Charlottesville: latest battle in the culture wars

A tale of two rallies.jpg
The top picture is from a torchlight procession held on Friday night, the night before a “Unite the Right” rally scheduled – and legally permitted – for Charlottesville, Virginia, yesterday: Saturday, August 12, 2017. The second is of “protests” in Baltimore, Maryland, in 2015, following accusations that police officers had mistreated an African-American suspect, resulting in his death while in custody; the officers so accused were either acquitted by the mostly-black juries, or the charges were dropped. The contrast, I think, speaks volumes.

The legally-permitted “Unite the Right” rally scheduled for yesterday – Saturday, August 12th, 2017 – to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee by the City Council (part of the ongoing purge of Southern and Confederate iconography, and in fact much other historic iconography as well), and in the process to serve as a rallying cry for conservatives and others on the rightward side of the social and political spectrum to come together against the mass of cultural Marxists and social-justice warriors arrayed against anything and everything conservative, traditional, or classic in our present-day culture, didn’t take long to go awry.

What was intended to be a peaceful rally turned violent when radical Left-wing groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter showed up and began showering the rally attendees with expletives, punches, pepper spray, and water balloons filled with urine, feces, paint, and other noxious substances. Unsurprisingly, some of those so attacked fought back. But did the local and national news media broadcast stories about a peaceful, permitted rally being attacked by extremists? Nope. Instead, all the news media could do was accuse those present at the rally of being right-wing racists, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists.

To which my response is: Continue reading “Charlottesville: latest battle in the culture wars”

Google Engineer Writes Common-Sense Memo About Diversity. Google Fires Him

The majority of the histrionic reactions to the now-famous Google memo completely misrepresented not only what the memo says but its purpose.

Source: Google Engineer Writes Common-Sense Memo About Diversity. Google Fires Him

“In reality, the problem is that a senior software engineer, perhaps unwittingly, admitted to pondering three of the most scandalous thought-crimes of contemporary American society.

“The first was to propose that a meritocracy might be heathier for a company than bean-counting race, ethnicity, and sex. The second is pointing [out] that ideological diversity matters. The third, and most grievous of all the wrongthinks, is suggesting that men and women are, in general, physiologically and psychologically different from each other, and thus they tend to excel at different things…

“One of the problems with this kerfuffle was that the vast majority of the histrionic reactions on social media and elsewhere have misrepresented not only what the memo says but also its purpose. The memo was neither a screed nor anti-diversity. It was the kind of unvarnished, dispassionate, and meticulous case that I imagine many engineers offer. It’s difficult to believe anyone who read through it with an open mind could interpret the author’s notions as an attempt to consolidate the patriarchy or to make life less diverse in his field.

The other, bigger problem is that the reaction to it demonstrates that the author is completely right about the lack of ideological diversity and its consequences.

“Diversity,” in what passes for discourse today, is allowable only within certain strictly-defined parameters. “We must be diverse. Furthermore, we must be diverse in, and only in, certain specific ways.” The irony of this seems to be entirely lost on those on the socio-political Left…

Man Snaps Photo Of NYC In 1956

A picture has surfaced of the New York City skyline back in 1956, which shows three buildings decorated with window crosses for Easter. Featured in a newspaper article, [the photograph] shows the buildings lit up with huge crosses.

Source: Man Snaps Photo Of NYC In 1956

The article accompanying the picture (warning: extremely add-heavy and slow-loading page) comments,

“Things were a lot different 60 years ago. For one, public displays of Christianity were something that, regardless of your political affiliation, could be appreciated and admired by all. This is not the case anymore…

“Whoever took this photo probably would never have guessed that over 60 years later, this country would have morphed into a society that would erase any display of Christian faith from the public square under the guise of tolerance, multiculturalism, and secularism.

“Even our holidays, which have been a tradition in this country for generations, are under threat. No longer is it appropriate to say ‘Merry Christmas.’ We are supposed to say ‘Happy Holidays’ to be respectful of other spiritual faiths. Of course, this is less about being multicultural and more about being anti-Christian and anti-tradition.

“This picture shows a world that makes progressive-secularists furious. It was a world where free speech actually included freedom for Christians to express their faith, without fear of censorship, mockery, or even lawsuits being leveled against them.”

As Archie Bunker would have said, “those were the days!”

 

Nation-states, happiness, identity, and rootlessness

“The nation state has taken the place of God. Responsibilities for education, healing and public welfare which had formerly rested with the Church devolved more and more upon the nation state … National governments are widely assumed to be responsible for and capable of providing those things which former generations thought only God could provide – freedom from fear, hunger, disease and want – in a word: “happiness”.”

― Lesslie Newbigin, The Other Side of 1984

There is, I think, a great deal of truth to this!

The problem is magnified still further now, though, by the fact that nation-states are under attack by stateless globalism which seeks to supersede them, and that claims to be driven by “progressive values” – but in fact is driven largely by economics (the progressives who have allied themselves with globalism are among the “useful idiots” of whom Stalin spoke, back in Soviet days).

Nation-states at least are / were somewhat organic, in most cases relatively local, with their own identity and cohesion. They share(d) ties of language, culture, ethnicity, and often, religion. Globalism promotes – ostensibly in the name of “equality,” but actually because it makes people easier to manipulate – a stateless, rootless, amorphous mass of humanity, entirely lacking in cohesion, identity, and therefore the ability to successfully resist the strings of the puppeteers.

Now, the globalists may one day learn that a tool sometimes turns in the hand of its wielder; that amorphous mob may one day turn on them! But the result seems unlikely to be a return to “normalcy” as it used to be understood – depending, of course, on how far things have degenerated by then – but rather a further descent into a newer and truer Dark Age. I fear for the future of humanity…

British academic and journalist Douglas Murray schools pro-immigration activists on immigration – YouTube

I have to confess, I had not even heard of Douglas Murray, that I can recall, until literally a few days ago. But in my opinion, he’s brilliant. Very, very well said, Sir!

Heck, you want to talk colonialism? It’s not just the Ottoman Empire – although he is completely right to point to them as a prime example. It’s the whole sweep of Islam across the Middle East, North Africa, and southern Europe, including the Iberian Peninsula in the 7th and early 8th centuries, and far beyond later on, all the way to India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines… If that’s not colonialism, I don’t know what is!

I like what one Indian commentator had to say on the subject (ellipses are in the original):

Bravo. As an Indian, I’ve noticed everyone loves to blame the British, while conveniently forgetting Muslims (Turkish mainly) that have destroyed and robbed India. The British used India as a business to generate their wealth and in turn ended up building functional infrastructures still in use.

What the Muslims did was erect f_cking monuments of oppression… and mosques over desecrated Temples and completely eradicate our history in many places. British only tried to enslave us while empowering some locals.. but Muslims not only enslaved us but killed us and very strongly tried to change our identities. British came here and learnt from India.. but Muslims came and robbed our knowledge to claim it as their own and burnt the rest.

People need to stop thinking every f_cking thing against Muslims is Islamophobia…. In the new age, you are able to stand freely against colonialism / anything else really when it comes to the “West” … but if it were still Islamic, you’d be silenced swiftly like an animal (as the Muslims boast in their taunts towards free speech activists).

Indeed. The double-standard is strong in the Left! Especially ironic, since they’d be among the first against the wall, tossed from tall buildings, or beheaded, if Islam ever actually did come to power in the West…

And yes, the “alt-right” is correct: as promoted and practiced by many (most) Left-wing activists today, “diversity” and “multi-culturalism” are indeed code words for being anti-white, anti-European – for rejecting and seeking to overthrow the West, both culturally and demographically. That may not be a popular view in many quarters, but it is a fact, and readily apparent if you’re paying attention.

The Challenge of Dawa: Political Islam as Ideology and Movement and How to Counter It | Hoover Institution

the_challenge_of_dawaepdf

The purpose of this report is to suggest the basis for a new anti-dawa strategy, designed to check the advance of political Islam as an ideology and a movement.

In the first part, I describe the constitution of political Islam: the foundational principles, terminology, and objectives of Islamist ideology. In the second part, I analyze the infrastructure of political Islam, in particular the institutions and techniques of dawa. In the third part, I propose a number of policies that I believe will, if properly implemented, halt the spread of political Islam in the United States and perhaps also abroad. [The quotes here cited are from the executive summary of the longer report.]

Source: The Challenge of Dawa: Political Islam as Ideology and Movement and How to Counter It | Hoover Institution

It should be (but is not always) self-evident that Islam exists in an adversarial relationship to Christianity and to the West – both Western Christendom, as it historically has existed, and also the more secular West of Enlightenment philosophy and socio-political thought. Make no mistake, the end-game of Islam is world dominance: the conversion of the entire world to the Dar al-Islam – “the Realm of Submission to Allah.”

Although militant extremists seek to advance this ideology through violence, the perhaps greater danger is posed by those who are not overtly violent, but who seek to advance their ideology through dawa. Linked is an excellent discussion of this concept and its implication:

Dawa as practiced by radical Islamists employs a wide range of mechanisms to advance their goal of imposing Islamic law (sharia) on society. This includes proselytizing but extends beyond that. In Western countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to instill Islamist views in existing Muslims. The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with the rule of sharia law.

Dawa is to the Islamists of today what the ‘long march through the institutions’ was to twentieth-century Marxists. It is subversion from within—the abuse of religious freedom in order to undermine that very freedom… dawa is rooted in the Islamic practice of attempting to convert non-Muslims to accept the message of Islam. As it is an ostensibly religious missionary activity, proponents of dawa enjoy a much greater protection by the law in free societies than Marxists or fascists did in the past.

“Worse, Islamist groups have enjoyed not just protection but at times official sponsorship from government agencies duped into regarding them as representatives of ‘moderate Muslims’ simply because they do not engage in violence.”

This is, it should be apparent, a dangerous misconception! Read on for more details.

Note: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an internationally-recognized, Somali-born scholar of, and convert / refugee from, Islam – unfortunately, she converted to atheism, not Christianity, but her critique of Islam is no less on-point for that – and an international activist for women’s rights. For more information on her and her work, visit the AHA Foundation.

Muslim Cadet Refuses To Remove Hijab – Military College Responds

Muslims have no respect for American culture or history, and they have no intention to assimilate… A Muslim student, who is about to attend a historic military academy in South Carolina, is attempting to force the school to allow her to wear a hijab. The school refused her request and told her she is not above the rules. 

Source: Muslim Cadet Refuses To Remove Hijab, Military College Wipes Smug Grin Off Her Face

The school is The Citadel, and I salute them! As this article points out,

The military college, the Citadel, has a long history and has operated as a school for 175 years. It has not allowed an exception to the dress code once in its entire history.

The academy’s president announced the decision earlier this week explaining that, “The standardization of cadets in apparel, overall appearance, actions, and privileges is essential to the learning goals and objectives of the college.”

“This process reflects an initial relinquishing of self, during which cadets learn the value of teamwork to function as a single unit,” the president said, justifying the almost two-century long guideline.

[I would here note that “guideline” is imprecise, indeed incorrect: it is not a guideline, it is a requirement for all Cadets. Period.]

The Citadel allows for religious accommodation so long as it does not undermine the objectives of the school such as morale, health and safety, or good order. Breaking unit cohesion for a head scarf is not acceptable.

The Muslim student is not accepting the school’s decision in good spirit. Instead, she is suing the school with the support of the terror-funded Council of American-Islamic Relations. She says the lawsuit will go through unless the school allows her to attend in a hijab.

The Muslim-led attack on our historic institutions is being launched in an attempt to undermine our history. Muslims have convinced short-sided liberals to abandon their principles in the name of protecting the supposedly oppressed.

The Muslims are not fighting for equality, as the school policy treats people of all faiths equally. Instead, they demand special privileges for only themselves.

We see this time and again! Look at Moslem insistence on halal-only meats in school cafeterias, attempts to prevent people from walking dogs in neighborhoods where Moslems live and to get women to cover up on the beach, even a Change.org petition, a few years ago, attempting to ban Oktoberfest in Munich, of all things!

This is a part of the process known as creeping Sharia, where Muslims are able to trick a country into adopting Sharia law one principle at a time.

Indeed it is. The pattern, seen over and over again at many times and places, is for Moslems to appear accommodating and peaceful until they perceive themselves to be in a sufficient position of strength to make their real demands known (see taqiyya and dawa). This needs to be recognized, and it needs to be stopped.

Again, I salute The Citadel for taking this action! God grant they stick to their guns. And if it comes to a law suit, I hope and pray that it is settled in favor of the school. This is yet another front in the war against the West!