimate-change, uh, “global climate disruption” agenda. Since it’s average Americans who’ll pay these regulations’ costs, this serves to further impoverish the struggling. That’s scandalous.

Jones advocates the unscientific, socially disastrous “transgender” agenda. First, he said President Trump was “wrong, wrong, wrong” to return to the longtime status quo of banning so-called “transgender” people from the military; this means he supports social experimentation in the armed forces.

Second, he also supports allowing boys masquerading as girls to use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. In fact, he said that Trump’s rescinding of Barack Obama’s school guidance to that effect was “wrong, wrong, wrong!” (Because, you see, when you say that way it makes the other guy three times as wrong.) By the way, below is a video of Jones expressing these sentiments just last month.

Oh, yeah — the above is scandalous, too.

In addition, Jones advocates using taxpayer money to fund fanciful, economically unviable energy schemes such as solar, wind and thermal energy. Apparently, he’d like to repeat Obama’s “green energy” boondoggles (e.g., Solyndra), which only turned out green in that they wasted 2.2 billion worth of Americans’ greenbacks.

But Jones loves spending other people’s money. While he doesn’t believe in cutting your taxes to spur economic growth, he thinks having government give away your tax money will do so.

Lastly, despite the fact that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, has caused millions of Americans’ healthcare premiums to rise and created co-ops that have collapsed right and left, Jones opposes rescinding the program. Well, no matter. He’ll have great healthcare through the Senate if he wins December 12.

As for the last four positions, some would say calling them scandalous is a stretch, so you can apply your own adjective (stupid comes to mind). And whatever you might prefer for characterizing all his positions, “old” and “repudiated” don’t fit. “Current” sure does, though.

So, killing babies, killing the rule of law, killing with regulations, killing tradition and kids’ right to privacy, killing our pocketbooks, killing the economy and killing healthcare (sounds like an alternate-universe Bill O’Reilly book series). In the scandal department, Roy Moore has a long way to go to have a chance of keeping up with the Joneses.

Simply put, Doug Jones is the most scandalous of creatures: a leftist radical. It’s a wonder he isn’t seeking office in California, New York, Massachusetts or North Korea. Running someone whose positions are so wholly contrary to Alabaman culture is a slap in the face to the state. Is this a political version of Punk’d?

If I lived in Alabama, on December 12 I’d vote for Judge Roy Moore while holding my nose — but only because the stench from Doug Jones’ name would be rising right from the ballot.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Scandals take many forms. If you could be transported back to antebellum times, for example, would you not find scandalous the desire to perpetuate the legal institution of slavery? This brings us to the Alabama special election to fill Jeff Sessions’ vacant Senate seat, a contest now front-and-center with the recent sex allegations made against GOP hopeful Judge Roy Moore. Moore denies the charges, but there are certain things that can’t be denied.

Democrat Doug Jones, Moore’s opponent, has some noteworthy positions. He’s pro-prenatal infanticide. It’s not a stance he took 40 years ago but has since abandoned, and it doesn’t mean he’s accused of once having kissed an underage girl.

It means he believes in the murder of underage girls — and boys. That’s beyond scandalous.

Jones supports de-facto amnesty, meaning, he wouldn’t even require illegal aliens to return to their home countries before being granted citizenship. This undermines the rule of law and exemplifies the treasonous attitude that subordinates the good of one’s countrymen to the good of invading foreigners — and all because they’ll vote Democrat after being naturalized. Selling out your culture for political power is scandal on steroids.

Jones supports the regulation of carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food, because he pushes the dubious global-warmingclimate-change, uh, “global climate disruption” agenda. Since it’s average Americans who’ll pay these regulations’ costs, this serves to further impoverish the struggling. That’s scandalous.

Jones advocates the unscientific, socially disastrous “transgender” agenda. First, he said President Trump was “wrong, wrong, wrong” to return to the longtime status quo of banning so-called “transgender” people from the military; this means he supports social experimentation in the armed forces.

Second, he also supports allowing boys masquerading as girls to use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. In fact, he said that Trump’s rescinding of Barack Obama’s school guidance to that effect was “wrong, wrong, wrong!” (Because, you see, when you say that way it makes the other guy three times as wrong.) By the way, below is a video of Jones expressing these sentiments just last month.

Oh, yeah — the above is scandalous, too.

In addition, Jones advocates using taxpayer money to fund fanciful, economically unviable energy schemes such as solar, wind and thermal energy. Apparently, he’d like to repeat Obama’s “green energy” boondoggles (e.g., Solyndra), which only turned out green in that they wasted 2.2 billion worth of Americans’ greenbacks.

But Jones loves spending other people’s money. While he doesn’t believe in cutting your taxes to spur economic growth, he thinks having government give away your tax money will do so.

Lastly, despite the fact that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, has caused millions of Americans’ healthcare premiums to rise and created co-ops that have collapsed right and left, Jones opposes rescinding the program. Well, no matter. He’ll have great healthcare through the Senate if he wins December 12.

As for the last four positions, some would say calling them scandalous is a stretch, so you can apply your own adjective (stupid comes to mind). And whatever you might prefer for characterizing all his positions, “old” and “repudiated” don’t fit. “Current” sure does, though.

So, killing babies, killing the rule of law, killing with regulations, killing tradition and kids’ right to privacy, killing our pocketbooks, killing the economy and killing healthcare (sounds like an alternate-universe Bill O’Reilly book series). In the scandal department, Roy Moore has a long way to go to have a chance of keeping up with the Joneses.

Simply put, Doug Jones is the most scandalous of creatures: a leftist radical. It’s a wonder he isn’t seeking office in California, New York, Massachusetts or North Korea. Running someone whose positions are so wholly contrary to Alabaman culture is a slap in the face to the state. Is this a political version of Punk’d?

If I lived in Alabama, on December 12 I’d vote for Judge Roy Moore while holding my nose — but only because the stench from Doug Jones’ name would be rising right from the ballot.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link

Godless! Atheism and the Texas Church Shooter


“If God does not exist, everything is permitted,” wrote Fyodor Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov.  Mentioning this in association with Devin Patrick Kelley, the militant atheist who last Sunday perpetrated the worst church shooting in U.S.  history, is bound to raises hackles.  Of course, few atheists will descend into committing murder; in fact, I’ve known some I’d call “good people.” Moreover, note that I myself once not only didn’t believe in God, but like Kelley thought religious people were “stupid.” Yet is it possible a straight line can be drawn between atheism (the belief) and increasing crime and immorality? Ideas do have consequences, after all. 

George Washington once wrote, “[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  …[R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Many great thinkers have expressed the same idea, yet, when it’s related today, the assumption is that what’s being said is atheists can’t be good people.  This is both because theists generally don’t explain their position well and atheists generally don’t seek to understand it well; passions run high and the two sides talk past each other.  But now I’ll explain exactly what Dostoevsky and Washington meant — in a way making it apparent why it’s an insight that helped bring me, formerly a dismissive unbeliever, to faith. 

A very near relation of a close friend said to him once, “Murder isn’t wrong; it’s just that society says it is.”  I’ve heard this sentiment expressed, in different words, many times.  In fact, notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, known as the “Milwaukee Cannibal,” said to his parents as a teen, “If there’s no God, why can’t I just make up my own rules?”

But here’s the question: What would you say to my friend’s relation? How could you refute him?  We could warn, as a painfully legalistic ex-cop once said to me, that committing murder will land him in the pokey.  But that doesn’t really address the matter’s heart, does it? We want people doing the “right thing” not just because — and when — they fear consequences.  (Atheists emphasize this when criticizing the “fear of God”; note, though, there’s also the love of God.)  In fact, we’ve staked our whole republic on people’s ability to, in a great measure, govern themselves from within. 

I know what I can say to the man.  On the surface, it sounds simplistic: “You’re wrong, because God exists and has created eternal, unchanging moral law — it’s called Truth.”

Now, my friend’s relation could disagree with my proposition (God exists), but he can’t dispute my logic.  If God exists and has decreed the relevant moral law, the man is wrong.  Yet what can an atheist tell him? For if the atheist’s proposition that there is no God is correct, the man is correct: Society is all that’s left, so it could only be society saying, “Murder is wrong.” 

To fully grasp this belief’s implications, we must delve into the nature of right and wrong.  If society is all there is and “Man is the measure of all things,” as ancient Greek Protagoras put it, can we even speak of “morality”?  Consider my standard explanation:

If we learned that the vast majority of the world loved chocolate but hated vanilla, would we claim this made vanilla “wrong” or “evil”? Of course not.  It’s just a matter of taste, or human preference.  Yet how is it any different asserting murder is “wrong” or “evil” if the only reason we do so is that we learn that the vast majority of the world hates the idea of killing others in a way the vast majority of the world considers unjust?

If man’s consensus is all it is, then it falls into the same category as flavors: human preference. 

Some may now say, “But wait, we’re not talking about killing my taste buds but killing people! It’s a totally different thing!” I don’t argue it doesn’t feel different (to all but sociopaths), but remember that the idea this should put murder in a different category would, under atheism, also just be a function of man’s preference. 

This is irrefutable.  The only way we can say “morality” properly defined — not as something synonymous with man’s preference, in other words — truly exists is if it’s a universal, eternal, unchanging moral law handed down by an omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe; that is, if, just as God created Physical Reality (matter and the “laws of physics”), He also created Moral Reality. 

And if God doesn’t exist? Then we should stop fooling ourselves and putting lipstick on the pig of mere preference.  Stop using words such as “values” (prevalent now precisely because “morality” connotes something absolute), designed to obscure atheism’s meaninglessness.  Like my friend’s relation and Dahmer, just accept that right and wrong is illusion. 

This brings us to the true meaning of “You can’t be moral without God”: If divine law isn’t real, no one can be “moral” because you cannot conform to a non-existent standard.  “Moral” is as incomprehensible a term in a universe without Truth as “physical” would be in one without matter.  So, if God doesn’t exist, neither atheists nor theists can be moral — only in or out of fashion. 

The reality, my atheist friends should note, is that embracing any moral is a matter of faith.  We cannot see a moral under a microscope or a principle in a Petri dish.  Science cannot prove murder (or anything else) is wrong — only possible.  For science merely tells us what we can do, not what we should

People generally don’t come to terms with these implications of atheism because most don’t take their world view to its logical conclusion; many also wouldn’t want to, for it means staring true meaninglessness in the face.  It means that all the causes moderns fill their lives with are mere vanity.  Tolerance can’t be better than intolerance, love better than hate, or respect for life better than murder in a godless, Moral-Truth-bereft world.

Then again, consistency can’t be better than hypocrisy, pretense better than sincerity, or fairness better than imposing one’s will, either.  Thus, someone who has thought these things through and accepted atheism’s correlative moral nihilism may push his agenda simply because he wants to.  As with atheist’s atheist Friedrich Nietzsche, he may blithely accept his own contradictions, boiling his creed down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

By the way, this may explain studies showing that sociopaths have above-average intelligence.  Perhaps they’re people smart enough to think these matters through, but unwise enough to come to the wrong conclusion (God doesn’t exist, thus Truth doesn’t exist, therefore right and wrong doesn’t exist).  For certain is that if you accepted this parenthetical proposition intellectually — and incorporated it into yourself on an emotional level so that it permeated not just your head but your heart — you would be a sociopath.  You wouldn’t have a conscience because you’d know, and feel, that there was nothing to be conscientious about. 

Of course, almost no atheist so thoroughly imbibes that proposition; most have strong feelings about various trespasses (real and imagined).  So not every atheist becomes a reprobate any more than every Muslim becomes a terrorist or every Nazi a genocidal maniac.  But ideas have consequences.  Atheism, just like misguided theism (e.g., Islam), is destructive. 

This may take a dark form or just that of the atheistic but generally good-hearted young man I once knew who responded, when I mentioned that something he was contemplating was wrong, “But it’s not wrong for me.” The point, however, is that atheism’s implied moral nihilism can justify anything.  Rape? Kill? Steal? Why not? Who’s to say it’s wrong? This brings us to one last matter. 

When someone points out that atheistic Marxist governments have killed 65 to 110 million people, atheists will often retort, “But atheism doesn’t prescribe that!” They’re correct.  Atheism doesn’t prescribe any behavior.

It also doesn’t proscribe any behavior.

And that’s the problem.  Silence on moral matters would be fine if man by nature were angelic.  But by nature, he’s barbaric — and he remains so unless some civilizing agency enters the equation.  Atheism’s mistake is one of omission. 

This is why Dostoevsky, Dahmer and Washington were right: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Ideas have consequences.  Be careful what you believe — and what you espouse. 

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

“If God does not exist, everything is permitted,” wrote Fyodor Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov.  Mentioning this in association with Devin Patrick Kelley, the militant atheist who last Sunday perpetrated the worst church shooting in U.S.  history, is bound to raises hackles.  Of course, few atheists will descend into committing murder; in fact, I’ve known some I’d call “good people.” Moreover, note that I myself once not only didn’t believe in God, but like Kelley thought religious people were “stupid.” Yet is it possible a straight line can be drawn between atheism (the belief) and increasing crime and immorality? Ideas do have consequences, after all. 

George Washington once wrote, “[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  …[R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Many great thinkers have expressed the same idea, yet, when it’s related today, the assumption is that what’s being said is atheists can’t be good people.  This is both because theists generally don’t explain their position well and atheists generally don’t seek to understand it well; passions run high and the two sides talk past each other.  But now I’ll explain exactly what Dostoevsky and Washington meant — in a way making it apparent why it’s an insight that helped bring me, formerly a dismissive unbeliever, to faith. 

A very near relation of a close friend said to him once, “Murder isn’t wrong; it’s just that society says it is.”  I’ve heard this sentiment expressed, in different words, many times.  In fact, notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, known as the “Milwaukee Cannibal,” said to his parents as a teen, “If there’s no God, why can’t I just make up my own rules?”

But here’s the question: What would you say to my friend’s relation? How could you refute him?  We could warn, as a painfully legalistic ex-cop once said to me, that committing murder will land him in the pokey.  But that doesn’t really address the matter’s heart, does it? We want people doing the “right thing” not just because — and when — they fear consequences.  (Atheists emphasize this when criticizing the “fear of God”; note, though, there’s also the love of God.)  In fact, we’ve staked our whole republic on people’s ability to, in a great measure, govern themselves from within. 

I know what I can say to the man.  On the surface, it sounds simplistic: “You’re wrong, because God exists and has created eternal, unchanging moral law — it’s called Truth.”

Now, my friend’s relation could disagree with my proposition (God exists), but he can’t dispute my logic.  If God exists and has decreed the relevant moral law, the man is wrong.  Yet what can an atheist tell him? For if the atheist’s proposition that there is no God is correct, the man is correct: Society is all that’s left, so it could only be society saying, “Murder is wrong.” 

To fully grasp this belief’s implications, we must delve into the nature of right and wrong.  If society is all there is and “Man is the measure of all things,” as ancient Greek Protagoras put it, can we even speak of “morality”?  Consider my standard explanation:

If we learned that the vast majority of the world loved chocolate but hated vanilla, would we claim this made vanilla “wrong” or “evil”? Of course not.  It’s just a matter of taste, or human preference.  Yet how is it any different asserting murder is “wrong” or “evil” if the only reason we do so is that we learn that the vast majority of the world hates the idea of killing others in a way the vast majority of the world considers unjust?

If man’s consensus is all it is, then it falls into the same category as flavors: human preference. 

Some may now say, “But wait, we’re not talking about killing my taste buds but killing people! It’s a totally different thing!” I don’t argue it doesn’t feel different (to all but sociopaths), but remember that the idea this should put murder in a different category would, under atheism, also just be a function of man’s preference. 

This is irrefutable.  The only way we can say “morality” properly defined — not as something synonymous with man’s preference, in other words — truly exists is if it’s a universal, eternal, unchanging moral law handed down by an omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe; that is, if, just as God created Physical Reality (matter and the “laws of physics”), He also created Moral Reality. 

And if God doesn’t exist? Then we should stop fooling ourselves and putting lipstick on the pig of mere preference.  Stop using words such as “values” (prevalent now precisely because “morality” connotes something absolute), designed to obscure atheism’s meaninglessness.  Like my friend’s relation and Dahmer, just accept that right and wrong is illusion. 

This brings us to the true meaning of “You can’t be moral without God”: If divine law isn’t real, no one can be “moral” because you cannot conform to a non-existent standard.  “Moral” is as incomprehensible a term in a universe without Truth as “physical” would be in one without matter.  So, if God doesn’t exist, neither atheists nor theists can be moral — only in or out of fashion. 

The reality, my atheist friends should note, is that embracing any moral is a matter of faith.  We cannot see a moral under a microscope or a principle in a Petri dish.  Science cannot prove murder (or anything else) is wrong — only possible.  For science merely tells us what we can do, not what we should

People generally don’t come to terms with these implications of atheism because most don’t take their world view to its logical conclusion; many also wouldn’t want to, for it means staring true meaninglessness in the face.  It means that all the causes moderns fill their lives with are mere vanity.  Tolerance can’t be better than intolerance, love better than hate, or respect for life better than murder in a godless, Moral-Truth-bereft world.

Then again, consistency can’t be better than hypocrisy, pretense better than sincerity, or fairness better than imposing one’s will, either.  Thus, someone who has thought these things through and accepted atheism’s correlative moral nihilism may push his agenda simply because he wants to.  As with atheist’s atheist Friedrich Nietzsche, he may blithely accept his own contradictions, boiling his creed down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

By the way, this may explain studies showing that sociopaths have above-average intelligence.  Perhaps they’re people smart enough to think these matters through, but unwise enough to come to the wrong conclusion (God doesn’t exist, thus Truth doesn’t exist, therefore right and wrong doesn’t exist).  For certain is that if you accepted this parenthetical proposition intellectually — and incorporated it into yourself on an emotional level so that it permeated not just your head but your heart — you would be a sociopath.  You wouldn’t have a conscience because you’d know, and feel, that there was nothing to be conscientious about. 

Of course, almost no atheist so thoroughly imbibes that proposition; most have strong feelings about various trespasses (real and imagined).  So not every atheist becomes a reprobate any more than every Muslim becomes a terrorist or every Nazi a genocidal maniac.  But ideas have consequences.  Atheism, just like misguided theism (e.g., Islam), is destructive. 

This may take a dark form or just that of the atheistic but generally good-hearted young man I once knew who responded, when I mentioned that something he was contemplating was wrong, “But it’s not wrong for me.” The point, however, is that atheism’s implied moral nihilism can justify anything.  Rape? Kill? Steal? Why not? Who’s to say it’s wrong? This brings us to one last matter. 

When someone points out that atheistic Marxist governments have killed 65 to 110 million people, atheists will often retort, “But atheism doesn’t prescribe that!” They’re correct.  Atheism doesn’t prescribe any behavior.

It also doesn’t proscribe any behavior.

And that’s the problem.  Silence on moral matters would be fine if man by nature were angelic.  But by nature, he’s barbaric — and he remains so unless some civilizing agency enters the equation.  Atheism’s mistake is one of omission. 

This is why Dostoevsky, Dahmer and Washington were right: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Ideas have consequences.  Be careful what you believe — and what you espouse. 

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link

Why I Oppose Banning Bump Stocks


The latest firearm-equipment boogeyman is the “bump stock,” a device allowing one to fire a semi-automatic rifle more rapidly. Liberals learned of bump stocks because Las Vegas murderer Stephen Paddock had modified 12 of his rifles with them.

This has made them a target for prohibition, and an easy one, too. After all, almost no one wants to buy a bump stock, so even many Republicans — and the National Rifle Association — are willing to place greater restrictions on the device. I also have no plans to acquire one, but I wouldn’t even consider outlawing the stock. Why?

Remember last year’s Orlando massacre, perpetrated by Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen? In its wake the gun boogeyman, as it has often been, was the AR-15, the sleek black gun with military looks that makes libs wet their panties. We were told how outrageous it was that such a “killing machine” (is this the Terminator we’re talking about?) was available to the public. But notice something funny?

Paddock also had an AR-15 rifle.

Yet we haven’t heard a peep from the mice about this “killing machine.” The reason?

Right now, leftists have bump stocks to focus on. Being driven by emotion and/or Machiavellian motives (depending on the person), the type of equipment targeted in an anti-gun push is secondary, at best. The only consistent theme is an effort to steadily, incrementally erode gun rights. It doesn’t matter what weapon or accessory is outlawed today because there’ll be another opportunity, and target, after the next high-profile gun crime tomorrow.

The argument for a restriction is always the same. Logically rendered it states: “This _________ (fill in the blank) is far too effective to be available to the general public.” What this misses is that Second Amendment rights don’t exist just to secure the opportunity to go target shooting or hunting.

They exist to ensure that Americans can have effective weaponry. Full stop.

Again, realize that the current gun-grabber proposal has nothing to do with bump stocks. It has more to do with bumps in heads passing for brains that can’t figure out that any given anti-gun proposal is just another step in an evolutionary process whose apparent end game is the elimination of all guns. This must be concluded since liberals never articulate a different end game. And there always will be another massacre, and then another, and each will be followed with a further drum beat to outlaw _________, because it’s just too effective for citizens to own. It’s a crumb here, a morsel there, a slice today, a half a loaf tomorrow.

In his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter titled “The Eternal Revolution,” philosopher G.K. Chesterton wrote something relevant here: “Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to suit the vision. Progress does mean…that we are always changing the vision.”

While this fault, lamentably, plagues most ideologists today to some degree, it characterizes liberals. They’re the situational-values set, and their goalposts are always shifting. This is why giving them an inch only means they’ll come back for a foot and, later, a mile. This is why you don’t give them even a millimeter. It’s why you must insist upon a certain prerequisite before considering any more anti-gun laws: that liberals articulate a hard and fast, unchanging vision, to be presented for consideration, of what guns laws should forevermore be.

No more free-association legislating. No more shots in the dark. No more making it up as you go along. For example:

  • You say bump stocks allow a person to fire too rapidly. Okay, what exactly is the maximum number of rounds per minute a weapon available to the public should be capable of firing? What’s your reasoning?
  • “High-capacity magazines” is an ambiguous term. Exactly what size magazine should citizens be allowed to own? What’s your reasoning?
  • Don’t tell us about “high-powered rifles.” Tell us exactly what the maximum muzzle velocity of a publicly available firearm should be. What’s your reasoning?
  • Another ambiguous (and misleading) term is “armor-piercing ammunition.” What exactly should the maximum penetration power of a publicly available round be? What’s your reasoning?

Once you formulate your concrete vision (for the first time in your lives), please present it. If we accept it, though, note what the agreement means: You don’t get to ask for more anti-gun laws ever again. There’s no more politicizing of the issue after every shooting. The vision is conceived, articulated, agreed upon — and then set in stone.

Of course, I’m sure there’s no way to make such a thing legally binding, and no other agreement with liberals is worth the paper it’s printed on. The point is that without such a vision’s presentation we shouldn’t even take anti-gun proposals seriously. Doing otherwise is akin to pandering to children (and liberals are overgrown children) when they stamp their feet and scream about what they want right now, “just because.”

This doesn’t mean we should be totally averse to compromise. So, try this on for size: I propose reducing the 22,000 anti-gun laws currently on the books by 10,000. If that’s unacceptable, however, I’ll agree to a 5,000-law reduction — for now. There’s always next year’s negotiation, after all.

Don’t ever let it be said I’m not a reasonable guy.

 Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

The latest firearm-equipment boogeyman is the “bump stock,” a device allowing one to fire a semi-automatic rifle more rapidly. Liberals learned of bump stocks because Las Vegas murderer Stephen Paddock had modified 12 of his rifles with them.

This has made them a target for prohibition, and an easy one, too. After all, almost no one wants to buy a bump stock, so even many Republicans — and the National Rifle Association — are willing to place greater restrictions on the device. I also have no plans to acquire one, but I wouldn’t even consider outlawing the stock. Why?

Photo credit: truthaboutguns.com

Remember last year’s Orlando massacre, perpetrated by Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen? In its wake the gun boogeyman, as it has often been, was the AR-15, the sleek black gun with military looks that makes libs wet their panties. We were told how outrageous it was that such a “killing machine” (is this the Terminator we’re talking about?) was available to the public. But notice something funny?

Paddock also had an AR-15 rifle.

Yet we haven’t heard a peep from the mice about this “killing machine.” The reason?

Right now, leftists have bump stocks to focus on. Being driven by emotion and/or Machiavellian motives (depending on the person), the type of equipment targeted in an anti-gun push is secondary, at best. The only consistent theme is an effort to steadily, incrementally erode gun rights. It doesn’t matter what weapon or accessory is outlawed today because there’ll be another opportunity, and target, after the next high-profile gun crime tomorrow.

The argument for a restriction is always the same. Logically rendered it states: “This _________ (fill in the blank) is far too effective to be available to the general public.” What this misses is that Second Amendment rights don’t exist just to secure the opportunity to go target shooting or hunting.

They exist to ensure that Americans can have effective weaponry. Full stop.

Again, realize that the current gun-grabber proposal has nothing to do with bump stocks. It has more to do with bumps in heads passing for brains that can’t figure out that any given anti-gun proposal is just another step in an evolutionary process whose apparent end game is the elimination of all guns. This must be concluded since liberals never articulate a different end game. And there always will be another massacre, and then another, and each will be followed with a further drum beat to outlaw _________, because it’s just too effective for citizens to own. It’s a crumb here, a morsel there, a slice today, a half a loaf tomorrow.

In his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter titled “The Eternal Revolution,” philosopher G.K. Chesterton wrote something relevant here: “Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to suit the vision. Progress does mean…that we are always changing the vision.”

While this fault, lamentably, plagues most ideologists today to some degree, it characterizes liberals. They’re the situational-values set, and their goalposts are always shifting. This is why giving them an inch only means they’ll come back for a foot and, later, a mile. This is why you don’t give them even a millimeter. It’s why you must insist upon a certain prerequisite before considering any more anti-gun laws: that liberals articulate a hard and fast, unchanging vision, to be presented for consideration, of what guns laws should forevermore be.

No more free-association legislating. No more shots in the dark. No more making it up as you go along. For example:

  • You say bump stocks allow a person to fire too rapidly. Okay, what exactly is the maximum number of rounds per minute a weapon available to the public should be capable of firing? What’s your reasoning?
  • “High-capacity magazines” is an ambiguous term. Exactly what size magazine should citizens be allowed to own? What’s your reasoning?
  • Don’t tell us about “high-powered rifles.” Tell us exactly what the maximum muzzle velocity of a publicly available firearm should be. What’s your reasoning?
  • Another ambiguous (and misleading) term is “armor-piercing ammunition.” What exactly should the maximum penetration power of a publicly available round be? What’s your reasoning?

Once you formulate your concrete vision (for the first time in your lives), please present it. If we accept it, though, note what the agreement means: You don’t get to ask for more anti-gun laws ever again. There’s no more politicizing of the issue after every shooting. The vision is conceived, articulated, agreed upon — and then set in stone.

Of course, I’m sure there’s no way to make such a thing legally binding, and no other agreement with liberals is worth the paper it’s printed on. The point is that without such a vision’s presentation we shouldn’t even take anti-gun proposals seriously. Doing otherwise is akin to pandering to children (and liberals are overgrown children) when they stamp their feet and scream about what they want right now, “just because.”

This doesn’t mean we should be totally averse to compromise. So, try this on for size: I propose reducing the 22,000 anti-gun laws currently on the books by 10,000. If that’s unacceptable, however, I’ll agree to a 5,000-law reduction — for now. There’s always next year’s negotiation, after all.

Don’t ever let it be said I’m not a reasonable guy.

 Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link

Now, We Know My Mother Has Flaws, But…


There’s a disclaimer many of us have been conditioned to utter, quite reflexively, and it’s something that has got to stop. When preparing a defense of the United States (against, lamentably, other “Americans”), we may preface it with, “Well, I know our country isn’t perfect” or, as pundit Tucker Carlson said while debating a bigoted lawyer last month, “I don’t deny…that this country is flawed….” Actually, our perspective is flawed.

To gain some perspective, imagine you were giving a speech about your mother and opened with, “Now, we know my mother has flaws, but….” Sound good?

Consider the message sent. Since we’re all imperfect, it’s a given your mother has flaws and, therefore, it isn’t something you’d normally even think to mention. Thus, the very act of mentioning it involves the implication that your mother isn’t just saddled with the usual imperfections — but that she’s uniquely flawed. It’s not something you do unless she’s a somewhat horrible person.

Or you’re a horrible child — or a horribly brainwashed one.

Statue of Thomas Jefferson at the College of William & Mary

Of course, if America were uniquely flawed, it would follow that there are a host of nations better. If we know of one, we may want to consider moving there. If we don’t, we should stop parroting that stupid disclaimer. Russians don’t do it. Chinese don’t do it. Japanese don’t do it. Not even Sudanese, Iranians or North Koreans do it.

In fact, while there’s no nation without sin, can you think of one beyond the waning West whose citizens feel compelled to issue self-flagellating we’re-so-flawed utterances? So why do many Americans, despite occupying history’s greatest nation, feel such a compulsion? What are they comparing America to? Heaven?

Speaking of the spirit world, many cultures would engage in ancestor worship. We engage in ancestor condemnation. Just recently, while defending Columbus Day against Indigenous Peoples Day dunderheads, a quite well-meaning commentator wrote that there “are 364 other days in the year on which we could acknowledge the sins of our ancestors….”

Sorry, but I don’t do ancestors. First, I’ll consider condemning our forebears when other groups and nations begin condemning theirs. Second, I’m no more responsible for their trespasses than I am for their triumphs. (Speaking of which, when I start getting royalty checks for all the inventions and innovations birthed by history’s great white men, I’ll consider offering reparations.) Lastly, I have no interest in continually “acknowledging” my ancestors’ sins — I have enough problems with my own.

This brings us to another aspect of this matter, one well illustrated by another comment Tucker Carlson made: that our country “is deeply flawed on questions of race.”

Actually, no, it’s not. As in the 1990s Rwandan genocide, racial/ethnic/tribal/religious conflicts elsewhere often have resulted in massive bloodshed. In contrast, it’s hard to think of a nation in which so many disparate peoples get along as well as in the U.S. (though the Left is trying feverishly to change that). The point is that in all this talk about “our flaws,” we’re not even talking about “our” flaws.

We’re talking about the flaws of people long dead (that is, when the flaws aren’t wholly imaginary).

In other words, we’re fighting yesterday’s battles — harping on our ancestors’ sins in an infinite loop — and ignoring today’s.

As to this, if a man seeing a therapist fixated constantly on his late father’s faults, wouldn’t the therapist point out that, not only is he living in the past, but that incessantly focusing on another’s flaws can be a way of avoiding having to confront your own?

Leftists haven’t the foggiest idea what our “flaws” are for the simple reason that, being moral relativists/nihilists (not believing in Truth, absolute by definition), they have no standard of perfection to use as a yardstick. And if you have no objective standard of right, you can’t know what’s wrong — not any more than you could identify unhealthful foods without believing in and knowing the rules of human nutrition.

We do have real flaws, today, now, things such as confusion over marriage, sex and the sexes (“transgender” agenda); the mainstreaming of perversion; decadent entertainment; rampant vulgarity; racial demagoguery; profligate spending; leftist propaganda everywhere; and, what lies at the heart of it all, moral relativism. But it’s easier to talk about those dastardly dead white males — they’re not around to defend themselves.  

One of the great victories of the Left is that it has woven so many of its suppositions so seamlessly into the culture that even good people accept them, unknowingly, unthinkingly. Thus will we utter, cowed and callow, “Look, I know our country has flaws….”

The irony is that if we could purge so-called leftism from the hearts and minds of Americans, most of our flaws would be gone overnight.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

There’s a disclaimer many of us have been conditioned to utter, quite reflexively, and it’s something that has got to stop. When preparing a defense of the United States (against, lamentably, other “Americans”), we may preface it with, “Well, I know our country isn’t perfect” or, as pundit Tucker Carlson said while debating a bigoted lawyer last month, “I don’t deny…that this country is flawed….” Actually, our perspective is flawed.

To gain some perspective, imagine you were giving a speech about your mother and opened with, “Now, we know my mother has flaws, but….” Sound good?

Consider the message sent. Since we’re all imperfect, it’s a given your mother has flaws and, therefore, it isn’t something you’d normally even think to mention. Thus, the very act of mentioning it involves the implication that your mother isn’t just saddled with the usual imperfections — but that she’s uniquely flawed. It’s not something you do unless she’s a somewhat horrible person.

Or you’re a horrible child — or a horribly brainwashed one.

Statue of Thomas Jefferson at the College of William & Mary

Of course, if America were uniquely flawed, it would follow that there are a host of nations better. If we know of one, we may want to consider moving there. If we don’t, we should stop parroting that stupid disclaimer. Russians don’t do it. Chinese don’t do it. Japanese don’t do it. Not even Sudanese, Iranians or North Koreans do it.

In fact, while there’s no nation without sin, can you think of one beyond the waning West whose citizens feel compelled to issue self-flagellating we’re-so-flawed utterances? So why do many Americans, despite occupying history’s greatest nation, feel such a compulsion? What are they comparing America to? Heaven?

Speaking of the spirit world, many cultures would engage in ancestor worship. We engage in ancestor condemnation. Just recently, while defending Columbus Day against Indigenous Peoples Day dunderheads, a quite well-meaning commentator wrote that there “are 364 other days in the year on which we could acknowledge the sins of our ancestors….”

Sorry, but I don’t do ancestors. First, I’ll consider condemning our forebears when other groups and nations begin condemning theirs. Second, I’m no more responsible for their trespasses than I am for their triumphs. (Speaking of which, when I start getting royalty checks for all the inventions and innovations birthed by history’s great white men, I’ll consider offering reparations.) Lastly, I have no interest in continually “acknowledging” my ancestors’ sins — I have enough problems with my own.

This brings us to another aspect of this matter, one well illustrated by another comment Tucker Carlson made: that our country “is deeply flawed on questions of race.”

Actually, no, it’s not. As in the 1990s Rwandan genocide, racial/ethnic/tribal/religious conflicts elsewhere often have resulted in massive bloodshed. In contrast, it’s hard to think of a nation in which so many disparate peoples get along as well as in the U.S. (though the Left is trying feverishly to change that). The point is that in all this talk about “our flaws,” we’re not even talking about “our” flaws.

We’re talking about the flaws of people long dead (that is, when the flaws aren’t wholly imaginary).

In other words, we’re fighting yesterday’s battles — harping on our ancestors’ sins in an infinite loop — and ignoring today’s.

As to this, if a man seeing a therapist fixated constantly on his late father’s faults, wouldn’t the therapist point out that, not only is he living in the past, but that incessantly focusing on another’s flaws can be a way of avoiding having to confront your own?

Leftists haven’t the foggiest idea what our “flaws” are for the simple reason that, being moral relativists/nihilists (not believing in Truth, absolute by definition), they have no standard of perfection to use as a yardstick. And if you have no objective standard of right, you can’t know what’s wrong — not any more than you could identify unhealthful foods without believing in and knowing the rules of human nutrition.

We do have real flaws, today, now, things such as confusion over marriage, sex and the sexes (“transgender” agenda); the mainstreaming of perversion; decadent entertainment; rampant vulgarity; racial demagoguery; profligate spending; leftist propaganda everywhere; and, what lies at the heart of it all, moral relativism. But it’s easier to talk about those dastardly dead white males — they’re not around to defend themselves.  

One of the great victories of the Left is that it has woven so many of its suppositions so seamlessly into the culture that even good people accept them, unknowingly, unthinkingly. Thus will we utter, cowed and callow, “Look, I know our country has flaws….”

The irony is that if we could purge so-called leftism from the hearts and minds of Americans, most of our flaws would be gone overnight.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

Was Mohammed a 'True Muslim'?


In the wake of every terrorist act, there is the same argument. The voices-in-the-wilderness on the right will say, insofar as they’re not muzzled by hate-speech laws, that Islam is the problem. In contrast, a leftist drumbeat of media and mainstream politicos will assert that the Muslim terrorists aren’t really “Muslim” terrorists, that they’ve perverted the faith. As to the truth, it’s as with any other debate over a thing’s true meaning (e.g., the Constitution): it only makes sense to look for answers in original sources.

This brings us to a simple question: Was Mohammed a true Muslim?

It’s a rhetorical question, of course. As Islam’s founder — the religion was born of revelations he supposedly had in the early seventh century — Mohammed was the very first Muslim. Moreover, since Muslims view him as “The Perfect Man,” the ultimate role model, he’s not just the truest Muslim but the yardstick by which other Muslims may measure themselves.  

So what was Mohammed’s “perfection”? He was a warlord who launched approximately 30 military campaigns, many of which he led himself. He was a caravan raider (a bandit) and captured, traded in and owned slaves (by the way, will liberals suggest slave-owning Mohammed be diminished, as they’ve done with our founders?). He ordered massacres, used torture and had dissidents assassinated. In 627 AD, he beheaded more than 600 men and boys of the Qurayza tribe in Medina, Arabia, thus wiping it off the map. He also was a polygamist and made it lawful for masters to have sexual relations with their female captives.

So, clearly, if today’s Islamic jihadists aren’t true Muslims, neither was Mohammed. But since we know the Perfect Man was the truest of Muslims, then…well, you can finish the sentence.  

Yet when analyzing Muslim motivations, the influence of Mohammed’s character is generally subordinated to that of Islamic teachings (most of which come from Mohammed). And even here, people generally make the mistake of focusing only on the Koran, unaware that it’s a mere 16 percent of the Islamic canon. The majority of it comprises the Hadiths and Sira.

This is noteworthy because while 9 percent of the Koran is devoted to jihad and political violence, 21 percent of the Hadiths are and a whopping 67 percent of the Sira is devoted to it, according to Bill Warner, Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. This is why Turkish journalist Uzay Bulut wrote in 2015 that “violence and domination” are “deeply rooted…and sanctioned with promises of rewards” in Islam, and, consequently, “fundamentalists will always find people to excite and people to persecute.”

The distribution of violent injunctions in these books helps explain something else. A German study involving 45,000 teens found that while increasing religiosity made Christian youth less violent, increasing religiosity made Muslim youth more violent.

This makes sense. A nominal Catholic may know a few verses from the Bible, but only a devout one scours it and, in addition, will read his catechism. Likewise, a casual Muslim might know a little bit from the Koran.

A serious one will soak it all in and delve into the Hadiths and Sira as well — and be exposed to all the violent injunctions therein.

Even more to the point here, however, these two sets of works together comprise the majority of the Sunnah, which is, as Islaamnet.com explains, “The legal way or ways, orders, acts of worship and statements of the Prophet, that are ideals and models to be followed by Muslims” (emphasis added). It is all about Mohammed’s words and deeds.

The significance of this cannot be overemphasized. Virtues (and vices) are caught more than they’re taught; actions speak louder than words. Thus are Christians more likely to ask “What would Jesus do?” than “What does the Bible say?” Thus are they more likely to counsel “Reflect Christ” than “Reflect Matthew 22:37.” Oh, the Bible is wonderful, and Matthew 22:37 is one of its most memorable parts. But examples are more powerful than instructions.

Muslims’ role model, their “Perfect Man,” is very different from Jesus in type of influence but not in degree of influence. As Warner points out, “The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed’s is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran.” Thus is “Mohammed” (and its spelling variants) the world’s most common male name, belonging to approximately 150 million men and boys. And there’s a reason why pious Muslims write “PBUH” (“Peace be unto him”) after his name and why they’ll riot if he’s portrayed in a cartoon. He is, in a sense, the human face of Allah.

Islaamnet.com makes this clear, writing that “when Allaah says: ‘Whosoever obeys the Messenger [Mohammed], has indeed obeyed Allaah’ (Surah An-Nisa 4:80), it should be clear that one has obeyed Allaah by obeying the Messenger.”

Islaamnet also informs that Allah commanded, “‘It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decreed by Allah and His Messenger to have any choice in the matter. If anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger he is clearly astray’ (Surah Al-Ahzab 33:36).”

This Messenger is, again, that warlord, bandit, mass murderer, employer of torture, polygamist and slaver trader and master. Worse still, it’s not that Muslims always rationalize away or attempt to whitewash this history. The truly devout ones may consider these actions — when directed toward non-Muslims — to be “good” because the actions have been sanctioned by their perceived author of right and wrong, Allah, and his messenger.

So people sometimes talk about “reforming” Islam, but this would require reforming Mohammed himself. How? You cannot resurrect him and have him live his life over.

Among the founders of extant major or quasi-major religions/philosophical systems — Lao Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, etc. — Mohammed stands alone, being a tyrant-cum-teacher. Of course, he doesn’t stand alone in history; Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane and many others paved similar bloody paths. As with them, he was largely a man of his time and place. But to more than a billion people, he’s also the perfect man even in our time and place.

And that’s the point. After all, if someone told you Attila the Hun was the perfect man and his role model, would you turn your back on that person?

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

In the wake of every terrorist act, there is the same argument. The voices-in-the-wilderness on the right will say, insofar as they’re not muzzled by hate-speech laws, that Islam is the problem. In contrast, a leftist drumbeat of media and mainstream politicos will assert that the Muslim terrorists aren’t really “Muslim” terrorists, that they’ve perverted the faith. As to the truth, it’s as with any other debate over a thing’s true meaning (e.g., the Constitution): it only makes sense to look for answers in original sources.

This brings us to a simple question: Was Mohammed a true Muslim?

It’s a rhetorical question, of course. As Islam’s founder — the religion was born of revelations he supposedly had in the early seventh century — Mohammed was the very first Muslim. Moreover, since Muslims view him as “The Perfect Man,” the ultimate role model, he’s not just the truest Muslim but the yardstick by which other Muslims may measure themselves.  

So what was Mohammed’s “perfection”? He was a warlord who launched approximately 30 military campaigns, many of which he led himself. He was a caravan raider (a bandit) and captured, traded in and owned slaves (by the way, will liberals suggest slave-owning Mohammed be diminished, as they’ve done with our founders?). He ordered massacres, used torture and had dissidents assassinated. In 627 AD, he beheaded more than 600 men and boys of the Qurayza tribe in Medina, Arabia, thus wiping it off the map. He also was a polygamist and made it lawful for masters to have sexual relations with their female captives.

So, clearly, if today’s Islamic jihadists aren’t true Muslims, neither was Mohammed. But since we know the Perfect Man was the truest of Muslims, then…well, you can finish the sentence.  

Yet when analyzing Muslim motivations, the influence of Mohammed’s character is generally subordinated to that of Islamic teachings (most of which come from Mohammed). And even here, people generally make the mistake of focusing only on the Koran, unaware that it’s a mere 16 percent of the Islamic canon. The majority of it comprises the Hadiths and Sira.

This is noteworthy because while 9 percent of the Koran is devoted to jihad and political violence, 21 percent of the Hadiths are and a whopping 67 percent of the Sira is devoted to it, according to Bill Warner, Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. This is why Turkish journalist Uzay Bulut wrote in 2015 that “violence and domination” are “deeply rooted…and sanctioned with promises of rewards” in Islam, and, consequently, “fundamentalists will always find people to excite and people to persecute.”

The distribution of violent injunctions in these books helps explain something else. A German study involving 45,000 teens found that while increasing religiosity made Christian youth less violent, increasing religiosity made Muslim youth more violent.

This makes sense. A nominal Catholic may know a few verses from the Bible, but only a devout one scours it and, in addition, will read his catechism. Likewise, a casual Muslim might know a little bit from the Koran.

A serious one will soak it all in and delve into the Hadiths and Sira as well — and be exposed to all the violent injunctions therein.

Even more to the point here, however, these two sets of works together comprise the majority of the Sunnah, which is, as Islaamnet.com explains, “The legal way or ways, orders, acts of worship and statements of the Prophet, that are ideals and models to be followed by Muslims” (emphasis added). It is all about Mohammed’s words and deeds.

The significance of this cannot be overemphasized. Virtues (and vices) are caught more than they’re taught; actions speak louder than words. Thus are Christians more likely to ask “What would Jesus do?” than “What does the Bible say?” Thus are they more likely to counsel “Reflect Christ” than “Reflect Matthew 22:37.” Oh, the Bible is wonderful, and Matthew 22:37 is one of its most memorable parts. But examples are more powerful than instructions.

Muslims’ role model, their “Perfect Man,” is very different from Jesus in type of influence but not in degree of influence. As Warner points out, “The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed’s is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran.” Thus is “Mohammed” (and its spelling variants) the world’s most common male name, belonging to approximately 150 million men and boys. And there’s a reason why pious Muslims write “PBUH” (“Peace be unto him”) after his name and why they’ll riot if he’s portrayed in a cartoon. He is, in a sense, the human face of Allah.

Islaamnet.com makes this clear, writing that “when Allaah says: ‘Whosoever obeys the Messenger [Mohammed], has indeed obeyed Allaah’ (Surah An-Nisa 4:80), it should be clear that one has obeyed Allaah by obeying the Messenger.”

Islaamnet also informs that Allah commanded, “‘It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decreed by Allah and His Messenger to have any choice in the matter. If anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger he is clearly astray’ (Surah Al-Ahzab 33:36).”

This Messenger is, again, that warlord, bandit, mass murderer, employer of torture, polygamist and slaver trader and master. Worse still, it’s not that Muslims always rationalize away or attempt to whitewash this history. The truly devout ones may consider these actions — when directed toward non-Muslims — to be “good” because the actions have been sanctioned by their perceived author of right and wrong, Allah, and his messenger.

So people sometimes talk about “reforming” Islam, but this would require reforming Mohammed himself. How? You cannot resurrect him and have him live his life over.

Among the founders of extant major or quasi-major religions/philosophical systems — Lao Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, etc. — Mohammed stands alone, being a tyrant-cum-teacher. Of course, he doesn’t stand alone in history; Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane and many others paved similar bloody paths. As with them, he was largely a man of his time and place. But to more than a billion people, he’s also the perfect man even in our time and place.

And that’s the point. After all, if someone told you Attila the Hun was the perfect man and his role model, would you turn your back on that person?

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link