Part One: Recreation and Guitar Yoga
Part Two: Rude Awakening – Mainstream Media, Academia, and Conservative Individuals; Globalism and Nationalism; Trudeauphobia, Islamists, and Leftists; Socialists and Islamists; Marxists, Islamists, and Free Speech; Gender, Race, and Body Parts; Monotheistic Morality; Global Socialist Experiment.
Part One: Recreation and Guitar Yoga
I was born in New Westminster, a municipality of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and now live on Indian Arm in North Vancouver. This area offers a variety of recreational actiivites, including kayaking and surf skiing, mountain biking, trail running, and snowshoeing and skiing in the winter. I enjoy some of these activities with my girlfriend.
In the future I hope to yoke joy to sobriety while performing a music genre called Guitar Yoga, which accords with Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette’s description of “an individual Ego” reaching “the sober but joyous realization of its noncentral position in the psyche and in the wider universe.” (The Warrior Within, 29) This consciousness transcends Northrop Frye’s complaint: “We are ashamed of our bodies, and though the shame itself is shameful, particularly when we realize that they are the forms of our souls, it is there, and it is hard to love a Creator who could, for instance, make our ‘places of joy & love excrementitious.’ [Marg to Watson, 3; K2, 156].” (Fearful Symmetry, 40) Frye is citing William Blake, whose perception may have been from a state of innocence, for Norman Diodge comments: “Adults are not generally bothered by this, because in adolescence they have gone through another critical period of sexual plasticity in which their brains reorganized again, so that the pleasure of sex becomes intense enough to override any disgust.” (The Brain That Changes Itself, 100)
Georg Feuerstein explicates “the term hatha-yoga, which is esoterically explained as the union [yoga] between ‘sun’ and ‘moon,’ the conjunction of the two great dynamic principles or aspects of the body-mind.
The life force (prana) is polarized along the spinal axis, where the dynamic pole…is said to be at the base of the spine and the static pole…at the crown of the head. The hatha-yogin’s work  consists in uniting [the poles.]…The syllable ha in the word hatha represents the solar force of the body; the syllable tha represents the lunar force. The term yoga stands for their conjunction, which is the ecstatic state of identity between subject and object….the exoteric meaning of the word hatha is ‘force.’ Hatha-Yoga is a forceful enterprise in which the body’s innate life-force is utilized for the transcendence of the self.” (Yoga as Spiritual Alchemy: Hatha Yoga; from Yoga: The Technology of Ecstasy, 286-87; see also The Yoga Tradition, 390)
Michael Holquist: “there is no politics without society, there is no society without human subjects, and human subjects – for all their differences – have in common the fact of material embodiment: the body is therefore a most potent force in ideology, for it is the one home we share in the world’s diverse materiality.” (Bakhtin and Beautiful Science; from Dialogue and Critical Discourse, 224) Holquist: “embodiedness – in the first of several important features it shares with language – not only joins us, but separates us as well. Politics, as the means by which claims to authority and ascriptions of responsibility are negotiated, requires a space that is social in the degree to which it is composed of interacting individuals who can figure authority and responsibility because they are simultaneously the same and different. At its most basic a head is needed to anoint when a king is crowned, and a head is needed to chop off when a king is deposed….
The condition of being in a body is similar to the condition of being in a language insofar as in both cases the relation between one and many, self and other, us and them, is primary. Desire and its ideologies are not individual phenomena, any more than words and their meanings can be unique. But the effects of desire are no less known in particular, separated bodies than words that belong to every speaker, and yet which are uttered by particular, separate speakers. We are texts insofar as the world writes on our bodies its judgments concerning our assumptions about it….the very separateness of our bodies is the one thing we all have together. What we share is uniqueness.” (225)
Baltasar Gracian (Schopenhauer’s favorite writer and admired by Yehudi Menuhin): “The divine philosopher [Plato?] was right to compare the human body to a resonant, living instrument. When it is well tuned, it makes marvelous music, and when it is not, it is all confusion and dissonance. It is composed of many, very different strings, incredibly hard to adjust to one another, and its pegs are always slipping. Some have called the tongue hardest to tune, and some the covetous hand. One person says the eyes, which never see enough vanity, another the ears, which cannot get their fill of flattery and gossip. Some say it is the fancy; some the insatiable appetite;  some the deep heart or bitter gut.” (Moral Anatomy; from A Pocket Mirror for Heroes, 86-87)
Part Two: Rude Awakening
The following links and quotations reflect my recent political and ideological interests. They also identify two ideologies, Marxism and Islamism, that threaten to destroy Western civilization.
Mainstream Media, Academia, and Conservative Individuals
CBC Invokes Godwin’s Law Against Jordan Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BzOvHcETi8
CBC – “A Bunch of Bullies”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKnPeZr9Uq0
Ezra Levant on Media Diversity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQC7x4dFXY
see also Peterson @ 7:52
Compare this CBC link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qejKtJL-1NI
with this independent link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AViwXZed5U
and El Risitas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPNEZlbXEn0
In 1996 Doug Collins stated: “More than any other single media outlet the CBC is responsible for smashing traditional values in this country. It has also been feminized, especially in Vancouver. It has led the attack on things of which Canadians used to be proud….Less than ten per cent of us watch the CBC even though we have to pay for it whether we watch it or not.” (CBC Not Tuned in to Canada, from Here We Go Again, 38) In 2012 Brian Lilley perceived a bias in the CBC: “To the CBC, conservative minded Canadians and the Conservative Party are the enemy. Sometimes this has played out in subtle ways such as what CBC chooses to cover and what to ignore.” (CBC Exposed, 149) Lauren Southern (3:20): “Fake news is normalizing liberal viewpoints as being impartial….It’s the media that are the bad people….They’re disgusted by the people that they’re selling their narratives to….They want to maintain control of our minds.”
Brigitte Gabriel: “Arab rulers know how to control their populations: keep them ignorant. That’s how you rule people, keep them ignorant and control the content and flow of information into society. You brainwash them into believing whatever you want them to believe, using the government-controlled newspapers, radio, and TV.” (Because They Hate, 191) Gabriel describes a similar condition in North America: “The term ‘political correctness’ has evolved out of the Marxist and Freudian philosophies of the 1930s to become a tool for multiculturalism, multisexualism, multitheism, and multi-anythingism….Today, the use of political correctness has become so abused that anyone who voices his or her opinion contrary to ‘politically correct think’ is immediately tagged with some form of disparaging label, such as racist and bigot. This exploitation has gotten so out of control that this name-calling accusation is used as a simple and mindless means to manipulate academic, social, or political discussion. The result is a social paranoia which discourages free thought and expression. It’s like living in a totalitarian state in which you are afraid to say what you think. Now who wants to suffer that? So people keep quiet. Their opinions are held captive to fear.” (217)
Compare with North Korean defector Choi Seong-guk: “The North is an artificial world. You have to hide your feelings and the truth.…it’s absurd. I had to get out.” Levant @ 8:49 likens Canadian media to “fawning reporters in North Korea crying with tears of joy with how brilliant their leader is. These are the reporters we rely on to tell us the truth. What else are they lying about?”
Bill Warner: “The word Islam means submission. The first principle of Islam is that the entire world must submit to Allah….Our schools must submit in how they teach about Islam. Our media must present Islam in a good light. Every facet of our civilization must submit. What this means on a daily basis is that if Islam has a demand such as school prayer, we must do as they ask.” (Sharia Law for Non-Muslims, 27) Daniel Pipes mentions “the Jews, Christians, Sabaens, and Zoroastrians, those peoples who believe in a single God and possess a holy scripture. Islam considers the faiths of these, known as People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab), faulty but nonetheless acceptable to God. Peoples of the Book who submit to Muslim political dominion are dhimmis (protected peoples).” (Path, or Hand, 45) Warner: “A dhimmi could not criticize Mohammed or speak with a Muslim about Christianity….It was Sharia law and the dhimmi status that destroyed Christianity in Islamic lands. Western civilization cannot survive under Sharia law.” (32)
Shoaib Nasir: “My move to the West has completely disillusioned me. Academic clerisy, for the most part, has decided to jump on the political correctness bandwagon and not criticize Muhammad and his ideology at all. In most religious studies programs, professors criticize every religion on the face of the earth except the aforementioned.” (Liberation from Muhammadan Ideology, from Leaving Islam, 254) Robert Spencer: “Boston University professor Richard Landes observes that ‘the problem with Middle Eastern Studies in the USA (a fortiori in Europe) is that it’s been colonized by Muslim and Arab scholars who have politicized the field and intimidated Western scholars….Today’s Middle Eastern Studies more closely resembles the kind of atmosphere that dominated the late medieval university (inquisitorial) than a free and meritocratic culture committed to honesty.’
Historian Bernard Lewis…warned in April 2008…that Middle East Studies departments in universities all over the country now manifest ‘a degree of thought control and limitations of freedom of expression without parallel in the Western world since the 18th century, and in some areas longer than that….It seems to me it’s a very dangerous situation, because it makes any kind of scholarly discussion of Islam, to say the least, dangerous.'” (Stealth Jihad, 237)
Douglas Murray describes how a “group of academics and others had gathered to discuss the history of Europe’s relations with the Middle East and North Africa. It soon became clear that nothing would be learned because nothing could be said. A succession of philosophers and historians spent their time studiously attempting to say nothing as successfully as possible. The less that was successfully said, the greater the relief and acclaim….The aim of this game – for game it was – was to maintain the pretence of academic inquiry while making fruitful discussion impossible. As in so many academies and colleges across Europe this game continues to the satisfaction or relief of its participants, and the frustration or indifference of everybody else.” (The Strange Death of Europe, 224-25)
Murray: “The lack of questions and discussion about the change that is happening in Europe may in large part come down to this: it is better off not to ask the questions because the answers to them are bad. Certainly that would help explain the otherwise extraordinary levels of opprobrium heaped on dissenting voices in the era of mass immigration.” (227) Oriana Fallaci: “In Europe, they [Muslim immigrants] don’t….even care to learn our languages. Glued to their mosques, to their Islamic Centers, to their hostility better yet their abhorrence and contempt for the West, they only obey the rules and the laws of Sharia. In return they impose on us their habits, their way of life. Food and polygamy included.” (The Force of Reason, 302) In a North Vancouver pool they have windows covered with tarps so the women can’t be seen swimming, even though the facility is closed to others at that time. Don’t criticize this cultural practice.
Bat Ye’or: “Christian academics who conform to the dhimmi mentality manifest a servility whereby oppressive ideology is praised by its victims, who unconsciously adopt a self-accusing complex to vindicate their oppressors and appease them. In Europe, this trend conforms to EAD directives concerning university teaching, which were reinforced by the EU’s 1991 resolutions at Strasbourg.” (Eurabia, 196) Ye’or mentions “one of the basic rules of dhimmitude: the express prohibition of Christians and Jews to criticize Islamic history and doctrine….The rejection of the Bible and Europe’s self-denigration in relation to Islam are developing into a form of anti-Christianity, combined with anti-Zionism – typical of the interreligious conflicts provoked within the venomous context of dhimmitude.” (197, 198) Ye’or: “In history – and in Europe today – dhimmmis do not fight. Dhimmitude is based on peaceful surrender, subjection, tribute, and praise.” (205, 206)
The main character of Michel Houellebecgq’s novel Submission states: “In a sense, old Bat Ye’or wasn’t wrong with her fantasy of a Eurabian plot.” (127) Earlier a fellow academic had opined: “There’s an idea you hear in far-right circles, that if the Muslims came to power, Christians would be reduced to second-class citizens, or dhimmis. Now, dhimmitude is part of the general principles of Islam, it’s true, but in practice the status of dhimmis is a very flexible thing.” (125)
Ye’or mentions “the dhimmi’s cultural amnesia,” in contrast to “America’s attachment to a Bible culture and its stand for Western values of freedom….The fundamental difference between America and the EU is apparent in their respective policies toward the Islamist drive for world domination. While America, like Israel and India, confronts Islamic terrorism, Europeans have chosen deliberately to circumvent and deny it.” (Eurabia, 215, 227) Ye’or: “Till this day, dhimmitude is studied outside of Western academia. It is banned from Middle East departments of universities wherever the Saidist Palestinian cult dominates. Though dhimmitude is based on an ideology, a well-established legal sector, and immense wealth of historical source-materials and concerns the history of hundred of millions of human beings from Spain to India, this subject is still denied.” (Eurabia, 266) Ibn Warraq: “Charlatans such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Edward Said continue to be forced down undergraduates’ throats and poison their minds.” (Virgins, 12)
Pipes: “Praise for Islam and the Muslims often translates into better access to research materials for professors, funds for administrators, visas for journalists, votes at the United Nations for diplomats, and trade opportunities for businessmen. Incentives for Islamphilia have multiplied many times with the coming of the oil boom and the huge increase in disposable income available to some Muslims.
With the exception of the Black Muslim movements in the United States, pro-Islamic sentiments tend to be restricted to the elite in the West, for it is  they alone who have enough contact with Islam to become familiar with it or gain from it…a dichotomy results: while a few Westerners at the top praise Islam for personal reasons (be it alienation or profit), the masses, still swayed by the old hostility, despise and fear Islam.” (In the Path of God, 14-15) Pipes: “Islam provokes an unparalleled animosity from non-believers, thanks to its reputation as an aggressive faith….Kafirs [non-Muslims] are acutely aware of the superior and antagonistic attitudes held by Muslims; they respond by fearing Islam and regarding Muslims as unceasingly aggressive. This holds for Christians in Greece, Mossi animists in West Africa, Jews in Yemen, Hindus in Gujarat, Zoroastrians in Iran, Buddhists in Thailand, and Confucians in Yunnan. Non-Muslim responses fit a clear pattern: dislike of Muslims and an irreducible feeling of dissimilarity.” (15, 40)
The Aga Khan: “Throughout history, we find terrible chapters in which religious conflict brought frightening results. Sometimes, part of the problem grew from proselytizing, in which faith was not so much shared as imposed. Again in our day, many ostensibly religious voices aggressively affirm a single faith by denying or condemning others….The essential problem, as I see it, in relations between the Muslim world and the West is a clash of ignorance. And what I would prescribe as an essential first step is a concentrated educational effort. Instead of shouting at one another we must listen to one another and learn from one another. As we do, one of our first lessons might well centre on those powerful but often neglected chapters in history when Islamic and European cultures interacted cooperatively – constructive and creatively – to help realize some of civilization’s peak achievements.” (Where Hope Takes Root, 128)
He may be influenced by John Esposito: “Muslims in the West at first seem to differ from other immigrants or indigenous converts who, however ethnically diverse, possessed a shared Judeo-Christian culture. This is caused not only by ignorance of Islam or by equating it with extremism and terrorism but also by the failing to recognize the extent to which Islam is part of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.'” (The Islamic Threat, 238; from Infiltration, 96)
Compare with Geller’s film Can’t We Talk About This. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “‘Can’t we talk about this?’ he asked his killer. It was so Dutch, so sweet and innocent. Theo [van Gogh] must have thought there was some kind of misunderstanding that could be worked out. He couldn’t see that his killer was caught in a wholly different worldview. Nothing Theo could have said to him would have made any difference.” (Infidel, 321) Fallaci: “dealing with them [radical Islamists] is impossible. Attempting a dialogue, unthinkable. Showing indulgence, suicidal. And he or she who believes the contrary is a fool.” (Rage, from The New Anti-Semitism, 200)
The Aga Khan: “it’s going to take, I think, several decades before we reach a situation where the definition of an educated person includes a basic understanding of the Islamic world….Judeo-Christian societies have developed their own education over decades and more, and basic knowledge of the Islamic world has simply been absent….I would prefer to talk about ignorance regarding the civilization of the Islamic world rather than just ignorance about the faith of Islam.” (Hope, 137-38)
Compare with Wafa Sultan: “When you watch how people in Muslim society relate to one another – even in a one-on-one relationship – you see a master and a slave….When you speak calmly to a Muslim, he perceives you as being weak…..Democracy cannot spread in societies like these until the people who live in them  have been reeducated, for they cannot function unless they are playing the role of the master or the slave.” (A God Who Hates, 156) Ali describes a Dutch friend: “She said her  Christian God was a kind, fatherly figure….She told me, ‘In your religion there is so much Hell, and you pray because you have to. This is a master-slave relationship.'” (Infidel, 215-16) Ali: “In Islam, unlike in Christianity and Judaism, the relationship of the individual to God is one of total submission, slave to master.” (313)
Sultan: “America will never win the war until Americans read about Islam from Arab sources, word for word, without distortion or falsification. Reading this material will enable them to draw their own personal conclusions and help them to understand what kind of enemy they are facing….No one can be a true Muslim and a true American simultaneously. Islam is both a religion and a state, and to be a true Muslim you must believe in Islam as both religion and state. A true Muslim does not acknowledge the U.S. Constitution, and his willingness to live under that constitution is, as far as he is concerned, nothing more than an unavoidable step on the way to that constitution’s replacement by Islamic Sharia law.
The Koran says: ‘Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers’ (5:51).” (Hates, 243)
Spencer: “According to a 2004 Chicago Tribune exposé, the Muslim American Society is the name under which the Muslim Brotherhood operates in the United States.” (Jihad, 228) Thus Pamela Geller describes the Muslim American Society as the “chief arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., which is dedicated in its own words to ‘eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.’” (Stop the Islamization of America, 172) Geller is citing “a Brotherhood document…, dated May 22, 1991, [which] reminded Brotherhood operatives in the United States that they ‘must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion [that is, Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.’” (Islamization, 145) Raheel Raza: “It’s a global jihad, stupid.”
According to Spencer, “the Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada (MSA) fights for the Islamization of America among college students….Despite the MSA’s pretense at moderation, the jihadist sentiments of many MSA members have been known for many years….American universities have become propaganda centres not only for the anti-American Left, but for stealth jihadists and their allies – the apologists who are dedicated to lulling Americans into believing there is no jihadist threat.
If we are to win the war against the jihadists, we need to have a thorough understanding of their doctrine, history, and sources of inspiration. Sadly, the segment of America most suited to investigating these questions – academic experts in Middle Eastern Studies – has rejected this responsibility. Instead, it has adopted a politically correct orthodoxy that values ‘tolerance’ of non-Western cultures above any objective search for truth. The mere suggestion that the jihadists’ hatred for us is rooted in the Qur’an and other fundamental Islamic texts is simply not tolerated in academia. As a result, many American citizens as well as policy makers continue to cast about in vain for a way to satisfy our enemies’ grievances.” (Jihad, 247, 250)
Geller describes the Muslim Students Association as a “Muslim Brotherhood organization” responsible for “the Islamic supremacism and jackbootery increasingly found on college campuses all over the country today.” (Islamization, 172, 173) According to Geller, “Americans and Canadians and Europeans…are misled, misinformed, by a Sharia-compliant media.” Levant: “The media does not respect Islam, the media is afraid of Islam. It’s a very different thing.” Levant: “The five key professionals that Daniel Pipes always tells us about, the politicians, the press, the police, the prosecutioners, and the professors, they have completely switched sides from defending Great Britain to apologizing, excusing and covering up the Islamification of the country.”
Pipes: “Allegations that the Zionists planned to do away with the Mosque of Al-Aqsa, the holiest Islamic shrine in Jerusalem, and replace it with the ThIrd Temple inspired the Western Wall riots of 1929 and poisoned Arab-Jewish relations in Palestine. Forty years later, the same issue gave birth to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations of Muslim countries.” (The Hidden Hand, 14) Geller describes “an all-out campaign to restrict the West’s freedom of speech regarding Islam, jihad, and Islamic supremacism, and to brand all honest discussion of such matters as ‘Islamophobia.’ In 2008, OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference] Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu warned that the OIC had ‘sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed’ when speaking about Islam and jihad. Ihsanoglu was happy with the results: ‘The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.’” (Islamization, 174) Geller @ 53:37: “I say something and I’m a racist Islamophobe anti-Muslim bigot….This is sharia. All of these terms, all of this nonsense, what it is: Islamophobia is merely a term in which to silence criticism of Islam….What we’re seeing is the voluntary self-compliance of the sharia – in the media, in law enforcement.”
Geller @ 12:00: “Are your children taught about the role of Islam during the Holocaust?…Why is the history books white washed? It’s the Sharia. Do not offend Islam, do not insult Islam, even if it’s the truth….Who’s enforcing the Sharia?…At the U.N. the largest block of countries is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, previously called the Organization of Islamic Conference. They are fifty six countries plus the Palestine Authority, fifty six countries that vote as one block. And they have one objective, and that is to install the Sharia across the world. They are the modern day universal caliphate….They are very powerful in the U.N., they are very powerful in the E.U….and the media tells you nothing.” Warraq: “With the domination of the United Nations Human Rights Council by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which silences critics with charges of ‘Islamophobia,’ the need to defend freedom of speech and conscience becomes a moral obligation for all those concerned with human rights.” (Virgins, 11) Barack Obama in 2012 to the U.N. General Assembly: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Camille Paglia @ 1:22:45: “There is no authentic campus leftism….It’s a fraud….Federal regulation of how we’re supposed to behave on campus?” Paglia @ 5:17: “None of the faculty have fought back. They pretend to be leftists. They’re pygmies, they’re passive worms not to fight back against the bureaucrats.” Paglia describes David Halperin “in the post-Foucault landscape as king of the pygmies.” @ 7:14: “The faculty has been reduced to slave status….The corruption has been untouched by the major media. Why? Because all these graduates at the elite schools go and get jobs at the New York Times.” @ 12:25: “the professor thinks that it is his or her obligation to transport an external ideology into the classroom and I am completely opposed to this use of the classroom for advocacy. There are many many scandals going on in American academia that are completely unadressed by the major media.” @ 21:55: “When you start to get a sophisticated toleration of homosexuality by the metropolitan elite, that’s a sign that the culture is starting to sag.”
Former UBC president Stephen Toope @ 20:06: “the university is, or should be, a microcosm of the world.” Compare with Paglia: “The Campus is now not an arena of ideas but a nursery school where adulthood can be indefinitely postponed.” (Vamps, 101) Paglia @ 19:20: “Universities have become simply nursery schools….the absolute end of any kind of intellectual life in universities practically everywhere in North America because of this incredible administrator bureaucratic intrusion, fascist intrusion, into student life.” @ 24:33: “People need a religion, they need to create, so when they got rid of Judeo-Christianity they locked onto feminist ideology.” Paglia @ 8:09: “This gender myopia has become a disease; it’s become a substitute for a religion. It’s impossible that the feminist agenda can ever be the total explanation for human life. The identity politics of the 1970s so people see everything through the lens of race, or gender, or social class – this is a madness.” Paglia @ 12:42: “Human beings need religion, and getting rid of the orthodox religions because they were too conservative has simply led to the new religion of political correctness. It’s the same kind of fanaticism. It’s like the Spanish Inquisition. Any form of dissent, even within feminism, is treated as heresy, and they actually try to destroy you….the independent thinkers have been driven out of academe. There are plenty of men who just gave up….The universities have increasingly become a place for the time servers, for the obedient, for the servile, and the true independent thinkers are gone.”
Paglia @ 1:05 disdains “the immaturity and the half-baked thinking of people who have transferred their need for ideology from religion to feminism.” Paglia: “Academe….has to recover its clerical or spiritual roots. Scholarship is an ideal and a calling, not merely a trade or a living. Every year at commencement we put on medieval robes that connect us to a great monastic past. We should be in the world but not of it. Our vocation is a ministry.” (Junk Bonds) Paglia @ 33:48: “Graduate students have no sense of history. I find there’s more sense of history in southern evangelicals who didn’t even finish high school, because their knowledge of the world is based on the Bible.” Similarly, Paglia: “Hollywood Bible movies of the Fifties, like The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur, with their epic clash of pagan and Judeo-Christian cultures, tell more truth about art and society than the French-infatuated ideologues who have made a travesty of the ‘best’ American higher education.” (Junkbonds) Paglia: “knowledge of [the Bible] has disastrously eroded.”
Paglia: “Lacan, Derrida, and Foucault are the perfect prophets for the weak, anxious academic personality, trapped in verbal formulas and perennially defeated by circumstance.” “Robert Caserio recently said to me: ‘The whole profession has become a vast mimicry. The idea that there is open debate is an absolute fiction. There is only the Foucault monologue, the Lacan monologue, the Derrida monologue. There is no room for creative disagreement. No deviation from what is approved is tolerated.’ These monologues are really one, the monotonous drone of the school of Saussure, which has cast its delusional inky cloud over modern academic thought. Never have so many been so wrong about so much. It is positively idiotic to imagine that there is no experience outside of language….When Dante must part with Virgil at the gates of Paradise, he is expressing the ancient insight that faith and vision occur in a realm beyond reason and language.” (Junkbonds)
Paglia: “The school of Saussure, nose in the dictionary, can’t see the ancient art form of dance, the sacred poetry of the body, which has made America the envy of the world.” Paglia mentions the “universal archetypal imagery of nature, which has been banished from the French social-constructivist worldview.” (Junkbonds) Paglia: “Foucault was struck down by the elemental force [nature] he repressed and edited out of his system. Science, disdained by Foucaldians, is our only hope for controlling the retrovirus and marauding infections of AIDS.” Paglia: “Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. Penis fits vagina: no fancy linguistic game-playing can change that biologic fact.” (Vamps & Tramps, 71) Paglia: “Most of the absurdities of women’s studies and French theory would have been prevented by close observation of ordinary life outside the university.” (Junkbonds)
Paglia: “Translations of Lacan and Derrida are pored over by earnest Americans….[they] are meaningless unless you already have in your head the austere, sonorous, classical French sentences that they are twisting and wringing like a washcloth….In America deconstruction is absurd, since we have never had a high culture of any kind….Derrida, an Algerian Jew, had his own private agenda in France that is not applicable to America.” (Junk Bonds) Paglia: “A false progressivism has goaded the profession into a frantic tarantella. Hurry up; get on the ball; you must ‘keep up with,’ must stay in front. But the humanities, unlike medicine, marine biology, and astrophysics, are about great enduring human truths that in fact never change but are rediscovered again and again. The humanities are about insight, illumination, wisdom. French theory, with its empty word-play, produces sophists, experts in getting ahead, getting worldly rewards….Lacan, Derrida, and Foucault are the academic equivalents of BMW, Rolex, and Cuisinart, the yuppie trophies. French theory is computerized thinking, superclean and risk-free. It’s the Macintosh that drags the Icons to the Trash, and it’s the Big Mac of fast-food, on-the-run dining. The McDonaldization of the profession means standardized, interchangeable outlets, briskly efficient academics who think alike and sound alike. Scholars have made themselves into lock-step computer technicians, up on and hawking the latest gadget-of-the-month. French theory is like those how-to tapes guaranteed to make you a real-estate millionaire overnight. Gain power by attacking power! The self-made Inferno of the academic junk-bond era is the conferences, where the din of ambition is as deafening as on the floor of the stock exchange….The conferences are…the self-numbing anodyne of rootless, soulless people who have lost contact with their own ethnic traditions….Dante would classify the conference-hoppers as perverters of intellect, bad guides, sowers of schism.” (Junk Bonds)
Paglia: “[Emile] Durkheim is everywhere in Foucault….his true source….Foucault is falsely used by naive American academics as a scholarly source of information…But you cannot trust a single fact in Foucault. His books….attract gameplaying minds with unresolved malice toward society….Foucault, like Lacan and Derrida, is forty years out of date….Liberal academics are stuck in a time warp. Invoking the Foucault buzzwords surveillance and the police, they try to recreate the Fifties world of J. Edgar Hoover and Dragnet.” Paglia describes “French theory, a Saussurean paradigm dating from the 1940s and ’50s that was already long passe when American academics got hold of it in the early 1970s.” (Vamps, 99)
Paglia @ 4:55: “This progressivist idea that we are marching towards some perfection and that the signs of it are the toleration of the educated class for homosexuality or for changing gender. It seems to me it’s the opposite; to me it’s symptomatic of a civilization just before it falls. We are very tolerant and we are not passionate, but there are bands of extremely passionate vandals and destroyers who are moving around the edges of the civilization and will bring it down….at a time when ISIS is beheading people.” Paglia: “I think it is incredibly naive to think that we are moving toward some sort of an economic paradise where women are going to gain control. I think that women’s advancement is one of the many things in the West that jihadists consider decadent and would want to target.” (Are Men Obsolete, 32; see Abu Dawud 4098, Sahih Bukhari 8:82:820, Ibn Majah 3:9:1903; however, Sahih Bukhari 3:47:755) J.K. Sheindlin: “it is an imperative for men in the Muslim world to quickly grow a beard, lest they be perceived as weak and female.” (The People vs Muhammad, 268) Pipes: “The claim by Egyptian antifundamentalists that students and others received Saudi and Libyan money to grow beards…happens to be true.” (The Hidden Hand, 20)
Paglia: “Nothing is more simplistic than the now rote use by politicians and pundits of the cartoonish label ‘bad guys’ for jihadists, as if American foreign policy is a slap-dash script for a cowboy movie.” (Free Women, Free Men, 260) Paglia @ 5:17: “From the perspective of historical distance you can see that it’s a culture that no longer believes in itself. And what you invariably get are people who are convinced of the power of heroic masculinity on the edges, whether they are the Vandals and the Huns, or whether they are the barbarians of ISIS. You see them starting to mass on the outsides of the culture, and that’s what we have right now. There is a tremendous and rather terrifying disconnect between the infatuation with the transgender movement in our own culture and what’s going on out there.”
CBC @ 1:10: “Paglia call herself a prophet.” Paglia warns CBC @ 14:45: “All of us in the West need to be concerned about the passion in jihadism….We are a ripe target for disaster….because of the vulnerability of our advanced technology to a determined attack by small bands of people who can simply paralyze the power grid and throw the entire culture into anarchy.” Paglia @ 40:17: “It’s symptomatic of the decline of Western culture….I don’t think people realize that masculinity still exists in the world as a code among jihadists….I see this [Western] culture rotting from within.” @ 56:12: “Western culture is heading for an absolute catastrophe when jihadists figure out how to paralyze the power grid….That is the way Western culture is going to collapse.”
Paglia @ 5:58: “history is cyclic, and everywhere in the world you find this pattern in ancient times, that as a culture begins to decline you have an efflorescence of transgender phenomena. That is a symptom of cultural collapse….these phenomena are inflaming the irrational, indeed borderline psychotic opponents of Western culture in the form of ISIS and other jihadists. Nothing better defines the decadence of the West to the jihadists than our toleration of homosexuality and this transgender mania.” See Trudeau’s son on Halloween. Charles Murray mentions “Islamic homophobia – an issue that had barely occurred to the gay press, much less to the mainstream press.” (Strange Death, 149) The corollary is homosexual Islamophobia. Is self-preservation a crime?
Paglia is echoing her published thoughts: “Extravaganzas of gender experimentation sometimes precede cultural collapse, as they certainly did in Weimar Germany. Like late Rome, America too is an empire distracted by games and leisure pursuits. Now as then, there are forces aligning outside the  borders, scattered fanatical hordes where the cult of heroic masculinity still has tremendous force. I close with this question: is a nation whose elite education is increasingly predicated on the neutralization of gender prepared to defend itself against that growing challenge?” (Free, 220-21) Paglia: “Ideologue professors at our leading universities indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates with perilously fact-free theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology.” (222) Paglia: “When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models either to embrace – or for dissident lesbians to resist – women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.
From my long observation, which predates the sexual revolution, this remains a serious problem afflicting Anglo-American society, with its Puritan residue. In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America, and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women seem to have found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamour. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences.” (Free, 223) Paglia @ 19:20: “How did Women’s Studies and Gender Studies end up teaching about gender without any reference whatever to biology or to hormones? And right now post-structuralism dominates Gender Studies everywhere….These post-structuralists are the worst mercenary careerists in this [American] country.”
Daniel Ortiz points out a semantic distinction between sex and gender in contemporary ideology (language games): “Sex offers a biological description of people, whereas gender offers a purely cultural one. Sex marks off men and women in a biological way and does so very well. Gender, on the other hand, does not clearly delineate between these biological categories. Gender’s description of women, for example, may not fit all biological women and may, in fact, fit some men.” (Creating Controversy: Essentialism and Constructivism and the Politics of Gay Identity) Paglia: “one reason for the incoherence and mediocrity of women’s studies is that so many of its leaders…were produced by the Fifties English Department and so never had an ounce of preparation for social and historical inquiry, much less the most rudimentary knowledge of psychology and sexology.” (Junkbonds)
Paglia: “Women’s studies is institutionalized sexism….Gender studies is no alternative: ‘gender’ is now a biased, prudish codeword for social constructionism. Sexology is an old and distinguished field….Women’s studies…is, with rare exception, totally unscholarly. Academic feminists have silenced men and dissenting women. Sunk in a cocoon of smug complacency, they are blind to their own cliched Rousseauist ideology. Feminists are always boasting of their ‘diversity’ and pluralism. This is like white Protestants in the nineteenth and pre-Sixties twentieth centuries when they controlled American politics, finance, and academe, claiming diversity on the basis of their dozens of denominations. But blacks, Jews, and Italian Catholics, standing on the outside, could clearly see the monolithic homogeneity that the WASP insiders were blissfully, arrogantly unaware of….Reasonable, moderate feminists hang back and, like good Germans, keep silent in the face of fascism….Every year feminists provide more and more evidence for the old charge that women can neither think nor write.” Paglia @ 10:54: “For young men to succeed in college they have to behave like women. I think that women have essentially taken over the campuses….What middle class feminists are demanding in men is a total erasure of all genuinely masculine aspects. This whole notion of toxic masculinity….is really evil. It’s the result of unclear thinking.”
Milo Yiannopoulos: “The establishment – the media, academic and entertainment establishment – has made certain sorts of political opinion – respectable, reasonable, mainstream opinion – impossible to express in public.” As Carl Jung foresaw: “The mass crushes out the insight and reflection that are still possible with the individual, and this necessarily leads to doctrinaire and authoritarian tyranny if ever the constitutional State should succumb to a fit of weakness.” (The Undiscovered Self) Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter: “John Ralston Saul claims that we live in an ‘unconscious civilization,’ all victims of conformity and groupthink. We need to wake up, smell the coffee and start acting as genuine individuals.” (The Rebel Sell, 95) The West is in a zomboid state. Roger Kimball: “the very idea that there is something special about the individual is likely to be taken as a red flag by progressive academics for whom individualism is tantamount to racism.” (Tenured Radicals, 46) Friedrich Hayek: “Justice is an attribute of individual action. I can be just or unjust towards my fellow man. But the conception of a social justice, to expect from an impersonal process, which nobody can control to bring about a just result, is not only a meaningless conception, it’s completely impossible. Everybody talks about social justice, but if you press people to explain to you what they mean by social justice, nobody knows.”
Peterson: “The Conservatives are afraid that they will be targeted as individuals, mobbed by the social justice warriors online, and taken out. And so they don’t say anything….Now the journalists are censoring themselves, they’ve already told me that, the politicians are censoring themselves….If you guys are afraid of being conservative you’ve already lost.” Peterson warns CBC: “I think that the continual careless pushing of people by left wing radicals is dangerously waking up the right wing. So you can consider this a prophecy from me if you want. Inside the collective is a beast and the beast uses its fists. If you wake up the beast then violence emerges. I’m afraid that this continual pushing by radical left wingers is going to wake up the beast.” More recently Peterson @ 2:22:37 endorsed Jesus’ injunction to “turn the other cheek….otherwise you get into a positive feedback loop.”
Peterson at U of Calgary: “Men cannot oppose pathological women because chivalry demands that they keep their most potent weapons sheathed […. ] sort out your sisters, because no one else can.” Peterson @ 38:05: “I don’t think that men can control crazy women….I’m defenceless against that kind of female insanity, because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me….I don’t see any regulating force for that terrible femininity, and it seems to me to be invading the culture and undermining the masculine power of the culture in a way that’s fatal.” Diana Davison: “I can’t deal with them either. When I’ve got a smart-assed bimbo bouncing around in front of me hitting my chest and challenging me to a duel, which will soon be legal in Canada, what am I supposed to do with that? She’s lucky I’m too much of a man to have hit her back.” It’s good to empower women (G Day at Ismali Centre), but it’s bad to embolden men, because my ideology says that they’re equal and you’re sexist if you disagree. Peterson prefers the word encourage; Proverbs 28:1: the righteous are as bold as a lion.
Peterson @ 6:22: “I cannot understand, except in a psychoanalytic manner, why the radical feminists tolerate the fact that America is allied with the Saudis….I think it’s their unconscious wish for brutal male domination.” Peterson @ 5:24: “I thought it was absolutely comical when Fifty Shades of Grey came out. At the same time there’s this massive political demand for radical equality with regards to sexual behaviour, and the fastest selling novel the world had ever seen was S&M domination. It’s like – ‘well, we know where the unconscious is going with that one, don’t we?’ You have this crazy alliance between the feminists and the radical Islamists that I just do not get….Is there an attraction that’s emerging among the female radicals for that totalitarian male dominance that they’ve chased out of the West?…as the demand for egalitarianism and the eradication of masculinity accelerates, there’s going to be a longing in the unconscious for the precise opposite of that. The more you scream for equality, the more your unconscious is going to admire dominance.”
Two types @ 16:25: formal equality, the same rules apply to all, or substantive equality, equality of results or outcome. Peterson @ 50:00: “equity means equality of outcome.” Warraq: “If the Sharia is implemented in the West, Muslims will have succeeded in destroying one of the greatest achievements of Western civilizations – equality before the law – acquired after centuries of self-sacrifice by noble individuals, groups, and associations.” (Virgins, 12)
Globalism and Nationalism
Peter Brimelow: ‘The word ‘nation’ is derived from the Latin nescare, to be born. It intrinsically implies a link by blood. A nation in a real sense is an extended family. The merging process by which all nations are created is not merely cultural, but to a considerable extent biological, through intermarriage.” (Alien Nation, 203) Prime Minister McKenzie King, May 1, 1947: “Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a ‘fundamental human right of any alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege. It is a matter of domestic policy….There will, I am sure, be general agreement with the view that the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.”
Southern mentions “the freakout by the Canadian mainstream press over an Angus Reid poll showing that 68% of Canadians wanted to see more assimilation from immigrants to Western culture.” (Barbarians, 43) Southern: “Individualism and unique identity is the antithesis of global government. It’s the antithesis of the European Union, of the United Nations, of the World Bank….globalists hold contempt for citizenship, tradition, national culture and religion. These things promote sovereignty of nations – they create unique identities for nations.
Destroying those unique identities is the key to submission.” (46-47)
Compare with Pierre Trudeau: “The road to progress lies through international integration; nationalism will have to be abandoned as a rustic and clumsy tool…” (from Alien Nation, 223) Former German Chancellor Kohl in 1996: “The nation state…cannot solve the great problems of the twenty-first century.” Jim Goad describes a result: “Whitey floats in an identity-free limbo. He is commanded to walk the streets devoid of cultural bravado. Our ethnic fashion show welcomes the Nation of Islam [MelaniodNation], Native Nations, Azatlan Nation, and Queer Nation [LGBTQ Nation], but Aryan Nations are sent packing.” (Redneck Manifesto, 209) Compare with Northrop Frye: “I feel that senility is exactly the same in society as it is in individuals: you lose your memory and you’ve had it. If you lose your sense of tradition and the sense of what is behind you as a dimension of your own life, then you are simply floating in some kind of ether.” (Interviews with Northrop Frye)
Brimelow cites “Cokie Roberts, reporter for National Public Radio and ABC News….’We have nothing binding us together as a nation – no common ethnicity, history, religion or even language – except the Constitution and the institutions it created.’” (Alien Nation, 231)
Brimelow comments: “When Robert says ‘nation,’ of course, she means ‘state’ (or polity). And, when she says, incredibly, that Americans have no common ethnicity, history, religion or language, what she really means is frankly if naively made clear: more power for the political class, aka ‘the Constitution and the institutions it created.’
Anything that further deconstructs the American nation – multiculturalism, bilingualism – will tend to bring about the situation Roberts hopefully describes. And the political class, driven by this view of its self-interest, will applaud.
From the point of view of members of the American New Class, immigration is manna from heaven. It gives them endless excuses to intervene in society. It enables them to distinguish themselves from the xenophobic masses. And, by introducing diverse populations, it strikes at the nation-state’s Achilles’ heel: the need for homogeneity.” (Alien Nation, 232) G. Edward Griffin @ 47:43: “The proper function of a state is to defend the life, the liberty, and property of its citizens.”
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn: “In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.” (Nobel Lecture)
Murray: “In 1795 Immanuel Kant wrote of his preference for states over ‘universal monarchy’. For as he recognized, ‘the wider the sphere of their jurisdiction, the more laws lose in force; and soulless despotism, when it has choked the seeds of good, at last sinks into anarchy’. This view was not shared by the politicians who ruled Europe over the last quarter of a century. ‘Borders’, proclaimed the European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker in August 2016, ‘are the worst invention ever made by politicians’.” (Strange Death, 178)
Fallaci refers to the European Union as “the Financial Club….A club that shelters more than fifteen million sons of Allah and God knows how many of their terrorists  or candidate terrorists or future terrorists. A club that fornicates like a whore with the Arab countries and fills its pockets with their filthy petrodollars. The same petrodollars with which the Saudi Uncle Scrooges buy our ancient palaces, our banks, our commercial and industrial firms. A club, moreover, that dares to speak of ‘Cultural Similarities with the Middle East’….But this frustrating and disappointing and insignificant Financial Club which bothers me with its Common Currency, its populist imbecilities, its sons of Allah who want to erase my civilization, this European Union which chatters of Cultural-Similarities-with-the-Middle-East and meanwhile ignores my beautiful language, meanwhile sacrifices my national identity, is not….Europe. It is the suicide of Europe.” (The Rage and the Pride, 182-82, 185)
Fallaci describes the EU: “if you speak your mind on the Vatican , on the Catholic Church, on the Pope, on the Virgin Mary or Jesus or the Saints, nobody touches your ‘right of thought and expression’. But if you do the same with Islam, the Koran, the Prophet Mohammed, some son of Allah, you are called a xenophobic blasphemer who has committed an act of racial discrimination….If you yell anti-American slogans, of you call the Americans ‘murderers’ or ‘ruffians’ or ‘enemies of humankind’, if you burn their flags, if you stick swastikas on photographs of their presidents, nothing happens. On the contrary, such aggression is considered an act of virtue. But if you say and do the identical thing against Islam, you end up on the stake. The same if you think that western civilization is the most advanced one that this planet has ever produced. The same if you define it as ‘superior’. But if you are a son of Allah and say that Islam has always been a superior civilization, a Ray of Light, and if according to the Koran you add that Christians stink like goats and pigs and camels and monkeys together, nobody touches you. Nobody prosecutes you. Nobody convicts you.
Besides, this happens also inside the pro-Islamic UN. This UN about which the fools and the hypocrites always speak in a reverent way, to which they refer as if it were a fair and honest and impartial mother. ‘Take-it-to-the-UN’. ‘Bring-in-the-UN’. ‘Let-the-UN-decide’. This UN which in total contempt of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a document that Muslim countries have never accepted to sign up) in 1977 accepted to recognize the ‘Declaration of Human Rights in Islam’. Meaning, a declaration which states: ‘All the following rights are subject to the Islamic Law, to the Sharia. In Islamic countries the Sharia is the only source of reference with regard to human rights’.…This UN where the Pakistani Ambassador dares to say (unopposed) that ‘the first Charter of Human Rights is the Koran and the first Declaration of Human Rights was pronounced by Mohammed in Medina’… This UN which brazenly protects the Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship in Sudan and has never allowed John Garang (the Christian leader of the Sudanese Liberation Movement) to open his mouth before its committees or its Assembly… This UN which along with the ineffable European Union has invented the crimes of ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘defamation of Islam’.” (Reason, 29, 30)
Fallaci describes Europe: “In each one of our cities there is a second city. A city superimposed and equal to the one that in the Seventies thousands and thousands of Palestinians set up in Beirut installing a State within the State. A government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran. An Islamic expansionism’s stage. The expansionism that no-one has ever managed to overcome. No-one. Not even the armies of Napoleon. Because it is the only art in which the sons of Allah have always excelled, the art of invading and conquering and subjugating. Their most coveted prey has always been Europe, the Christian world.” (35-36) Pipes: “Belief in Jewish control of the West prompts some Arabs to aspire to gain the same power. Once this is achieved, writes Kamil Yusuf al-Hajj, ‘the West would be in our grasp rather than the Zionists’ . . . and the fabulous powers of the West would be within our reach instead of the Zionists’.” (Hand, 25)
Fallaci: “to understand what is happening on the other side of the English Channel all you have to do is stop for a few minutes at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park, where….you see aspiring suicide bombers or mullahs who in the name of freedom of thought…exalt the Jihad and call for the murder of the infidel-dogs….You have also to observe the female ‘bobbies’, I mean the London’s policewomen. Today many of them are Muslims, (municipal policy requires their recruitment in large numbers), and only rarely do they wear the traditional regulation headgear. They almost always replace it with a hijab, the cloth covering the hair and the forehead and the ears and  the neck… Finally, you have to remember that the strategic base of the Islamic offensive in Europe is…Britain….that shelters the brains, the leaders, of the Islamic offensive….I mean the sheikhs, the emirs, the sultans who own the finest buildings and hotels in London.” (72-73)
Fallaci chastises “the mob of the school-teachers and parliamentarians and clerics with the rainbow scarfs around their neck, which dispense the poison of the anti-Americanism I define anti-Occidentalism. It also is the soldiery of the mendacious media. The so-called ‘independent’ newspapers and televisions and radios and show-business, I mean the journalists and the actors and the singers who are the best accomplices of anti-Occidentalism. The real traitors of the West. Those who more than anybody else administer the ultimate brainwashing of our society.” (Reason, 227)
Murray: “The left-wing Slovakian Prime Minister, Robert Fico, said in despair, ‘I feel that we in the EU are now committing ritual suicide and we’re just looking on’. The other Visegrad countries held the same view as Fico….’Islam has no place in Slovakia’, he said. Migrants change the character of our country. We do not want the character of this country to change.'” (228, 230) Murray agrees: “the civilization that we know as Europe is in the process of committing suicide….by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive Europe will not be Europe.” (1)
Murray: “The world is coming into Europe at precisely the moment that Europe has lost sight of what it is….today the ethics and beliefs of Europe – indeed the identity and ideology of Europe – have become about ‘respect’, ‘tolerance’ and (most self-abnegating of all) ‘diversity’. Such shallow self-definitions may get us through a few more years, but they have no chance at all of being able to call on the deeper loyalties that societies must be able to reach if they are going to survive for long.” (7, 8) Peterson @ 34:37 describes “a constant push on the part of political ideologues of the progressive type to mandate that of all the rights that Canadians enjoy…that the rights that are associated with equality, diversity, and inclusivity are going to be made paramount.” Trudeau is enthusiastically pushing the same agenda on Canadastan.
Ivan Rioufol, Le Figaro, 2006, describes “the spirit of ‘dhimmitude’ (submission to Islam), which can be seen in a Europe having denied its Judeo-Christian roots and which is striving for a ‘new Euro-Arab world order‘ – being discussed this week in Paris – a policy now brilliantly denounced by the expert Bat Ye’or…:The frantic rhythm of wild declarations obfuscating Islamism (is) a clear indication of the deliberate blindness of the European Union representatives (. . .) In consequence, the cynicism with which they persist in deceiving their fellow citizens indicates an incredible contempt for them. One may wonder if the ministers take their voters for ignoramuses and imbeciles or if they no longer have any other alternates than submission to the orders of the Islamists and the Arab League.‘” (from Eurabia, 14)
Ye’or asks: “Why has the European Union (EU) proposed a Constitution that willingly renounces and even denies its Judeo-Christian roots? Has the 1930s-World War II alliance of Arab jihadists with European Nazis and fascist trends been resurrected today? Is the European Union’s covert war against Israel, through its Palestinian Arab allies, the secret schadenfreude [malicious joy] fulfillment of an interrupted Holocaust?” (23) Ye’or: “Cardinal Tucci, the director of Vatican Radio, declared on November 6, 2003:
I would like to say that a Muslim antisemitism exists also, Now in the whole Muslim world, in the media, the radio, television, in schools, a whole system  inciting to antisemitism exists. It is the worst antisemitism that can be imagined after Nazi antisemitism, if not its equal.” (250-51)
Southern: “Hitler…wished he was Muslim. [note 43: Green, Dominic. ‘Why Hitler Wished He Was Muslim.’ Wall Street Journal….Jan. 16, 2015.]” (Barbarians, 71) Green: “As David Motadel writes in ‘Islam and Nazi Germany’s War,’… Nazis and Islamists had a political-spiritual romance. Both groups hated Jews, Bolsheviks and liberal democracy. Both sought what Michel Foucault, praising the Iranian Revolution in 1979, would later call the spiritual-political ‘transfiguration of the world’ by ‘combat.’” Dominic Green: “In April 1942, Hitler became the first European leader to declare that Islam was ‘incapable of terrorism’ [“Just as in Islam, there is no terrorism in the Japanese State religion.”]. Fallaci cites “The Sun of Allah Shines over the West: the famous essay in which oriental studies scholar Sigrid Hunke argues the absolute superiority of Islam and states that ‘the influence exerted by the Arabs on the West was the first step in freeing Europe from Christianity’. The trouble is that Mrs. Hunke was a fucking Nazi.” (Reason, 157)
Carl Jung in the 1930s: “‘We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Muhammad. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future.'” (The Collected Works, Vol. 18, 281; from Warraq, Virgins, 292) Karl Barth in the 1930s: “‘It is impossible to understand National Socialism unless we see it in fact as a new Islam [emphasis in original], its myth as a new Allah, and Hitler as this new Allah’s Prophet….we stand today, all Europe, and the whole Christian Church in Europe, once again in danger of the Turks [emphasis in original]. And this time they have already taken Vienna and Prague as well.'” (The Church and the Political Problem of our Day; from Virgins, 292-93)
Warraq: “Albert Speer, who was Hitler’s minister of armaments and war production, wrote a memoir of his World War II experiences while serving a twenty-year prison sentence imposed by the Nuremberg tribunal. Speer’s narrative includes this discussion, which captures Hitler’s racist views of Arabs on the one hand and his effusive praise for Islam on the other:
‘Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eight century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament [emphasis added]. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire [emphasis added]. Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”‘” (Inside the Third Reich, 96; from Virgins, 293)
Former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne in 1974 to the General Assembly of the United Nations: “One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women.” (from Murray, 147) Murray: “one Kuwaiti official, Fahad al-Shalami, explained in an interview on France 24 why Gulf countries like his were refusing asylum even to Syrian refugees: ‘…you cannot accept other people, who come for a different atmosphere, from a different place. These are people who suffer from psychological problems, from trauma.'” (Strange Death, 158) Vancouver’s Maritime Museum has a wall exhibit promoting and normalizing the immigration of Muslim refugees to Canada.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes contemporary Holland: “immigrants lived apart, studied apart, socialized apart. They went to separate schools – special Muslim schools….they avoided subjects that ran contrary to Islamic doctrine. Children weren’t encouraged to ask questions, and their creativity was not stimulated. They were taught to keep their distance from unbelievers and to obey.
This compassion for immigrants and their struggles in a new country resulted in attitudes and policies that perpetuated cruelty. Thousands of Muslim women and children in Holland were being systematically abused, and there was no escaping this fact. Little children were excised on kitchen tables – I knew this from Somalis for whom I translated. Girls who chose their own boyfriends and lovers were beaten half to death or even killed; many more were regularly slapped around. The suffering of all these women was unspeakable. And while the Dutch were generously contributing money to international aid organizations, they were also ignoring the silent suffering of Muslim women and children in their own backyard.
Holland’s multiculturalism – its respect for Muslims’ way of doing things – wasn’t working. It was depriving many women and children of their rights. Holland was trying to be tolerant for the sake of consensus, but the consensus was empty. The immigrants’ culture was being preserved at the expense of their women and children and to the detriment of the immigrants’ integration into Holland. Many Muslims never learned Dutch and rejected Dutch values of tolerance and personal liberty. They married relatives from their home villages and stayed, inside Holland, in their tiny bubble of Morocco or Mogadishu.” (Infidel, 246)
Peterson on Why Globalism Fails and Nationalism is Relatable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpXVoSZyHXM
Trudeauphobia, Islamists, and Leftists
TrudeauManiac Quotes: “Honor killings shouldn’t be called barbaric.” “The Liberal party believes that terrorists should be able to keep their citizenship.” “I have tremendous confidence in people who don’t think a lot about politics, terrorism.” “I think being able to choose it rather than being Canadian by default is an amazing statement of attachment to Canada….This is your country more than it is for others because we take it for granted, we default into this place.” “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada. There are shared values – openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what makes us the first post-national state.” No need for a national broadcaster then. Compare with Oscar worthy performance, and with Angela Merkel. Mark Bonokoski of Postmedia Network describes “Trudeau being Trudeau the play actor.”
Patrick Cigana of Projet Montreal says “campaigns are about hearts, not minds. ‘Honestly, I never believed that politics was about convincing (people) – it’s about seducing, almost,’ he said. ‘You know, charming people.'” Trudeau is a chum of the Aga Khan, who describes Canada as “a pluralist society that has invested in building pluralism, where communities from all different backgrounds and faiths are happy….I think Canada is a country that is invested in making this potential liability [pluralism] become an asset….Few countries, if any, have been as successful as Canada has, bumpy though the road is. As I said earlier, it is always going to be an unfinished task.” (Where Hope Takes Root, 136, 145) An endless bumpy road is not an image of hope.
Murray notes that in the novel Submission, Michel Houellebecq’s “truest conceit is the depiction of a class of politicians across the political divide so keen to be seen above all as ‘anti-racist’ that they end up flattering and ultimately handing over their country to the worst and most swiftly growing racist movement of their time.” (Strange Death, 283) Murray cites former Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who on Christmas Eve “gave a television interview in which he said that the Swedish people themselves are ‘uninteresting’, that borders are ‘fictional’ constructs, and that Sweden belongs to the people who have come to make a better life there rather than to the people who have lived there for generations.” (251) Trudeau says similar things about Canada, calling immigration a “very positive and exciting thing.”
Murray: “When the Vienna Institute of Demography confirmed that by the middle of this century a majority of Austrians under the age of 15 would be Muslims, the Austrian people were – like everybody else in Europe – simply expected to ignore or wish away their own cultural end point. The dark Brechtian joke appeared after all to be true: the political elites had found their publics wanting and had solved the problem by dissolving the people and appointing another people in their place.
What is more, it had all been done on the laughable presumption that while all cultures are equal, European cultures are less equal than others.” (312)
Trudeau: “Deficits are a way of measuring the kind of growth and the kind of success that a government is actually able to create.” “We need to recognize that we still have a problem because there are men out there who will not say, ‘Yes, I am a feminist.’ We need to recognize that saying and bringing forward truths that are uncomfortable to some and challenge each other to shift our ways of thinking out of the easy ways we do.” In this last sentence he contradicts himself, for he associates “we” with “easy ways” in contrast to “some” who are “uncomfortable.”
Prime Minister Trudeau: “Terrorists do not have the strength to defeat us, so they seek to have us defeat ourselves. We stand firm in the conviction that we [Freudian slip] – they will fail, because we are much stronger and more durable than they could ever imagine. Canada continues in its fight against ISIL in the work we do as an important part of the coalition against the so-called Islamic State.” Compare with Chief Inspector Clouseau: “That is why I have always failed where others have succeeded.”
CBC: “If there’s one thing you could make people understand about Islam that they don’t understand or you think might be at the root of some of this, what would you say?” Masuma Khan: “…We’re trying to be here in a community and create solidarity and really stand here with our brothers and sisters regardless of race, religion, or what have you…” She’s not describing Islam, but merely her own anti-Western agenda. To Global: “You can tell that I’m not what the majority looks like [hijab] and I think my message is an easy one for people to follow. I’m talking about solidarity with Indigenous people. I’m talking about the injustices that are happening….I’ve been dealing with some violent messages….but now that my life is on the line and they can see racism more clearly….The letters of solidarity that I’m getting from across the nation are like – I think that’s why I’m still standing here right now.”
Geller: “[George] Soros is, according to Discover the Networks, ‘one of the most powerful men on earth,’ with personal assets of an estimated $13 billion. Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) donates millions of dollars to far-Left, pro-Sharia, anti-freedom groups.” (Islamization, 175) Murray: “Soros spent considerable sums of money during 2015 on pressure groups and institutions making the case for open borders and free movement of migrants into and around Europe. As well as a website called ‘Welcome2EU’, his Open Society foundation published millions of leaflets informing migrants of what to do. These informed them of how to get into Europe, what their rights were once there, and what the authorities could and could not do. The group only advocated ‘resistance against the European border regime’.” (Strange Death, 184)
Two days after a Barcelona jihadist attack last summer Vancouver counter-protesters chanted: “No hate, no fear; Muslims are all welcome here.” One counter-protester (6:50) shouted: “We’re white; we don’t have a goddamned culture!” [He’s right if white culture is unacceptably racist and cultural appropriation is disallowed.] Similarly, Gavin McInnis describes the U.S.A. as “a culture where ‘racist’ includes anything but white self-flagellation.” (How to Piss in Public, 133) This mob was congratulated by Gregor Robinson and Trudeau: “Way to go, Vancouver. Diversity will always be our strength.” Trudeau @ 1:07: “We need societies that recognize diversity as a source of strength, not as a source of weakness.” Compare with Trudeau: “We are a place that has figured out that diversity can be a source of strength, not just a source of weakness. And as I look at this beautiful room with the sisters upstairs, everyone here, the diversity we have just within this mosque…” Bill Warner’s comment may be applicable: “The master plan of Kafir [non-Muslim] leadership is that if we are nice, Muslims will see how good we are and will reform Islam….Sharia cannot be reformed. It is Allah’s law, therefore it is perfect, universal and complete.” (Sharia, 42)
Liberal Question Evasion: Trudeau, 2, 3, 4, Morneau, 2, Joly, Khalid, and Monsaf. Question Period under our authoritarian Prime Minister has become a farce, a relic of the past. Pierre Poilievre @ 27:00: “The [finance] minister is trying to use his prodigious wealth to silence his critics.” Ottawa insiders want to silence Levant.
More Quotes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tpW1m-8yVQ
Trudeau Body Language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJbLTkdcaFA
Soros and Trudeau: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j755Bd72aU
Soros sponsors Antifa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyoPLYTSndk
and BLM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4ccXmJKtL4
BLM Canada Problematic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swD0XtnjV3I
BLM Canada Founders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awX_9mC8rX4
Yusra Khogali on Twitter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuHsE82SquQ
Milo on Twitter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pW20lMoWMU
Saudi Prince and Twitter: https://www.recode.net/2016/8/11/12417064/twitter
SJWs: Trigglypuff 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y69tkCbeC5o
and 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Af0ltDmqiU
Smugglypuff 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuJyEqbC3ts
and 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADSi2SBKSlQ
Hugh Mungus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6Ez4n9xBGY
Rebel 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYJFCY-pIu0
Rebel 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yn9ax_Jsq8
Send Your Money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXjScMB2WD8
Moldylocks’ Body Language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-ivwrdrJTU
Berkeley Antifa Prof Attacks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nbh3ItqFyo
and then Apologizes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHBTB_NZ-sM
Berkeley Antifa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnq3RrCYG54
Berkeley Body Language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-lG6eMj1kg
Nietzsche: “Socialism – as the logical conclusion of the tyranny of the least and the dumbest, i.e., those who are superficial, envious, and three-quarters actors….To have and to want to have more – growth, in one word – that is life itself. In the doctrine of socialism there is hidden, rather badly, a ‘will to negate life’; the human beings or races that think up such a doctrine must be bungled. Indeed, I should wish that a few great experiments might prove that in a socialist society life negates itself, cuts off with its own roots. The earth is large enough and man still sufficiently unexhausted; hence such a practical instruction and demonstratio ad absurdum would not strike me as undesirable, even if it were gained and paid for with a tremendous expenditure of human lives.” (The Will to Power)
Stephen Hicks lists such “experiments”: “In the modern world, Left-wing thought has been one of the major breeding grounds for destruction and nihilism. From the Reign of Terror to Lenin and Stalin, to Mao and Pol Pot, to the upsurge of terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s, the far Left has exhibited repeatedly a willingness to use violence to achieve political ends and exhibited extreme frustration and rage wen it has failed.” (Explaining Postmodernism, 192)
Nietzsche: “You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue….Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! Verily, their souls lack more than honey. And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had—power.
My friends, I do not want to be mixed up and confused with others. Some preach my doctrine of life and are at the same time preachers of equality and tarantulas. Although they are sitting in their holes, these poisonous spiders, with their backs turned on life, they speak in favor of life, but only because they wish to hurt. They wish to hurt those who now have power, for among these the preaching of death is still most at home. If it were otherwise, the tarantulas would teach otherwise; they themselves were once the foremost slanderers of the world and burners of heretics. I do not wish to be mixed up and confused with these preachers of equality. For, to me justice speaks thus: “Men are not equal.” (On the Tarantulas)
Paglia: “Academic Marxism is a fantasy world, an unctuous compassion-sweepstakes, into which real workers or peasants never penetrate.” (Junk Bonds) Similarly, Noam Chomsky observed that “George Orwell once remarked that political thought, especially on the left, is a sort of masturbation fantasy in which the world of fact hardly matters. That’s true, unfortunately, and it’s part of the reason that our society lacks a genuine, responsible, serious left-wing movement.” (Keeping the Rabble in Line, 200) Peterson notes that in Road to Wigan Pier “Orwell described the great flaw of socialism, and the reason for its frequent failure to attract and maintain democratic power (at least in Britain). Orwell said, essentially, that socialists did not really like the poor. They merely hated the rich….Socialist ideology served to mask resentment and hatred, bred by failure.” (Maps of Meaning, xiii) Paglia finds an example of such dislike: “When they do not docilely act like victims, labourers are treated like heathen. For example, construction workers are demonized for their lunchtime diversion of staring, leering, whistling, and catcalling at passing female office workers, some of whom – lawyers and executives – regard themselves as very mighty indeed and far too lofty for such treatment.” (Vamps, 53) Gavin McInnis: “Socialism….[is] just communism lite, and that means bureaucrats with ‘Godlike power,’ as Milton Friedman put it, and a citizenry of ‘childlike dependents,’ as he also put it.” (Piss, 97)
Kalle Lasn: “the collapse of the Soviet empire undermined the Left’s whole philosophical base….When I saw the wholesale ecological devastation that the Communist era had left behind, I stopped calling myself a Lefty right then and there.
But old Lefties die hard….There’s something drab and predictable about them; they feel like losers.” (Culture Jam, 118) Lasn: “Left activists, even some of the best, have been reduced to the level of little kids throwing snowballs at passing cars.” (119)
Hicks: “Socialism is the historical loser, and if socialists know that, they will hate that fact, they will hate the winners for having won, and they will hate themselves for having picked the losing side. Hate as a chronic condition leads to the urge to destroy….Postmodern thinkers hold that not just politics has failed – everything has failed. Being, as Hegel and Heidegger taught us, really has come to nothing. Postmodernism then, in its most extreme forms, is about driving that point home and making the nothing reign.” (Postmodernism, 194, 196) Kate Ellis notes, for example, “the characteristically apolitical pessimism of most postmodernism, by which creation is simply a form of defecation.” (Stories Without Endings, Socialist Review 91:2. 1989, 46)
Walid Shoebat: “a devil must exist – how else can one explain the unity of beliefs between the leftists and Muslims?” (God’s War on Terror, 12) Bertrand Russell offers an explanation: “Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam. Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike that of the early successors of Mahommet. Among religions, Bolshevism [Communism] is to be reckoned with Muhammadanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Muhammadanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.” (Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, 5, 29, 114) Pipes: “Marx…had a soft spot for Islam, precisely because it stood for the negation of religion as practiced in the West.” (In the Path of God, 14) Pipes: ‘Wilfred Cantwell Smith observes that ‘until Karl Marx and the rise of communism, the Prophet organized and launched the only serious challenge to Western civilization that it has faced in the whole course of its history.” (85) Geert Wilders @ 20:13: “You should compare it [Islam] with other totalitarian ideologies like communism or fascism….Like in communism and fascism, the penalty is death if you want to leave it [Islam]….The Koran is full of more violence and anti-Semitism than Mein Kampf, for instance.”
Phyllis Chesler: “[George] Jochnowitz writes: ‘This is the great mystery of the left. Leftists are totally silent about the excesses of radical Islam. They are equally silent about the fact that Israel allows dissent . . . and has an annual gay pride parade . . . the most fundamentalist of Americans does not believe in executing women who have been raped although such things happen in Islamic states.'” (Chomsky, Apologist for bin Laden; from The New Anti-Semitism, 152)
Fallaci: “The Left is a Church. And not a Church similar to the Church which came out of Christinaity, thus open to free-will. A Church similar to Islam. Like Islam it considers itself sanctified by a God who is the custodian of the Truth. Like Islam it never acknowledges its faults and its errors, it considers itself infallible and never apologizes. Like Islam it demands a world at its own image, a society built on the verses of its Prophet. Like Islam it enslaves its own  followers. It intimidates them, it makes them feel stupid even when they are intelligent. Like Islam it does not accept different opinions and if you think differently it despises you. It denigrates you, it punishes you. Like Islam, in short, it is illiberal. Autocratic, totalitarian, even when it plays the game of democracy. For Christsake, isn’t it revealing that ninety-five percent of the Western people converted to Islam come from the Left or the red-black Extreme Left?….Like Islam, finally, the Left is anti-West. And the cause why it is anti-West can be summarized with a passage of The Road to Serfdom: one of the important essays left to us by Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian economist who in the Thirties flew from Vienna and took refuge in England.
‘It is not only the principles of Adam Smith and Hume and Locke and Milton which are being abandoned. It is also the bedrock of the civilization developed by the Greeks and the Romans and  Christianity. Meaning, the western civilization. What is being relinquished is not only the liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries, that is the liberalism which completed that civilization’ it says. ‘It is the individualism which, thanks to Erasmus of Rotterdam and Montaigne and Cicero and Tacitus and Pericles and Thucydides, the western civilization has inherited. In other words, the concept itself of individualism which through the teachings imparted to us by the philosophers of classical antiquity then of Christianity then of Renaissance then of the Enlightenment have made us what we are. Socialism is based on collectivism. Collectivism denies individualism. And anyone who denies individualism denies western civilization’.” (Reason, 216-17)
Bill Warner @ 20:27: “Communism sees itself as a world dominating system as does Islam….Conservatives tend to be more about individuals….the Communists share with the Muslims world domination and the emphasis on the community.” @ 21:38: “In Persia it was the Left, the Tudeh Party, who brought Khomeini to power, and five days after Khomeini came to power he issued death warrants for the leaders of all the Tudeh Parties. So the Left sees themselves as the hammer and they see Islam as the anvil. What they do not realize is that this alliance is quite temporary and as soon as Islam comes to power – there go the Left.” Geller @ 16:00: “The left…are thinking, ‘We’ll just use these tools.’ They are the ones that are being used….It’s the demonization of the successful and the exaltation of failure….It is the opposite of America.”
Tarek Fatah: “The ultra-left Trotskyites even advanced the idea that since Lenin had permitted the continuation of sharia courts in the Soviet  Union’s Asian republics after the Bolshevik Revolution, support for the Islamists was in line with socialist principles.
The flamboyant and controversial left-wing British politician George Galloway joined the Islamist cause while visiting Canada. In a spirited support of sharia, he defended the rights of Muslims to be governed by their own laws….Galloway’s endorsement of sharia was another reflection of the close working relationship between the ultra-left and the Islamists. Of course, neither Galloway nor Toronto’s ultra-left would refer to Lenin’s warnings about ‘the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which, he wrote, strove ‘to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.'” (Chasing a Mirage, 242-43) Neither would they refer to Mahomed Sabry, a Berlin-based propagandist for the Muslim Brotherhood who, in ‘Islam, Judaism, Bolshevism,’ a book that the Third Reich’s propaganda ministry recommended to journalists, stated: “Made by Jews, led by Jews—therewith Bolshevism is the natural enemy of Islam.”
Ibn Warraq mentions “that the Muslim Brotherhood was a terrorist organization whose founder made no secret of his admiration for Hitler and Mussolini.” (Virgins, 297) Steven Emerson cites Khalid Duran: “‘People don’t remember, but the Muslim Brotherhood grew up in Egypt in the 1930s as an imitation of European fascism, which was also a revolt against modernity. In Italy and Germany you had the brownshirts and the blackshirts. In Egypt you had the greenshirts, which was the Muslim Brotherhood. It failed in Europe but survived in Egypt and spread to other parts of the Islamic world.'” (from American Jihad, 172)
Fatah: “When history is written, the twenty-first century will be remembered as the great struggle between the Muslim world on the one hand and the West on the other….epitomized by Israel and world Jewry with its ally, the United States of America.” (189) Where does Canada stand in this “great struggle”, on the left or the right side of history? With Ishmael the outcast or Israel the son of promise (Gal 4:21-31)? Geller @ 12:35: “In any war between a civilized man and a savage, side with the civilized man; support Israel, defeat jihad.” (also in Freedom or Submission) Compare with Sultan: “I moved from a still primitive society [Syria] to a civilized one [U.S.A.].” (Hates, 2014) And with former Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt: “Swedish is only barbarism. The rest of the development has to come from the outside.” Ye’or: “Arabs reject the term ‘Judeo-Christian civilization’ and replace it with ‘Abrahamic civilization’ because, as Abraham was a Muslim (according to the Qur’an), it follows that Western civilization not only includes the Islamic dimension, but is Islamic in its essence through Abraham, the Muslim prophet.
‘Abrahamism’ is a notion that totally denies the historical identity and origin of Judaism and Christianity, since it reduces them to falsifications of Islam, the true religion of Abraham. Today, any reference to Europe’s Christian sources – not to mention its Judeo-Christian roots – has been omitted from the EU Constitution on ‘secular’ grounds, but mainly so as not to offend Muslim immigrants.” (Eurabia, 173) Ye’or: “On February 1, 2002, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, imam of the al-Haraam mosque in Mecca, told his worshippers: ‘The noblest civilization ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilization. Today, Western civilization is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilization in Andalusia and other places.'” (191)
Shoebat: “The West has a choice to make peace or make war. To the Muslims, there are only two choices. Do you want peace? Then declare the Islamic creed and live in peace. [There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His messenger (the Shahadatan)]” (Terror, 15)
Hal Lindsey: “Land is looked upon by Islam differently than by other religions. Once Islamic culture is established in an area, it is considered sanctified to Allah. It becomes ‘Dar al-Islam’ – the land of peace. When an invader takes it away, Muslims are obligated to take it back for Allah, no matter what the sacrifice.” (Everlasting Hatred, 130) Carl Sagan: “In 1993, the highest and supreme religious authority from Saudi Arabia, the sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued a fatwa stating that the world was flat.” (The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark, 325) This accords with Sura 20:53: He who made the earth for you flat and has traced out ways for you in it and has sent down water from the heaven, so we bring forth as pairs of different plants by it. Al Riyadh Saud (founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia): “The power struggle between Israel and the Arabs is a long-term historical trial. Victory and defeat are for us questions of existence or annihilation, the outcome of an irreconcilable hatred.” (from Everlasting Hatred, 125)
Gavin McInnis – “Islamophobia is a rational disease”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we-UnHoGRMM
Toronto Imman Al-Hasshim Atangana – “Who Cares About Canadian Law”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3smmektRcEY
Sweden’s Stockholm Syndrome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx5pbLmS7xw
Marxists, Islamists, and Free Speech
Samuel Gompers: “The freedom of speech and the freedom of the press have not been granted to the people in order that they may say things which please, and which are based upon accepted thought, but the right to say the things which displease, the right to say the things which convey the new and yet unexpected thoughts, the right to say things, even though they do a wrong.”
Montreal human rights lawyer Julius Grey: “Any use of vehement or clumsy language online could lead to criminal charges. My advice to everybody would be don’t put anything other than very bland things on the internet.” Lasn: “Soviet dissidents used to talk about a ‘public sphere of discourse’ that was missing from their country. The oppression of that era was rightly decried. Ultimately, a lot of Westerners watched the Soviet Union fall apart with some sense of vindication. In North America today there’s a similar public void.” (Culture Jam, 33)
Hicks: “The ethical standard used in criticizing capitalism was, accordingly, Marx’s slogan in Critique of the Gotha Program: ‘From each according to his ability, to each ]150] according to his need.’ Satisfying need was thus the fundamental criterion of morality.
Yet come the 1950s it was hard to argue that capitalism fails to satisfy its people’s needs. In fact, a big part of the problem seemed to be that capitalism had satisfied its people’s needs so well that the people had become fat and complacent and not at all revolutionary. So a moral standard that made satisfying needs primary was now useless in a critique of capitalism.
From need to equality
A new ethical standard was therefore necessary. With great fanfare, then, much of the Left changed its official ethical standard from need to equality. No longer was the primary criticism of capitalism to be that it failed to satisfy people’s needs. The primary criticism was to be that its people did not get an equal share.” (Explaining Postmodernism, 150-51)
Hicks: “In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consistency can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims.
* On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.
* On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.
* Values are subjective – but sexism and racism are really evil.
* Technology is bad and destructive – and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.
* Tolerance is good and dominance is bad – but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.
There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next….Consider three more examples, this time of clashes between postmodernist theory and historical fact.
* Postmodernists say that the West is racist, but they know very well that the West ended slavery for the first time ever, and that it is only in places where Western ideas have made inroads that racist ideas are on the defensive.
* They say that the West is deeply sexist, but they know very well that Western women were the first to get the vote, contractual rights, and the opportunities that most women in the world are still without.
*They say that Western capitalist countries are cruel to their poorer members, subjugating them and getting rich off them, but the know very well that the poor in the West are far richer than the poor anywhere else, both in terms of material assets and the opportunities to improve their condition.” (184-85)
Jacques Derrida: ‘deconstruction never had meaning or interest, at least in my eyes, than as a radicalization, that is to say, also within the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism.” (Moscou aller-retour) Michel Foucault: “Discourses are tactical elements or blocks operating in the field of force relations; there can exist different and even contradictory discourses within the same strategy.” (History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, 101-02) Eric Hobsbawm has decried “the rise of ‘postmodernist’ intellectual fashions in Western universities, particularly in departments of literature and anthropology, which imply that all ‘facts’ claiming objective existence are simply intellectual constructions. In short, that there is no clear difference between fact and fiction. But there is, and for historians, even for the most militantly antipositivist ones among us, the ability to distinguish between the two is absolutely fundamental.” (On History, 63) Herbert Marcuse: “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left.” (An Essay on Liberation, 109) Paul de Man: “experience always exists simultaneously as fictional discourse and as empirical event and it is never possible to decide which one of the two possibilities is the right one. The indecision makes it possible to excuse the bleakest of crimes because, as a fiction, it escapes from the constraints of guilt and innocence.” (from Post-Truth Era, 141) Paglia describes De Man as “an ideal model for Ivy League WASPs trying to resist the ethnic, sexual, and pop culture revolution of the Sixties. Hence De Man’s delightful recent exposure as a Nazi sympathizer did not surprise me in the least.” (Junk Bonds)
Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont describe postmodernism as “an intellectual current that is supposed to have replaced modern rationalist thought. However, the term ‘postmodernism’ covers an ill-defined galaxy of ideas – ranging from art and architecture to the social sciences and philosophy – and we have no wish to discuss most of these areas. Our focus is limited to certain intellectual aspects of  postmodernism that have had an impact on the humanities and the social sciences: a fascination with obscure discourses; an epistemic relativism linked to a generalized skepticism toward modern science; an excessive interest in subjective beliefs independently of their truth or falsity; and an emphasis on discourse and language as opposed to the facts to which those discourses refer (or, worse, the rejection of the very idea that facts exist or that one may refer to them).
Let us start by recognizing that many ‘postmodern’ ideas, expressed in a moderate form, provide a needed correction to naïve modernism (belief in indefinite and continuous progress, scientism, cultural Eurocentrism, etc.).” (Fashionable Nonsense, 182-83) Sokal and Bricmont: “In practice, some individuals use postmodern language while opposing racist or sexist discourses with perfectly rational arguments. We think, simply, that there is an incoherence here between their practice and their avowed philosophy.” (note 279, 209)
Sokal and Bricmont: “postmodernism is such a complicated network of ideas – with only weak logical links between them – that it is difficult to characterize it more precisely than as a vague zeitgeist. Nevertheless, the roots of this zeitgeist are not hard to identify, and go back to the early 1960s: challenges to empiricist philosophies of science with Kuhn, critiques of humanist philosophies of history with Foucault, disillusionment with grand schemes for political change….Almost forty years later, revolutionaries have aged and marginality has become institutionalized. Ideas that contained some truth, if properly understood, have degenerated into a vulgate that mixes bizarre confusions with overblown banalities. It  seems to us that postmodernism, whatever usefulness it originally had as a corrective to hardened orthodoxies, has lived this out and is now running its natural course.” (210-11) Ralph Keyes: “Postmodernism has lost its cutting edge. This school of thought is no longer an intellectual tsunami crashing on academic shores. But the overall idea that truth is chimerical has seeped out from classrooms and faculty lounges. Ideas about truthfulness-as-social-construct have found forums to reach those who may not even have heard the term postmodern.” (The Post-Truth Era, 146)
Peterson (15:35): “You know what you call people you can’t talk to? Enemies. And if we want to divide our society into armed camps of emnity all we have to do is keep doing what we’re doing. And I would recommend that we don’t do this. I’ve studied authoritarianism for a very long time.” “If you stop talking to people, you either submit to them, or you go to war with them. Those are your options and those aren’t good options. It’s better to have a talk.” Peterson (4:06): “You got three states: you can negotiate with someone, you can be their slave, or you can be their tyrant. And I would pick negotiation, but as far as I’m concerned the law right now as it’s currently instantiated is a tyrant and it makes people into its slave and we’re going to pay for that.” Moshe Dayan famously said that you don’t negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with your enemies.
Peterson: “As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. Peterson @ 9:55: “Your interpretations of the world should shield you to the degree possible from excess suffering and death.” The Marxist interpretation caused much suffering and death. Neo-Marxists who claim to be motivated by kindness and compassion have another motivation – resentment of the powerful: white privilege, the patriarchy, Zionists… Peterson @1:39:22: “The best predictor of genocide is victimization on the part of the group that produces the genocide. It’s ‘we get them before they get us.’ Everyone’s being taught now that they’re a victim. No one seems to have any sense that that’s part of essential tragedy of being.”
Rowan Atkinson’s speech at Reform Section 5 Parliamentary reception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gciegyiLYtY
Forthcoming: Down with the patriarchy! Matriarchal music by mama’s boys with gynocentric guitars, egalitarian whole tone scales, diminished and augmented chords, and feminine endings. No hierarchical tonal structures or racist black and white keyboards; all keys monochromatic beige! Live gigs at gynocentric safe spaces like Vancouver’s exciting Thornton Park!
Seriously, it’s time to take back the culture from the Post-modernists and Neo-Marxists. Let the counter-revolution commence! Resist the matriarchy; reclaim your identity (sorry folks, but I’m a white-read racist Christian-read Islamophobic heterosexual-read homophobic/transphobic man-read misogynist.) Not really. Screw idiotic identity politics and radical egalitarianism (race and biological sex don’t exist?); let’s get back to the individual, the family… Enough of being bullied and indoctrinated into a doomed social constructionist experiment like a bunch of lab rats!
Old Soviet joke: They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work. Vaclav Havel: “Solzhenitsyn’s words of truth were regarded as something so dangerous that it was necessary to bundle their author into an airplane and transport him.” Alexandr Solzhenitsyn: “You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.”
Solzhenitsyn: “the inflation of this scathing term kulak proceeded relentlessly, and by 1930 all strong peasants in general were being so called – all peasants strong in management, strong in work, or even strong merely in convictions. The term kulak was used to smash the strength of the peasantry.” (The Gulag Archipelago, 55) This is comparable to the terms used by contemporary neo-Marxists to silence their opponents. Svetlana Alexievich: “Communism had an insane plan: to remake the ‘old breed of man,’ ancient Adam….After perestroika, we were all impatient for the archives to be unsealed. Finally, it happened. We learned the history that they had been hiding from us . . .
We need to attract ninety million out of the hundred that populate Soviet Russia. It’s impossible to talk to the rest of them – they must be eliminated. (Zinoviev, 1918)
We must hang (and it has to be hanging, so that the people will see) no fewer than 1,000 inveterate kulaks, the rich ones . . . seize their grain, take hostages . . . Make sure that people hear about it one hundred [kilometres] around and tremble form fear . . . (Lenin, 1918)
Moscow is literally dying of hunger. (N.G. Kuznetsov to Trotsky)
That’s not hunger. When Titus was taking Jerusalem, Jewish mothers ate their children. When I have your mothers eating their young, then you can tell me you’re starving. (Trotsky, 1919)” (Secondhand Time, 3)
Sagacious advice: Exercise your right to free speech and to free music while you still can. Resist the compelled–speech of the ideologically possessed and the compelled songs of the mob. Attune your speech and song to the divine Logos – the truth will set you free. Peterson on ideological possession: “It’s like the background rattle of a thousand identical demons.” Peterson @ 1:07:25: “That’s how you can tell you’re dealing with someone who’s ideologically possessed, is they make everything attributable to a single cause, like power.” Peterson @ 3:25: “They blame something like the patriarchy and then assume that all the men that compose it are somehow malevolent tyrants or tyrants in waiting. It’s ideological possession and there’s just no excuse for it. It’s motivated by resentment, mostly.” Paglia: “there is one voice speaking about date rape from coast to coast, one voice, one stupid, shrewish, puritanical, sermonizing, hysterical voice. And where are all these sophisticated feminists supposedly out there?” (Free, 72) Peterson @ 41:07 : “When I hear ideologues ramble on all I hear is the chattering of a multitude of demons….Solzhenitsyn warned people about giving their God-given soul over wholly to human dogma, and that’s what I hear.”
Murray: “decades after the Rushdie affair there was almost no one in Europe who would dare write a novel, compose a piece of music or even draw an image that might risk Muslim anger.” (Strange Death, 152) Havel: “alongside Rushdie’s words we have Khomeini’s. Words that electrify society with their freedom and truthfulness are matched by words that mesmerize, deceive, inflame, madden, beguile, words that are harmful—lethal, even.” Amir Javid, former Vancouver gang member, @ 4:54: “I looked down at my Koran and all I could see was a big, empty book. I really got that sense that it was empty; it was totally empty. I heard a voice in my mind and my being and it said, ‘What about your Bible?’ And the minute I opened up the Bible my eyes just started to weep and I looked down at the page and it was as if the words on the page had life, and it was breathing with me. Every breath I took the page just sort of came with me and the words went up and down and the words on the page just stood out and it was amazing. It said, ‘My word is the living word.’”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “the Quran….spreads a culture that is brutal, bigoted, fixated on controlling women, and harsh in war….There were times when I, like many other Muslims, found it too complicated to deal with the whole issue of war against the unbelievers. Most Muslims never delve into theology, and we rarely read the Quran; we are taught it in Arabic, which most Muslims can’t speak. As a result, most people think that Islam is about peace. It is from these people, honest and kind, that the fallacy has arisen that Islam is peaceful and tolerant.
But I could no longer avoid seeing the totalitarianism, the pure moral framework that is Islam. It regulates every detail of life and subjugates free will. True Islam, as a rigid belief system and a moral framework, leads to cruelty…. – if you don’t accept Islam you should perish.” (Infidel, 272)
Fallaci cites Senegalese diplomat Doudou Diene’s “reports on the cases of islamophobia which ‘since September 11 were afflicting the Muslims of America and Europe’. According to him, the two continents where ‘Muslim women and elderly people and children are victims of continuous physical and verbal attacks and abuses coming from the non-Muslims. So they continuously live in terror’. On these ‘attacks and abuses’ he has also written another report asking the Commission on Human Rights to hold a Moral Trial in Geneva. And guess who are this time the culprits to be judged, the heretics to be burnt on the stake: the American leaders of the Evangelical Churches who fight Islamic slavery in Sudan. I mean the sixty intellectuals who led by Samuel Huntington signed the open letter ‘What We Are Fighting For’. With them, the Baptist minister Jerry Falwell who defends the Ten Commandments and Mr. Pat Robertson who founded the Christian Broadcasting Network. In Europe, ‘the intellectuals who oppose immigration and reject the cultural pluralism, put Islam on trial, maintain that Islam is incompatible with secularism. And who, in doing so, light up the international disorder‘.” (Reason, 31) Fallaci: “Doudou has…demanded the UN to ‘devise a cultural strategy and extirpate the ideologies which defame Islam. Plus, to promote a worldwide conference with the authority of controlling how-History-is-written-or-rather-taught-in-the-West’.” (32)
Robert Spencer: “In an August 2007 report to the UN Human Rights Council, [Diene] suggested that merely quoting the Qur’an in the context of criticizing Islam was an act of bigotry: ‘….one may note that a number of Islamophobic statements have been falsely claimed to be scientific or scholarly, in order to give intellectual clout to arguments that link Islam to violence and terrorism. Furthermore, the manipulation and selective quoting of sacred texts, in particular the Koran, as a means to deceptively argue that these texts show the violent nature of Islam has become current practice.'” (Stealth Jihad, 80) In this spirit the Aga Khan conjures notions “of the respect Islam’s cherished scripture confers upon believers in monotheistic traditions, calling upon Muslims to engage with them in the finest manner, and with wisdom.” (Where Hope Takes Root, 46) Ye’or: “Ismail Raji al-Faruqi asserted: ‘Compared with the histories of other religions, the history of Islam is categorically white as far as toleration of other religions is concerned.'” (Eurabia, 195) Compare with Murray: “the leading cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi said in an interview in 2013 that if Muslims had got rid of the death penalty for leaving the religion, ‘Islam would not exist today’.” (Strange Death, 265)
In contrast, Ye’or quotes “Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz, vice chancellor of the Islamic University of Medina: ‘According to the Koran, the Sunnah, and the consensus of Muslims it is a requirement of the Muslims to be hostile to the Jews and the Christians and other mushrikun [polytheists].’ Bin Baz added that various verses in the Qur’an prove ‘with absolute clarity that there is a religious requirement to despise the infidel Jews and Christians and the other mushrikun.'” (Eurabia, 205) Ye’or: “On October 18, 2003, the semiofficial periodical Civita Cattolica published a strikingly severe article on the mistreatment of Christians in Muslim countries. Chiesa (The Church), which gave some extracts, reported: ‘The central thesis of the article is that “in all of its history, Islam has shown a warlike and conquering face”; that “for almost a thousand years, Europe lived under its constant threat”; and that what remains of the Christian population in Is-lamic countries is still subjected to “perpetual discrimination,” with episodes of bloody persecution.'” (219-20)
Spencer finds an example in a letter written by Michael Adebolajo, one of the murderers of Lee Rigby: “It was addressed to his children and provided a justification for his actions. This letter was produced at the subsequent trial. Among other things it said, ‘My beloved children. Know that to fight Allah’s enemies is an obligation’. It went on ‘Do not spend your days in endless dispute with the cowardly and foolish if it means that it will delay your meeting Allah’s enemies on the battlefield’. The letter finished with a footnote containing almost two dozen references to passages in the Quran, which Adebolajo obviously intended as scriptural backup to the contents of his letter.” (235)
Spencer also finds examples in the film Fitna: “the international Islamic campaign to outlaw blasphemy was spurred largely by two events – the publication of the Danish Muhammad cartoons and the release of the movie Fitna.” (Jihad, 82) Spencer: “‘Fitna’ is Arabic for discord or upheaval; it is also the name of a sixteen-minute film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders that appeared in March 2008 and almost immediately created … fitna. The Dutch government feared that the film’s release would spark a violent reaction by Muslims whose core objection, ironically, was that the film linked Islam with violence.” (84) Spencer: “The main part of Fitna features a series of quotations from the Qur’an, followed by scenes of violent acts committed by Muslims.” (85) Southern: “being afraid of Islam? That is not a phobia. That is common sense….as the Dutch politician Gene Wilders has repeatedly stressed,…Islam the religion is by its nature dangerous to the West.” (Barbarians, 50)
Spencer: “Fitna quotes Qur’an 47:4: ‘Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; at length, when ye have  thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them).’ Wilders follows this with images of two unbelievers whose necks were struck by the warriors of jihad: Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker who was shot, stabbed, and had his throat slit after making a movie that criticized Islam’s treatment of women, and Nick Berg, the U.S. contractor who was kidnapped and decapitated in Iraq.
The statements of the perpetrators make it clear that they believed themselves to be acting in accord with Islamic imperatives. Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of van Gogh, clutched a Qur’an as he told a Dutch court in 2005, ‘What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet.’ And late jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi invoked Muhammad’s example to justify the beheading of Berg: ‘Is it not time for you [Muslims] to take the path of jihad and carry the sword of the Prophet of prophets?…The Prophet, the most merciful, ordered [his army] to strike the necks of some prisoners in [the Battle of] Badr and to kill them….And he set a good example for us.'” (85-86)
Spencer: “Finally, the film reproduces Qur’an 8:39: ‘And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.’ This is followed by scenes of Islamic preachers and other Muslims (including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) asserting that Islam will soon conquer the West and rule the entire world.” (87) Pipes: “in Arabic, fitna is also the term for a beautiful woman, for ‘whenever a man is faced with a woman, fitna might occur.'” (In the Path of God, 177) Pipes: “Traditional Muslims saw women almost as an internal conspirator….Advice on the subject of women from the second caliph gets often cited: ‘Consult them, and do the contrary of what they advise.’ Women threaten to create an anarchy (fitna) that would undermine the entire social order, possibly ending with the destruction of Islam itself. In this spirit, it is not hard to see why fundamentalists tend to see feminism as a plot to destroy the fabric of Muslim society.” (Hand, 207) What effect has feminism had on the fabric of Christian society?
Murray: “Friends who taught high-school students in the predominantly Muslim areas of Molebeek and Schaerbeek [Brussels] told him [“Yves Goldstein, a 38-year old child of Jewish refugees who was now a councilman in Schaerbeek and chief of staff for the minister-president of the Brussels Capital Region”] that when it came to their students’ view of the terrorists who had just bombed their city, ’90 per cent of their students, 17, 18 years old, called them heroes’. Elsewhere, in an interview with De Standaard, the Belgian Security Minister, Jan Jambon, said that ‘a significant section of the Muslim community danced when the attacks took place.’ As is the norm, Jambon was criticized for this by his parliamentary colleagues and the media. He replied that he had the information from several of the Belgian security services. But what he said, as with the revelation from Mr Goldstein, is in fact a glimpse beneath the surface that is afforded the public in stories following every act of terrorism in Europe. These stories are at least as responsible as the attacks themselves for the decisive shift that is occurring in the mood of Europe. Because although the bombs, gun and knife attacks are all of utmost concern, a secondary concern (but one that in the long run is greater) is the question of the relationship between the tiny number of extremists who carry out such attacks and the rest of the populations from the same background.
A poll taken in Britain in 2006, the year after the Danish cartoons were published, showed that 78 per cent of British Muslims believed the publishers of the cartoons should be prosecuted. A slightly smaller number (68 per cent) felt that anyone who insulted Islam should be prosecuted….The combination of very high-visibility events and an awareness that what lies beneath the terrorism constitutes an even bigger problem means that in recent years the views of the European publics have increasingly diverged from those of their leaders. After nearly every terrorist attack the political leaders of Europe informed their publics that this had nothing to do with Islam, and that Islam was in any case a peaceful religion. The publics appeared to disagree.” (233-34) Murray cites Jambon: “‘I’ve said a thousand times, the worst thing we can do is to make an enemy of Islam. That is the very worst thing we could do’.” (260) Similarly, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin in Le Figaro: “nothing would be worse than to activate a feeling of confrontation between our countries and the Arab world, between the West and Islam.'” (from Eurabia, 263)
Gender, Race, and Body Parts
Terry Eagleton: “Everyone believes in hierarchies, even the most fervent of egalitarians. In fact, almost everyone believes in absolute, unchanging hierarchies.” (Why Marx Was Right, 109) Peterson @ 3:18: “One of the things that’s really appalling about our modern world is that we’re rejecting the notion of qualitative distinctions. You say, ‘We don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings by saying that one thing is better than another….if you deny the possibility of qualitative distinction because you want to promote a radical egalitarianism then you remove the possibility of redemption, because there’s no movement towards the good…it’s a catastrophe to sacrifice the good for the equal, because for us to be equal would mean that we would all be equally unredeemed and miserable.”
Camille Paglia: “Western personality and Western achievement are, for better or worse, largely Apollonian. Apollo’s great opponent Dionysus is ruler of the chthonian whose law is procreative femaleness. As we shall see, the Dionysian is liquid nature, a miasmic swamp whose prototype is the still pond of the womb.
We must ask whether the equivalence of male and female in Far Eastern symbolism was as culturally efficacious as the hierachization of male over female has been in the West. Which system has ultimately benefited women more? Western science and industry have freed women from drudgery and danger. Machines do housework. The pill neutralizes fertility. Giving birth is no longer fatal. And the Apollonian line of Western rationality has produced the modern aggressive woman who can think like a man and write obnoxious books. The tension and antagonism in Western metaphysics developed human higher cortical powers to great heights. Most of Western culture is a distortion of reality. But reality should be distorted; that is, imaginatively amended. The Buddhist acquiescence to nature is neither accurate about nature nor just to human potential. The Apollonian has taken us to the stars.” (Free, 19) Paglia: “In aesthetic terms, female genitals are…architecturally incoherent. Male genitals, on the other hand,…have a rational mathematical design, a syntax.” (25)
Egalitarianism doesn’t accommodate itself to biological differences between genders and races, particularly the differing sizes of brains and genitalia. Size matters. Belfort Bax: “Specialists are agreed that at all ages the size of the brain of woman is less than that of man. The difference in relative size is greater in proportion according to the degree of civilization. This is noteworthy, as it would seem as though the brain of man grew with the progress of civilization, whereas that of woman remains nearly stationary. The average proportion as regards size of skull between the woman and man of to-day is as 85 to 100. The weight of brain in woman varies from 38.5 oz. to 45.5 oz.; in man, from 42 oz. to 49 oz. This represents the absolute difference in weight, but, according to Dr de Varigny, the relative weight – i.e. the weight in proportion to that of the whole body – is even more striking in its indication of inferiority. The weight of the brain in woman is but one-forty-fourth of the weight of the body, while in man it is one-fortieth. This difference accentuates itself with age. It is only 7 per cent in favour of man between twenty and thirty years; it is 11 per cent. between thirty and forty years. As regards the substance of the brain itself and its convolutions, the enormous majority of physiologists are practically unanimous in declaring that the female brain is simpler and  smoother, its convolutions fewer and more superficial than those of the male brain, that the frontal lobes, generally associated with the intellectual faculties, are less developed than the occipital lobes, whith [sp] are universally connected with the lower psychological functions. The grey substance is poorer and less abundant in women than in man, while the blood vessels of the occipital region are correspondingly fuller than those supplying the frontal lobes. In man the case is exactly the reverse. It cannot be denied by any sane person familiar with the barest elements of physiology that the whole female organism is subservient to the functions of child-bearing and lactation, which explains the inferior development of those organs and faculties which are not specially connected with this supreme end of Woman.” (The Fraud of Feminism, 31-2)
Bax describes male deprivation by feminists “of the most elementary rights of self-defence against women” as “their endorsement of an iniquitous sex privilege.” (Fraud, 142) Bax: “Modern Feminism has always professed to be a movement for political and social equality between the sexes. The claim for this equalizing of position and rights in modern society is logically based upon the assumption of an essential equality in natural ability between the sexes. As to this, we have indicated in the preceding pages on broad lines, the grounds for regarding the foregoing assumption as false.” (161) In 1913 Bax observed: “We have seen that Feminists are, in this country, at least, zealous in championing the Puritan view of sexual morality. Many of them, in the vehemence of their Anti-man crusade, look forward with relish to the opportunity they anticipate will be afforded them when women get the vote, of passing laws rigorously enforcing asceticism on men by means of severe penal enactments. All forms of indulgence (by men), sexual or otherwise, uncongenial to the puritanic mind, would be equally placed under the ban of the criminal law !” (170)
Bax: “The whole modern woman’s movement is based, in a measure, at least, on an assumption which is absolutely unfounded – to wit, that man has  systematically oppressed woman in the past, that the natural tendency of evil-minded man is always to oppress woman, or, to put it from the other side, that woman is the victim of man’s egoism ! The unsoundness of this view ought to be apparent to every unbiased student of history, anthropology, and physiology. The Feminist prefers to see evidence of male oppression in the place woman has occupied in social and political life, rather than the natural consequence of her organic constitution, her secondary sexual characteristics, and the natural average inferiority which flows therefrom.” (173-74)
Christina Hoff Summers: “Third wave campus feminism is madness. Freedom of expression is being replaced with the right to feel comfortable.” “It wasn’t simply about equality, they wanted to erase the sex difference….It’s absurd.” Camille Paglia @ 43:15: “All of these problems of today are the direct consequence of the women’s emancipation and freedom from housework thanks to capitalism, which made it possible for women to have jobs outside the home for the very first time…This great thing that’s happened to us, allowing us to be totally self-supporting, independent agents, has produced all this animosity between men and women, because the women feel unhappy….Never in all of human history have men and women been working side by side….Maybe we have to accept some degree of tension and conflict between the sexes in a working environment….Identity is honed by conflict.” Paglia: “Capitalism’s contribution to the emergence of modern individualism, and therefore, feminism, has been blindly suppressed.” (Free, 81) Paglia @ 25:35: “Feminism owes capitalism an enormous debt, but refuses to acknowledge it.”
Paglia: “Impugned and silenced by feminism, men stoically go on doing the dirtiest, most dangerous and thankless work in modern society….Upper-middle-class career women in the Americas and Europe blame men for their unhappiness. But the real cause is systemic. In the shift from the agrarian to industrial and now technological era, women have lost the daylong companionship and solidarity they once enjoyed with other women when they ruled the private sphere. In a new world where men and women share the same ambitions and workplace, perhaps a mutual incompatibility or creative tension between the sexes may have to be tolerated. But what is indisputable is that women do not gain by weakening men.” (Free, xxvi) Paglia: “What troubles me about the ‘hostile workplace’ category of sexual harassment policy is that women are being returned to their old status of delicate flowers who must be protected from assault by male lechers. It is anti-feminist to ask for special treatment for women.” (76)
Peterson @ 1:32:00: “Despite the fact that the patriarchy is viewed as this essentially evil entity, and that that’s associated with the masculine energy that built this oppressive structure, the antithesis of that, which would actually be femininity, as far as I can tell, which is tightly associated with care and with child rearing, is also denigrated. So the only proper role for women to adopt is a patriarchal role, despite the fact that the patriarchy is something that is entirely corrupt. So the hypothesis seems to be that the patriarchy would be just fine if women ran it.” Peterson @ 10:00: “I object to the notion of the patriarchy because it’s the apprehension of a mythological trope, which is that of the evil tyrant, without any appreciation for the fact that the archetype actually has two parts and the other part is the wise king.” “Paglia stresses this other part: “What feminists call patriarchy is simply civilization….Feminists who prate of patriarchy are self-exiled in grass huts.” (Vamps and Tramps, 26) Paglia: “Patriarchy, routinely blamed for everything, produced the birth control pill, which did more to free contemporary women than feminism itself.” (38)
A black male Nigerian in ultra-left Victoria recently told me that people there are much more racist than Montrealers. He’s a racist, as he feels that blacks are body conscious and whites are mind conscious. A Victoria friend tells me that her feminist Wicca friends are very racist, especially towards Natives. Theodore Roosevelt: “if we fail to act on the ‘superior people’ theory,…barbarism and savagery and squalid obstruction will prevail over most of the globe.” (from Norman Finkelstein, A Nation on Trial, 84) James W. Perkinson: “White supremacy continues to infiltrate much of the private talk in this [American] country.” (Rap as Wrap and Rapture, from Noise and Spirit, 146, 148) So much for the land of the first amendment.
Philippe Rushton: “following World War II (1939-1945) and the revulsion to Hitler’s racial policies, egalitarianism led to the virtual elimination of Darwinian thinking among Western social scientists (Degler, 1991). The doctrine of biological equality was taken to an extreme among Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere (Clark, 1984). Throughout the world, leftists took up the cry ‘Not in Our Genes’ and vociferously asserted that social inequalities were due entirely to repressive environments (Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984; Lweontin, 1991). (Race, Evolution, and Behavior, 2) Rushton: “During the 1980s there was an increased acceptance of behavioral genetics and evolutionary theorizing….A renewal of interest in human racial origins also characterized the 1980s with Africa identified as the Garden of Eden….Race differences in behavior, although a necessary concomitant of these revisionist viewpoints, were not included in these studies, and constituted an embarrassment for scholars who omitted them.” (3)
Rushton: “Mongoloids and Caucasoids have the largest brains, whether indexed by weight at autopsy, external head size, or intracranial volume….The intelligence debate was broadened by Richard Lynn (1982, 1991c) who gathered global data showing that Orientals had higher test scores than whites.” (4) Rushton: “Archaic versions of the three major races appear to differ in antiquity, with Mongoloids being the most recently evolved and Negroids the earliest….Africans emerged from the ancestral Homo line about 200,000 years ago, with an African/non-African split occurring about 110,000 years ago, and a Caucasoid/Mongoloid split about 41,000 years ago.  (Stringer & Andrews, 1988). Because Bonner (1980) had shown that, in general, animals that emerged later in earth history had larger brains and greater culture than those that had emerged earlier, I extrapolated to the human succession (Rushton, 1992b).” (Race, 6-7)
Rushton: “The evolutionary psychology of race differences has become the most politically incorrect topic in the world today….Although nobody denies that some ethnic groups are disproportionately represented in wealth, education, health, and crime, alternative explanations for the differences constitute ideological warfare. Ultimately, the battle is over nothing less than how to conceptualize human nature.” (Race, 7-8) Rushton: “From the 1930s onward, scarcely anyone outside Germany and its Axis allies dared to suggest that groups of individuals might be in any genetic respect different to any other lest it should appear that the author was supporting or excusing the Nazi cause. Those who believed in the biological equality of people were free to write what they liked, without fear of contradiction. They made full use of their opportunity in the decades that followed. Politically fueled also by European decolonization and by the U.S. civil rights movement, the idea of a genetically based core of human nature on which individuals and social groups might differ was consistently derogated. Among the refugees who fled Nazi persecution and entered Britain and the United States in the 1930s and 1940s there were many who exerted a powerful influence on the Zeitgeist of the social sciences, helping to create an orthodoxy of egalitarianism and environmentalism (Degler, 1991). (14)
Rushton: “A threefold increase in the relative size of the hominid brain has occurred in the last 4 million years. It is reasonable to hypothesize that bigger brains evolved to increase intelligence….More intelligent children, assessed by standardized IQ tests, learn faster than those less intelligent, and mammals with larger brains learn faster than those with smaller brains.…George Cuvier (1769-1832) may have been the first to formally consider that brain size proportional to body size was the determinant of intelligence across species.” (Race, 36) Rushton: “the relation between brain size and intelligence is supported by the parallels with age. Both brain size and IQ increase during childhood and adolescence and then slowly and finally more quickly decrease.” (41) Rushton: “A study of cross-racial marriages in Hawaii found more similarity in personality test scores among males and females who married across ethnic groups than among those marrying within them (Ahern, Cole Johnson, & Wong, 1981) The researchers posit that, given the general tendency toward homogamy, couples marrying heterogamously with respect to ethnicity tend to ‘make up’ for this dissimilarity by choosing spouses more similar to themselves in other respects than do persons marrying within their own ethnic group.” (76)
Rushton: “Many studies have found that people are more likely to help members of their own race or country than they are to help members of other races or foreigners, and that antagonism between classes and nations may be greater when a racial element is involved….That fear and mistrust of strangers may have biological origins…is supported by evidence that animals show fear of and hostility toward strangers, even when no injury has ever been received.” (Race, 85) Rushton: “Recent developmental psychological studies have found that even very young children show clear and often quite rigid disdain for children whose ethnic and racial heritages differ from their own, even in the apparent absence of experiential and socialization effects (Aboud, 1988).” Rushton: “Because ethnic conflict has defied explanation by the standard social science disciplines, genetic similarity theory may represent an advance in understanding the causes of these conflicts, as well as of ethnocentric attitudes in general.” (87) Rushton: “Adopting a gene-based evolutionary perspective for ethnic conflict may prove illuminating, especially in the light of the conspicuous failures of environmentalist theories. With the breakup of the Soviet Bloc, many Western analysts have been surprised at the outbreak of the fierce ethnic antagonisms long thought over.” (88)
Rushton: “For millennia, racism was not a word, it was a way of life….Downgrading the importance of race not only conflicts with people’s evolved tendency to classify and build histories according to putative descent, but ignores the work of biologists studying other species (Mayr, 1970)….Most…classifications recognize at least the three major subdivisions considered in this book: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid.” (91) Rushton: “As late as the 1950s, the word ‘race’ was still widely used to designate peoples and national groups that today would be called ethnic groups….Few words in the Western world have undergone such significant changes, primarily as a result of the aftermath of World War II.” (94)
Rushton: “The Aryan or Indo-European people who invaded India 2,500 years ago built up a complex caste system to preserve their original physical type….The caste system may have been the most elaborate and effective barrier against the mixing of contiguous ethnic groups that the world has ever known. It continues to this day despite the attempts of governments to dismantle it. Nonetheless, the once fair complexions of the Brahmans have darkened considerably.” (Race, 92) Rushton: “A theory of North European racial supremacy was assisted and expanded by the discovery of a surprising linguistic relationship between the Aryans, Persians, Hittites, Greeks, and Romans of the ancient world, and the peoples of modern Europe. The Indo-European languages gave rise to the hypothesis of a common race, in which a blond, light complexioned people with rare creative gifts continuously refertilizes dying and decadent civilizations.” (93)
Rushton: “The character yi, ‘barbarian,’ has been the normal Chinese word applied to all non-Chinese peoples for over 2,000 years (Cameron, 1989:13). The Chinese had always felt superior to the rest of the world, long before women of the Roman Empire craved the alluring effects of Chinese silk to the point of alarming the Roman Senate about the drain on its treasury. The European traders, priests, and soldiers who came later gave the Chinese no reason to  doubt their judgment about themselves. The very name that the Chinese called their country, Chung Kuo, the centrally located ‘Middle Kingdom,’ from whence culture radiated outward, was ethnocentric. Today China is convinced that her communism is the only right and true communism, and that her way out of communism is the only right and true way forward.” (Race, 92-93)
Rushton: “Slavery is attested from the very earliest written records among the Sumerians, the Babylonians, and the Egyptians, as well as the Greeks and the Romans. The wall paintings of ancient Egypt, for example, typically depict the gods and pharaohs as larger than life while Negroes and other outlanders were posed as servants and slaves.” (Race, 97) Rushton: “Mas’udi (d. 956)…quoted the Greek physician Galen (A.D. c. 130-c. 200) attributing to the black man‘s long penis and great merriment. Galen says that merriment dominates the Black man because of his defective brain, whence also the weakness of his intelligence.’ This description is later repeated, with variations.” (98)
Rushton: “Rushton and Bogaert (1987) averaged the ethnographic data on erect penis size and estimated them to approximate: Orientals, 4 to 5.5 inches in length…Caucasians, 5.5 to 6 inches in length…blacks, 6.25 to 8 inches in length.” (Race, 167) Paglia: “the classical Athenians regarded the large penis as a symbol of animality, of one’s bestial instinct having primacy over the mind. Therefore, it was an exact reversal of modern days, where a large penis is prized.” (Vamps and Tramps, 5) Rushton: “Metabolically the brain is a very expensive organ. Representing only 2 percent of body mass, the brain uses about 5 percent of the body’s basal metabolic rate in cats and dogs, about 10 percent in rhesus monkeys and other primates, and about 20 percent in humans.” (206) Rushton finds “that archaic versions of the three races emerged from the ancestral hominid line in the following order: Africans less than 200,000 years ago, with an African/non-African split about 110,000 years ago, and a Caucasoid/Mongoloid about 41,000 years ago (Stringer & Andrews, 1988).” (217)
Rushton: “the genetic distance between Caucasians and Orientals is significantly smaller than either that between Caucasians and Africans or that between Orientals and Africans.” (Race, 222) Rushton: “The view that race is only a social construct is contradicted by biological evidence. Along with blood protein and DNA data …forensic scientists are able to classify skulls by race. Narrow nasal passages and a short distance between eye sockets mark a Caucasian, distinct cheek-bones identify a Mongoloid and nasal openings shaped like an upside down heart typify a Negroid (Ubelaker & Scammell, 1992)” (235)
Rushton: “In Civilization and It[’]s Discontents, Freud (1930/1962) noted a positive correlation between restrained sexuality and the production of culture. He proposed that repressing aggressive and sexual instincts led them to be sublimated into higher cultural products. Because African children are raised more permissively than are European or American children, their instincts are less subject to being repressed and thus blacks develop uninhibited personalities but lowered economic success.” (Race, 250)
Mosaic Morality Dt. 8:18: You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day. Dt. 15:6: For the Lord your God will bless you, as he promised you, and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow, and you shall rule over many nations, but they shall not rule over you. Dt. 23:20: You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess. Dt. 28:12-13: You will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. The Lord will make you the head, not the tail. If you pay attention to the commands of the Lord your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom. Malachi 1:2-3: saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau…
Christian Morality Mt. 6:24: No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. 1Tim. 6:10: For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. Mt. 5:43-5: You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Muslim morality Qur’an 2:216: Warfare is ordained for you, though you may hate it; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you. Allah knoweth, but ye know not. 4.161: That they (the Jews) took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men’s substance wrongfully; – we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment. 2:275: Those who practise usury will not rise from the grave except as someone driven mad by Shaytan’s touch. That is because they say, ‘Trade is the same as usury.’ But Allah has permitted trade and He has forbidden usury.
“w59.2 […] And this clarifies the Koranic verses and hadiths about hatred for the sake of Allah and love for the sake of Allah, Al Walaa wa al Baraa, being unyielding towards the Kafirs, hard against them, and detesting them, while accepting the destiny of Allah Most High insofar as it is the decree of Allah Mighty and Majestic….40:35 They [Kafirs] who dispute the signs [Koran verses] of Allah without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers [Muslims]. So Allah seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart.” (from Sharia Law for Non-Muslims, 19)
Muslims regard Mohammad as the perfect human; James Bishop compares him with Jesus, concluding with a quotation of Sultan: “The problem with Christians is they aren’t as good as Jesus, but thank God most Muslims are better than Muhammad”. Sultan mentions “a trap every Muslim woman falls into: No man in my life can be better than his Prophet and I cannot be less obedient to him than his Prophet’s wives were to their husband.” (Hates, 119) Sultan: “Once Americans understand that the Koran insists that Muhammad is the ideal that every Muslim male should imitate, they will realize that a Muslim candidate for the American presidency is a very serious matter….Would a Muslim candidate for the American presidency be able to put his trust in Jews and Christians if he believes they are not fit to be his friends and protectors?” (241, 243)
Walid Shoebat: “’Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.’ (Eph 5:25). Compare this with Mohammed, who said, ‘I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women.’…Muslims are not embarrassed when outsiders find out that Mohammed actually married his youngest wife Aisha when he was aged fifty-one and she was only six years old. (some accounts say she was seven). He consummated the marriage when she was nine and he was fifty-four. The fact that this occurred is thoroughly documented within Islamic tradition by virtually every reliable collection of Hadith – it would be impossible to deny. ’Aisha narrated that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).’
When Mohammed died, he was 63 and his wife Aisha was only 18. If he had lived longer, he would have married someone even younger. Once, Mohammed looked at a baby girl named Um-Habiba while she was still nursing and said: ‘If she grows up while I am still alive, I will marry her.’ This is the man that Islam calls a ‘prophet of God,’ the supreme example for all mankind and the perfect human being? A pervert and a pedophile! Did Mohammed consider whether or not this little baby would have any desire to marry an old man? Of course not, the girl’s feelings were irrelevant to the ‘prophet.’” (God’s War on Terror, 90) Fallaci describes Dante: “A Catholic who in the twenty-eighth Canto of the Inferno places the Prophet among the worst sinners. A Christian who fills Paradise with holy or virtuous women.” (Reason, 111) Edward Said: “Mohammed’s punishment…is endlessly being cleft in two from his chin to his anus like, Dante says, a cask whose staves are ripped apart. Dante’s verse at this point spares the reader none of the eschatological detail that so vivid a punishment entails: Mohammed’s entrails and his excrement are described with unflinching accuracy.” (Orientalism, 68)
Global Socialist Experiment
G. Edward Griffin: “the top leaders and theoreticians at the IMF and World Bank dream of world socialism.” (The Creature from Jekyll Island, 101) Griffin: “The Fabians are an elite group of intellectuals who agree with Communists as to the goal of socialism….Fabians advocate gradualism and the transformation of society through legislation.” (105) Griffin: “The underdeveloped nations….are being conquered by money instead of arms.” (108-09) Griffin: “The essence of socialism is redistribution of the wealth. The goal is equality, and that means taking from the rich and giving to the poor.” (109) Griffin: “the so-called demise of Communism is a Great Deception….having been stage managed for…the transition to world government.” (125)
Griffin: “The industrialized nations of the world are being bled to death in a global transfer of their wealth to the less developed countries. Furthermore, it is not being done to them by their enemies. It is  being done by their own leaders. The process is well coordinated across national lines and perfectly dovetails with the actions of other leaders who are doing the same thing in their respective countries, and these leaders regularly meet together to better coordinate their activities.” (Creature, 130-31) Griffin describes “the conscious and deliberate evolution of the IMF/World Bank into a world central bank with the power to issue a world fiat currency. And that is an important step in an even larger plan to build a true world government within the framework of the United Nations.
Economically strong nations are not candidates for surrendering their sovereignty to a world government. Therefore, through ‘loans’ that will never be paid back, the IMF/World Bank directs the massive transfer of wealth from the industrialized nations to the less developed nations. This ongoing process eventually drains their economies to the point where they also will be in need of assistance. No longer capable of independent action, they will accept the loss of sovereignty in return for international aid.” (132)
Griffin describes a “plan to create a functional world government within the framework of the United Nations….the proposed global government is designed upon the principles of collectivism. It is the dream-come-true for the world’s socialist theoreticians, politicians, and technicians who see it as the ultimate laboratory for their social experiments upon mankind.” (Creature, 514) Griffin: “Its philosophy is built upon the socialist doctrine that all good flows from the state. Those who do not conform must be bent to the government’s will or be eliminated.” (515) Griffin: “The American economy is being deliberately exhausted through foreign giveaways, endless wars, and domestic boondoggles. The object is, not to help those in need or to defend freedom or preserve the environment, but to bring the system down.” (516) Griffin: “Collectivism is the concept that the group is more important than the individual and that government is justified in any act so long as it is claimed to be for the greater good of the greater number.” (585)